Search

On Compliance of Section 9 of the Law “On Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Threat to the State and Its Consequences Due to the Spread of COVID-19” with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2020-26-0106

On Compliance of Section 34 (1) of the Law “On Taxes and Duties", insofar it Envisages Calculation and Collection from the Taxpayer a Fine in the Amount of 100 Per Cent of the Underpaid Tax Due to the Budget, with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court ruled:

1. To recognise Section 34(1) of the law “On Taxes and Duties”, insofar as it, without an individual assessment, imposes a fine in the amount of 100 percent of the tax payable to the budget for engaging in economic activity after registering as a performer of economic activity but without registering as a payer of a particular tax, as being incompatible with the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.

2. In respect of Jānis Pīlāts and those taxpayers who have initiated and continue the process of protecting their fundamental rights using general legal remedies, to recognise Section 34(1) of the law “On Taxes and Duties”, insofar as it, without an individual assessment, imposes a fine in the amount of 100 percent of the tax payable to the budget for engaging in economic activity after registering as a performer of economic activity but without registering as a payer of a particular tax, as being incompatible with the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and void as from the moment when the infringement of their fundamental rights occurred.

3. To recognise Section 34(1) of the law “On Taxes and Duties”, insofar as it, without an individual assessment, imposes a fine in the amount of 100 percent of the tax payable to the budget for a failure to submit, within 30 days after the deadline set by the tax authority, tax declarations specified in tax laws, as well as the business and accounting records requested by the tax authority, without which the tax administration officers (employees) are unable to determine the amount of tax liability, as being compatible with the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Para 2 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Compensation for Damages Caused in Criminal Proceedings and Record-Keeping of Administrative Violations” with Article 1 and the Third Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court has ruled:

1. To recognise para 2 of the Transitional Provisions of the law “On compensation for damages caused in criminal proceedings and record-keeping of administrative violations”, insofar as it determines the right to claim compensation for non-pecuniary damages, as being incompatible with Article 1 and the third sentence of Article 92 of the Republic of Latvia and void from the moment it entered into force in respect of the individuals for whom the legal grounds for compensation for non-pecuniary damages arose not earlier than six months before the said law came into effect, who have turned to a decision-making authority and have been denied compensation for non-pecuniary damages because the limitation period has elapsed.
2. In respect of the individuals for whom the legal grounds for compensation for non-pecuniary damages arose not earlier than six months before the law “On compensation for damages caused in criminal proceedings and record-keeping of administrative violations” entered into force, who turned to a decision-making authority and were denied compensation for non-pecuniary damages because the limitation period had elapsed, para 2 of the Transitional Provisions of the law “On compensation for damages caused in criminal proceedings and record-keeping of administrative violations”, insofar as it determines the right to claim compensation for non-pecuniary damages, is to be applied providing that those individuals had the right to claim compensation for non-pecuniary damages within six months after the said law came into force.

On Compliance of Para 8 of Section 15 of the Security Guards Activity Law with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court ruled:

to recognise Para 8 of Section 15 of the Security Guards Activity Law, insofar as it established an absolute prohibition on issuing the security guard certificate to an individual diagnosed with addiction to alcohol, as incompatible with the first sentence of Article 106 of the Constitution.

On Compliance of Para 2 and Para 3 of the Cabinet Regulation of 3 December 2019 No. 579 “Regulation on the Minimal Amount of the Old-age Pension” with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2020-07-03

On Compliance of Section 8 and Section 9 of the Law “On Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Threat to the State and Its Consequences Due to the Spread of COVID-19” with Article 1, the First Sentence of Article 91 and the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2020-26-0106

On Compliance of Section 8 and Section 9 of the Law “On Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Threat to the State and Its Consequences Due to the Spread of COVID-19” with Article 1, First sentence of Article 91 and First and Third sentences of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Section 9 of the Law “On Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Threat to the State and Its Consequences Due to the Spread of COVID-19” with Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

The Constitutional Court held:

1. To terminate legal proceedings in the case so far as it concerns compliance of Section 9 of the law “On measures for the prevention and suppression of threat to the state and its consequences due to the spread of Covid-19” with Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
2. To recognise Section 8 and Section 9 of the law “On measures for the prevention and suppression of threat to the state and its consequences due to the spread of Covid-19”, insofar as they impose restrictions on in-person gambling, as being compatible with Article 1, the first sentence of Article 91 and the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution.
3. To recognise Section 9 of the law “On measures for the prevention and suppression of threat to the state and its consequences due to the spread of Covid-19”, insofar as it sets out the obligation of the Inspection to suspend the licences to organise gambling in interactive environment and (or) using the intermediation of electronic communications services, as being incompatible with Article 1 of the Constitution in conjunction with the first sentence and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution and void in respect of the organisers of interactive gambling as of the moment when the infringement of their fundamental rights occurred.

On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 od the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)

Combined case: 2019-37-0103

On Compliance of Sub-para “c” of Para 14 of Section 1 of Value Added Tax Law, insofar it Applies to the Leasing of Land in Cases of Enforced Lease, with the First Sentence of Article 91 and the First, Second and Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court resolved:

to terminate legal proceedings on compliance of Section 1, Clause 14, Sub-clause “c” of the Value Added Tax Law, insofar as it applies to the leasing of land in cases of compulsory lease, with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first, second and third sentences of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

On compliance of Section 236 (1) of the Criminal Law (in the Wording that was in Force until 31 March 2013) with Article 90 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of the Transitional Provision of the Law of 29 October 2015 “Amendments to the Criminal Law” with Article 1 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

1. To recognise Section 236 (1) of the Criminal Law (in the wording that was in force until 31 March 2013) as being compatible with Article 90 and the second sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise the Transitional Provision of the law of 29 October 2015 “Amendments to the Criminal Law”, insofar it does not provide for retroactive effect of Section 236 (1) of the Criminal Law with respect to offences, which subsequently have been recognised as being criminally unpunishable, as being incompatible with Article 90 and the second sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and with respect to persons, to which this provision, insofar it does not provide for retroactive effect of amendments to Section 236 (1) of the Criminal Law, has been applied or should be applied in court, as invalid from the moment when the violation of fundamental rights occurred.

On Compliance of the First Part and Part 41 of Section 464 of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:
to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2020‑22‑01 “On Compliance of Section 464 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 45 (5) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:
1) To declare the first sentence of Section 45, paragraph 5 of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar as it prohibits without an individual assessment a convicted person from meeting with a family member who is serving a sentence in another prison and has received permission to temporarily leave the territory of the prison, to be incompatible with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2) With regard to the submitter of the constitutional complaint Artjoms Zablockis, to recognise the first sentence of Section 45, paragraph 5 of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar as it prohibits without an individual assessment a convicted person from meeting with a family member who is serving a sentence in another prison and has received permission to temporarily leave the territory of the prison, to be incompatible with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from the moment of occurrence of the violation of his fundamental rights.

On Compliance of Para 98, Sub-para 99.2. and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 42.3 (1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)

Combined case: 2019-37-0103

On Compliance of Para 2 of the First Part and the Second Part of Section 16 of the Law “On State Pensions” as well as Sub-para 2.2 and 2.3. of the Cabinet Regulation of 22 December 2009 No. 1605 “Regulations Regarding the Amount of the State Social Security Benefit and Funeral Benefit, Procedures for the Review thereof and Procedures for the Granting and Disbursement of the Benefits” with Article 1, the Second Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court decided:
to terminate legal proceedings in case No 2020-19-0103 “On compliance of Section 16(1)(2) and Section 16(2) of the law ‘On State Pensions’ and Sub-para 2.2 and 2.3 of the Cabinet Regulation of 22 December 2009 No 1605 ‘Regulations regarding the amount of the state social security benefit and funeral benefit, procedures for the review thereof and procedures for the granting and disbursement of the benefits’ with Article 1, second sentence of Article 91, and Article 109 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia”.

On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 37 (4) of “Law on Governance of Capital Shares of a Public Person and Capital Companies” with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Compliance of Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016).

Combined case: 2019-37-0103

On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 1 of the law “On Dismissal of the Riga City Council” with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:
To recognise Para 2 of Section 1 of the law “On Dismissal of the Riga City Council” as being compatible with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Compliance of Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 42.3(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016).

Combined case: 2019-37-0103

On Compliance of Section 37 (2) of the Civil Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

1. To recognise Section 37 (2) of the Civil Procedure Law as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

2. With respect to Jurijs Kapišņikovs, Ināra Kapišņikova and Eduards Kapišņikovs, to recognise Section 37 (2) of the Civil Procedure Law as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as of the date when the infringement of their fundamental rights occurred.

On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 104 (4) of the law “On Maternity and Sickness Insurance” and Section 7 (11) of “Law on State Social Allowances” with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 2 of Section 104 (4) of the law “On Maternity and Sickness Insurance” and Section 7 (11) of “Law on State Social Allowances” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.