Search

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 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “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 Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)

Combined case: 2019-10-0103

On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2019-10-0103

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 Satversmes of the Republic of Latvia and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “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 Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)

Combined case: 2019-10-0103

On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court decided:

to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2020‑08‑01 “On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

On Compliance of Sub-para 2.2. of the Cabinet Regulation of 5 December 2011 No. 924 “Regulation on the Minimal Amount of the Old-age Pension”, Sub-para 2.1. 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” (in the wording that was in force until 31 December 2019) as well as Para 2 and Sub-para 3.2. of the Cabinet Regulation of 3 December 2019 No. 579 “Regulation on the Amount of the Minimal State Old-age Pension

On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 of the Satversmes of the Republic of Latvia and Para 56, Para 58 and Para 87 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “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 Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)

Combined case: 2019-10-0103

On Compliance of Section 37 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar it does not Envisage Repayment of the State Fee Paid of a Notice of Appeal if the Notice of Appeal is Dismissed, with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Section 37 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar it does not envisage repayment of the State fee paid of a notice of appeal if the notice of appeal is dismissed due to its incompatibility with formal requirements, as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 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 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 Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2019-10-0103

On Compliance of Sub-para 18.12. of the Cabinet Regulation of 17 May 2011 No. 378 “Procedures for Advertising Medicinal Products and Procedures by Which a Medicinal Product Manufacturer is Entitled to Give Free Samples of Medicinal Products to Physicians” with Article 100 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Third Part of Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

On Compliance of Section 464 (4.1) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2019-13-01

On Compliance of Section 464 (4.1) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2019-13-01

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, 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 42.3(1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)

On Compliance of Section 6 (2) of the Law “On State Social Insurance”(in the Wording that was in Force from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002) with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Court held:

to recognise Section 6 (2) of the Law “On State Social Insurance”(in the Wording that was in Force from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002), insofar it does not envisage subjecting persons with group I and II disabilities to disability insurance, as being incompatible with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the date it entered into force.

On Compliance of Section 61 (8) and Section 63 (7) of Immigration Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Section 61 (8) of the Immigration Law as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 March 2021.
2. To terminate legal proceedings in the part of the case with respect to the compliance of Section 63 (7) of the Immigration Law with the first sentence of 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 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, on Compliance of Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 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), as well as Compliance of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)

Combined case: 2019-10-0103

On compliance of Section 155(1) of the Labour Law with the first sentence of Article 110 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Article 155(1) of the Labour Law, insofar as it does envisage protection and support to the partner of the child’s mother in relation to a birth of the child to be incompatible with the first sentence of Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 June 2022.
2. With respect to Person C to recognise Article 155(1) of the Labour Law, insofar as it does envisage protection and support to the partner of the child’s mother in relation to a birth of the child to be incompatible with the first sentence of Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the moment when the infringement on her fundamental rights occurred.

On Compliance of Section 49.2 (1) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with the Second Sentence of Article 91 and Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:
1) To recognise Section 49.2(1) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar it does not envisage for sentenced persons who serve their sentences on the lowest regime for serving the sentence at a closed or partly-closed prison, to leave temporarily the territory of the institution for deprivation of liberty in connection with the death of a close relative, as being incompatible with Article 96 of the Satversme oft he Republic of Latvia.
2) With respect to the submitter of the constitutional complaint Juris Krasovskis, to recognise Section 49.2(1) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar it does not envisage for sentenced persons who serve their sentences on the lowest regime for serving the sentence at a closed or partly-closed prison, to leave temporarily the territory of the institution for deprivation of liberty in connection with the death of a close relative, as being incompatible with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the date when the infringement on his fundamental rights occurred.

On Compliance of Section 464 (4.1) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2019-13-01

On Compliance of Section 464 (4 1) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2019-13-01