Search

On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 12(1) of Law On Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court decided:
1. To declare that Article 12 (Part 1, Item 3) of the Law ”On Land Reform in the Republic of Latvia Cities” in the part on objects of education, culture and science is in compliance with Articles 1 and 105 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme, if the government in accordance with Article 7 of the Law ”On Objects of Education, Culture, Science and Sport Centers” has determined the land area occupied by the objects and necessary for maintaining up to May 1, 2003.
2. To declare that the other part of Article 12 (Part 1, Item 3) of the Law ”On Land Reform in the Republic of Latvia Cities” complies with Articles 1 and 105 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
3. To declare that - as concerns the applicants Dzintars Abuls and Velta Lazda- the limitations for restitution of property rights envisaged in Article 12, part 1, Item 3 of the Law ”On Land Reform in the Republic of Latvia Cities”, as read together with Article 4, Item 26 of the Law ”On Objects of Education, Culture, Science and Sport Centers of State Significance” are unconformable with Articles 1 and 105 of the Satversme and null and void as of January 4, 1996.

On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 38(1) of The Saeima Election Law with Article 6 and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2002-08-01

On Compliance of the Decree by the Cabinet of Minis ters of 7 July 1999 No. 32n1 "On Changing the Equity Capital of the State Joint Stock Company "Valsts nekustamā īpašuma aģentūra" in thePart Regardint the Inclusio of the Building at 24 Kaļķu Street, Riga in the Equity Capital of the SJSC "Valsts nekustamā īpašuma aģentūra" with the First, the Third and the Fourth Part of Section 74 and Para 3 and Para 13 of the Transitional Provisions of Law "On the Privatization of State and Local Government Apartment Houses"

Constitutional Court decided to declare the Cabinet of Ministers July 7, 1999 Regulations No.321 ”On the Alteration of the Basic Capital of the Agency of the State Real Estate” in the Part on Incorporation of the Building at No. 24 Kaļķu Street, Riga in the Basic Capital of the State Stock Company ”the Agency of the Real Estate” as not being in compliance with Article 74 (the first, third and fourth parts) and Item 3 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law ”On the Privatization of State and Local Government Apartment Houses”” and null and void as of the day of its publishing.

On Compliance of Section 19.2(4) of Constitutional Court Law with Articles 91 and 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court decided to declare the fourth part of Article 192 of the Constitutional Court Law as conformable with Articles 91 and 92 of the Satversme.

On Compliance of the Second Sentence in Section 38(1) of The Saeima Election Law with Articles 6, 8, 91 and 116 of the Satversme

Constitutional Court decided to declare the second sentence of the first part of the Saeima Election Article 38 as being in compliance with Articles 6, 8, 91 and 116 of the Satversme.

On Compliance of the Second and the Third Part of Section(6) of Law On Religious Organisations with Article 91 and Article 99 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Section 49(2) of Law On Judicial Power with Articles 1 and 83 of the Satversme

Constitutional Court decided to declare the second part of Article 49 of the Law on Judicial Power (in the wording, which was valid up to December 3, 2002) as unconformable with Articles 1 and 83 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and with regard to the submitter of the constitutional claim Antons Zīle as invalid from October 12, 2000.

On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 4 and Section 10(5) of Law On Excise Tax, as well as the compliance of Para 24 (in the Part on Customs Payments to be Applied to a Vehicle) of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of October 10, 2000 No.349 "The Process of Implementation of the Customs Procedure – Temporary Admission" with Articles 89, 91 and 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia; with the Second Part of Article 2 of the Istanbul Convention of June 26, 1990 "On Temporary Admission", as well as Articles 7 and 9 (the Second Part) of Annex C to the Convention and with Standards 30 and 34 of Annex F3 to the May 18, 1973 Kyoto International Convention on Simplification and Harmonizing of Customs Procedures

Constitutional Court decided:
1. To terminate proceedings of the case in the part on the compliance of Item 3 of Article 4 and the fifth part of Article 10 of the Law ”On Excise Tax” as well as on the conformity of the Cabinet of Ministers October 10, 2000 Regulations No 349 ”The Process of Implementation of the Customs Procedure – Temporary Admission” with Articles 89, 91 and 105 of the Satversme.
2. To declare Item 3 of Article 4 and the fifth part of Article 10 of the Law ”On Excise Tax” as well as Item 24 (in the part on Customs payments to be applied to means of transport) of the Cabinet of Ministers October 10, 2000 Regulations No. 349 ”The Process of Implementation of the Customs Procedure – Temporary Admission” as being in compliance with the second part of Article 2 of the Istanbul Convention of June 26, 1990 ”On Temporary Admission” , with Articles 7 and the second part of Article 9 of Annex C to the Convention and as being in compliance with Standards 30 and 34 of Annex F3 to the May 18, 1973 Kyoto International Convention on Simplification and Harmonizing of Customs Procedures.

