Search

On compliance of the programmes 03.00.00 “Higher Education”, 02.03.00 “Higher Medical Education”, 20.00.00 “Cultural Education” and sub-programme 22.02.00 “Higher Education” of the Law “On the State Budget for 2019”, insofar these do not envisage annual increase of the State-allocated financing for studies in State-founded institutions of higher education in the amount no less than 0.25 per cent of the gross domestic product, as provided for in Section 78 (7) of the Law on Higher Education Institutions, with Article 1 and Article 66 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

1. To recognise Section 78 (7) of the Law on Higher Education as being incompatible with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 66 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise the programmes 03.00.00 “Higher Education”, 02.03.00 “Higher Medical Education”, 20.00.00 “Cultural Education” and sub-programme 22.02.00 “Higher Education” of Annex 4 to the Law “On the State Budget for 2019”, as well the subsidies envisaged in these programmes for State higher education institutions as being compatible with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 66 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Decision No. 1/7 of 18 April 2019 by the Board of the Public Utilities Commission “Regulation on the Connection to the Natural Gas Transmission System for Biomethane Producers, Liquefied Natural Gas System Operators and Natural Gas Users” with Article 1, Article 64, Article 89 and the First Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as Section 45 (7) and Section 84.1 (1) of the Energy Law and the Compliance of Section 84.1(1) of the Energy Law with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Para 2 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 Benefits” with Article 1, the Second Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 22 December 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”, insofar it defines the amount of the State social security benefit for unemployed disabled persons and seniors, as being incompatible with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 January 2021.

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 the words “if its average monthly income during the last three months per each member of the family does not exceed EUR 128.06” of Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 30 March 2010 No. 229 “Regulations Regarding Recognising of a Family or Person Living Separately as Needy” with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise the words “if its average monthly income during the last three months per each member of the family does not exceed EUR 128.06” of Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 30 March 2010 No. 229 “Regulations Regarding Recognising of a Family or Person Living Separately as Needy” as being incompatible with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 January 2021.

On Compliance of Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 18 December 2012 No. 913 “Regulation on the Guaranteed Minimum Income Level” with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 18 December 2012 No. 913 “Regulation on the Guaranteed Minimum Income Level” as being incompatible with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 January 2021.

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

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Section 464 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Section 316 (1) of the Criminal Law, in the Wording that was in Force from 2 January 2004 to 31 March 2013, with the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Section 316 (1) of the Criminal Law, in the wording that was in force from 2 January 2004 until 31 March 2013, as being compatible with the second sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Section 14 (4) and Para 4 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 decided:

to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2019-21-01 “On Compliance of Section 14 (4) and Para 4 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”.

On Compliance of Para 9 of Annex 2 and Para 9 of Annex 4 of the Cabinet Regulation of 21 November 2018 No. 716 “Regulation on the National Guidelines on Pre-school Education and Model Programmes of Pre-school education” with Article 64, the first sentence of Article 112 and Article 114 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Para 9 of Annex 2 and Para 9 of Annex 4 of the Cabinet Regulation of 21 November 2018 No. 716 “Regulation on the National Guidelines on Pre-school Education and Model Programmes of Pre-school education” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 112, Article 114, Article 91 and Article 64 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 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 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 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 the Order by the Minister for Environment Protection and Regional Development of 25 April 2019 No. 1 2/59 “On Suspending the Regulation on the Opinion Poll of the Inhabitants of Ikšķile Region “Vote of Ikšķile Region”” with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self Government

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise the Order by the Minister for Environment Protection and Regional Development of 25 April 2019 No. 1 2/59 “On Suspending the Regulation on the Opinion Poll of the Inhabitants of Ikšķile Region “Vote of Ikšķile Region”” as being incompatible with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On compliance of Section 464(4.1) of the Civil Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2019-13-01

On compliance of the third sentence of Section 564(7) and Section 570(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognises the third sentence of Section 564 (7) and Section 570 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of the Binding Regulation by the Amata Regional Council of 19 December 2018 No. 12 “The Rules on the Use and Construction in the Territory and the Graphic Part of the Spatial Plan of the Amata Region for 2014–2024 (with Amendments of 2018)” in the Part Regarding the Borders of Anna Village of Zaube Rural Municipality and the Type of Territory Use of the Immovable Property with Cadastre No. 4296 009 0047 with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court decided:

to terminate legal proceedings in the case “On Compliance of the Binding Regulation by the Amata Regional Council of 19 December 2018 No. 12 “The Rules on the Use and Construction in the Territory and the Graphic Part of the Spatial Plan of the Amata Region for 2014–2024 (with Amendments of 2018)” in the Part Regarding the Borders of Anna Village of Zaube Rural Municipality and the Type of Territory Use of the Immovable Property with Cadastre No. 4296 009 0047 with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

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

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Section 464 (4.1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar it applied to the decision on the refusal to initiate cassation legal proceedings, as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 5 (1), Section 56 (3) and Para 49 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with Article 1, Article 105 and Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

1. To divide case No. 2019-12-01 into cases:

a) case “On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 5 (1), Section 56 (3) and Para 49 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia” and

b) case “On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 5 (1), Section 56 (3) and Para 49 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

2. To recognise the third sentence of Section 5 (1) of the law “On Institutions of Higher Education”, insofar it applies to private institutions of higher education, faculty members and students thereof, as being compatible with Article 112 and Article 113 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

3. To recognise Section 56 (3) and Para 49 of the Transitional Provisions of the law “On Institutions of Higher Education”, insofar these norms apply to private institutions of higher education, faculty members and students thereof, as being incompatible with Article 112 and Article 113 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 May 2021.

4.To resume examination of the case “On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 5 (1), Section 56 (3) and Para 49 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia” on its merits at a court hearing on 14 July 2020 in written procedure.

On Compliance of Section 464.1 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Section 464.1 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first sentence of Article 92 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) 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

The Constitutional Court held:

1) to recognise Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force from 4 July 2008 until 7 March 2016) as being compatible with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme;

2) to recognise 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” as being incompatible with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme with respect to persons, to whom these norms had been applied or should be applied in court, as of the date of their adoption.