On Compliance of Para 59.1.6, 66 and 68 of the "Regulations on the Internal Order of the Investigatory Prisons" with Articles 89, 95 and 111 of the Satversme of Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court decided:
1. To declare Items 64 and 66 of the ”Rules on the Internal Order of Investigatory Prisons ”, confirmed by the Department of the Places of Confinement May 9, 2001 Order No. 63 as unconformable with Article 64, 89 and 111 of the Satversme and null and void as of the day of publishing the Judgment.
2. To declare Item 68 of and Annex 6 to the ”Rules on the Internal Order of Investigatory Prisons”, confirmed by the Department of the Places of Confinement May 9, 2001 Order No. 63 as unconformable with Articles 64 and 89 of the Satversme and null and void as of the day of publishing the Judgment.
3. To declare the other part of the ”Rules on the Internal Order ofInvestigatory Prisons””, confirmed by the Department of the Places of Confinement May 9, 2001 Order No. 63 as unconformable with Article 64 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void from May 1, 2003.

On Compliance of the First Part of Para 49 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 18 July 1995 No. 12 "Regulations on using Privatisation Vouchers" with Section 18(16) of Law on Privatisation Vouchers and Article 105 of the Satversme

Combined case: 2001-17-0106

On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 31 July 2001 No. 349 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 3 October 1995 No. 291 "Regulation on Keeping Dogs and Cats" with Article 105 of the Satversme and Para 3 of Section 14 of Law "Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers"

Constitutional Court decided to declare the Cabinet of Ministers July 31, 2001 Regulations No. 349 ”Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers October 3, 1995 Regulations No. 291 ” Regulations of Keeping Dogs and Cats”” as unconformable with Article 105 of the Satversme and Article 14, Paragraph 3 of the Cabinet of Ministers Structure Law as null and void as of the day of publishing the Judgment.

On Compliance of the Latvian Administrative Violation Code Section 279 (2) and Para 4 of Section 280 (1) in the Part Determining that a Court Judgment on the Decision of an Official about Imposing Administrative Punishment is Final and the Latvian Civil Procedure Code Section 239 (4) with Articles 89, 91 and 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, as well as Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950

Constitutional Court decided:
1. To declare the norms of the fourth part of the Latvian Civil Procedure Code Article 239 as well as the norms of the second part of Article 279 and those of Article 280 of the Administrative Violation Code, determining that the court judgment on the decision taken in an administrative violation case is final as unconformable with Articles 89 and 92 of the Satversme and null and void as of the day of publication of the Judgment.
2. As regards the submitter of the constitutional claim V. Vaitonis - to declare the second part of Latvian Administrative Violation Code Article 279 as invalid as from July 27, 2001 .
3. As regards the submitter of the constitutional claim T. Šnevele - to declare the norm of Article 280 (Paragraph 4 of the first part), determining that the court judgment in the case on the decision by an official about imposing of an administrative penalty is final as well as the fourth part of Article 239 of the Latvian Civil Procedure Code as null and void as from September 18, 2001.

On Compliance of the Requirement, Incorporated into the Public Procurator’s Office Law (Section 33(1))the Republic of Latvia Advocacy Law (Para 3 of Section 14) and Notariate law (Para 3 of Section 9), Envisaging the Necessity of Opinion by the Faculty of Law of the University of Latvia with Articles 91 and 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court decided to declare the norm incorporated into the first part of Article 33 of the Public Procurator’s Office Law, Article 14 (Paragraph 3) of the Law on Advokatūra (on Legal Profession) and Article 9 (Paragraph 3) of the Notary Law ”…in the University of Latvia or any other higher education institution compatible with the University of Latvia in accordance with the opinion by the Faculty of Law of the University of Latvia” as unconformable with Articles 91 and 106 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as of the day of publishing of the Judgment.

On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 February 2002 No.73 "Internal Rules of Procedure of an Institution for Deprivation of Liberty" in the Part Prohibiting Parcels and Packages of Food Products with Section 47(1) of Latvian Sentence Execution Code and Article 111 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court decided to declare the Cabinet of Ministers February 19, 2002 Regulations No. 73 ” On the Internal Order at the Institutions of Deprivation of Liberty” in the part on prohibition of food parcels as unconformable with the first part of Article 47 of the Latvia Punishment Execution Code and null and void as of the day of its publishing.

On Compliance of Para 26 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2001-12-01

On Compliance of Para 26 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2001-12-01

On Compliance of Para 26 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court decided to declare Paragraph 26 of the Pension Law Transitional Provisions as unconformable with Article 1 of the Satversme and null and void from the day of publishing the Judgment.

On Compliance of the Requirement Included into Section 6(1) of Law On Employment on the Necessity of Having the Permanent Residence Permit to Obtain the Status of the Unemployed with Articles 91 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court decided to declare the requirement, incorporated into the first part of Article 6 of the Law ”On Employment”, requiring that, to obtain the status of an unemployed, the spouses of Latvian citizens, non-citizens, foreign citizens or stateless persons, who have received a permanent residence permit shall have a permanent residence permit and not a temporary residence permit, as unconformable with Articles 91 and 109 and null and void from the date of publishing of the Judgment.

On the Compliance of Section 390.- 392.2 of Latvia Criminal Procedure Code as well as Para 3 of Transitional Provisions of the Amendments to Latvia Criminal Procedure Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia