Search
Filter results
- Years
- 35
- 33
- 47
- 45
- 45
- 66
- 38
- 25
- 35
- 31
- 25
- 36
- 21
- 26
- 21
- 75
- 117
- 48
- 26
- 43
- 25
- 26
- 23
- 21
- 17
- 8
- 7
- 6
- 5
- More
- Stages of the proceedings
- 6
- 5
- 10
- 2
- 566
- 384
- 3
- More
- Outcome of the proceedings
- 441
- 124
- 210
- More
- Type of the proceedings
- 478
- 105
- 181
- 212
- More
On Compliance of Para 2.11. of the Regulation of 20 December 2018 of the Financial and Capital Market Commission No. 198 “Regulation on Determining the Amount of Payments by the Financial and Capital Market Participants for Financing the Financial and Capital Market Commission in 2019 and for Submitting Reports” with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Funding of the activities of the Financial and capital market commissionThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 2.11. of the Regulation of 20 December 2018 of the Financial and Capital Market Commission No. 198 “Regulation on Determining the Amount of Payments by the Financial and Capital Market Participants for Financing the Financial and Capital Market Commission in 2019 and for Submitting Reports” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
-
Reviewing the norm issued by the Financial and Capital Market Commission, the Constitutional Court finds deficiencies in the democratic legitimisation of the Commission’s Council
-
A case initiated with respect to a norm that establishes the amount of payment by a credit institution for financing the operations of the Financial and Capital Market Commission
On Compliance of the Second Part of Article 17 and Article 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Saeima with the second sentence of Article 92 and the first sentence of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Removal of a Member of the Parliament after consent for criminal prosecutionThe Constitutional Court held:
1. To terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding the compliance of the second sentence of the second part of Article 17 and the second and the third sentence of Article 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Saeima with the second sentence of Article 92 and the first sentence of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise the first sentence of the second part of Article 17 and the first sentence of Article 19 as being incompatible with Article 5, the second sentence of Article 92 and the first sentence of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and, with respect to Juris Jurašs, void as of 31 January 2019.
-
The norms, which prohibit a member of the Saeima, against whom criminal prosecution has been commenced, from participating in the work of the Saeima and receiving remuneration in full amount, are incompatible with the Satversme
-
A case initiated with respect to norms that prohibit a member of the Saeima, against whom criminal prosecution has been commenced, from participating in the work of the Saeima
On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 4 October 2018 “Amendments to the Consumer Rights Protection Law” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Total costs of consumer creditCombined case: 2019-05-01
On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the Education Law” with the Second Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-04-01
On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 4 October 2018 “Amendments to the Consumer Rights Protection Law” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Total costs of consumer creditThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 8 (23) of the Consumer Rights Protection Law as being compatible with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the Education Law” with the Second Sentence of Article 91 and the First Sentence of Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Language of education IVCombined case: 2018-22-01
A case initiated with respect to restrictions on combining the offices of a local government’s councillor
The Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 4 of Section 38 (2) of the law “On Local Governments” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Para 3 of the Cabinet Regulation of 12 December 2017 No. 724 “Regulation on the Qualification Criteria of the Experts of the Latvian Council of Science, Establishing of Experts’ Committees and Organising of the Work thereof” and the decision of 15 January 2018 by the Latvian Council of Science No. 19-1-1 “The Procedure for Granting the Rights of an Expert of the Latvian Council of Science” with Article 1 and Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Experts of Latvian Council of ScienceThe Constitutional Court decided:
to terminate legal proceedings in the case “On Compliance of Para 3 of the Cabinet Regulation of 12 December 2017 No. 724 “Regulation on the Qualification Criteria of the Experts of the Latvian Council of Science, Establishing of Experts’ Committees and Organising of the Work thereof” and the decision of 15 January 2018 by the Latvian Council of Science No. 19-1-1 “The Procedure for Granting the Rights of an Expert of the Latvian Council of Science” with Article 1 and Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
-
The Constitutional Court terminates legal proceedings in the case regarding norms that defined the criteria for assessing a scientist’s research activities in deciding on granting the rights of an expert
-
A case initiated with respect to the procedure for granting the rights of an expert of the Latvian Council of Science
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 163 (4) of the Civil Law with the Articles 96 and 110 of the Satversme
Case short name: Adoption banThe Constitutional Court held:
1) to terminate legal proceedings regarding compliance of Para 1 of Section 163 (4) of the Civil Law, insofar it establishes an absolute prohibition for persons, who submit an application for adoption of his or her spouse’s child, with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
2) to recognise Para 1 of Section 163 (4) of the Civil Law, insofar it establishes an absolute prohibition for persons, who submit an application for adoption of his or her spouse’s child, as being incompatible with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
3) with respect to persons, who have started defending their rights by general legal remedies, to recongise Para 1 of Section 163 (4) of the Civil Law, insofar it establishes an absolute prohibition for persons, who submit an application for adoption of his or her spouse’s child, as being incompatible with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of the moment when it was applied to these persons by the Orphan’s Court.
-
The absolute prohibition for a person, who has been punished for a criminal offence related to violence or threat of violence, to become an adopter of the spouse’s child, is incompatible with Article 110 of the Satversme
-
A case initiated with respect to a norm of the Civil Law that provides that a person, who has been punished for criminal offences related to violence or threatening of violence, may not be an adopter
On Compliance of Section 50.4 of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia (hereinafter – the Code) establishes the regime for serving the sentence in closed prisons, inter alia, that men, who have been sentenced to the deprivation of liberty for committing a serious or a particularly serious crime, serve the sentence in a closed prison.
Case short name: Regime of penalty execution for menThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 50.4 of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar the differential treatment of convicted men established in it lacks objective and reasonable grounds, as being incompatible with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 May 2021.
-
Differences in the regimes for serving prison sentences for men and women are incompatible with the equality principle included in the Satversme
-
A case initiated regarding the regime for serving the sentence of deprivation of liberty for men, who have been convicted form committing a serious or a particularly serious crime
On the Compliance of Article 28(2) of the Law on Detention Procedures, in the wording effective until 2 January 2018, with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Surveillance of the correspondence of the detaineesThe Constitutional Court held:
to declare Article 28(2) of the Law on Detention Procedures, in the wording in force until 2 January 2018, insofar as it provides for the control of the correspondence of detainees throughout the period of detention without an individual assessment of the circumstances and an established threat to the rights of other people or public safety, to be inconsistent with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and in relation to persons to whom this provision has been applied and who have commenced protection of their rights within the framework of administrative procedure, but in respect of whom administrative procedure has not yet been completed, to be invalid from the moment of occurrence of the infringement of fundamental rights of these persons.
On Compliance of Para 40 in the Cabinet Regulation of 30 May 2006 No. 423 “The Internal Regulations of an Institution for Deprivation of Liberty” with Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Items allowed in the detention facilitiesThe Constitutional Court decided:
1. To declare Paragraph 40 of Cabinet Regulation No 423 of 30 May 2006, Internal Rules of Procedure of the Prison, insofar as it does not provide for the right of the administration of a prison to decide on granting permission for a convicted person to use aids to continue his or her studies in order to acquire higher level education, as incompatible with Article 112 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
2. In respect of the Applicant Ansis Ataols Bērziņš, to declare Paragraph 40 of Cabinet Regulation No 423 of 30 May 2006, Internal Rules of Procedure of the Prison, insofar as it does not provide for the right of the administration of a prison to decide on granting permission for a convicted person to use aids to continue his studies in order to acquire higher level education, to be incompatible with Article 112 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and void from the moment of the infringement of his fundamental rights.
On Compliance of the Part 1 of Section 1 of the Amendments to the Education Law of 22 March 2018 with Article 1, the Second Sentence of Article 91, the First Sentence of Article 112 and Article 114 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Language of education IIIThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 9 (11) of the Education Law as being compatible with Article 1, the second sentence of Article 91, the first sentence of Article 112 and Article 114 of the Satversme.
On Compliance of Section 4 (1) and Para 2 of Section 20 (1) of “Law on State Social Allowances”, insofar these Apply to Remuneration for Performing the Duties of a Guardian, with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Benefits for the legal guardian residing abroadThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise the words “and who permanently reside in the territory of Latvia” of Section 4 (1) of “Law on State Social Allowances” (in the wording that was in force until 6 March 2019) and Para 2 of Section 20 (1) of “Law on State Social Allowances” (in the wording that was in force until 6 March 2019), insofar these apply to performance of the duties of a guardian, as being incompatible with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void with respect to persons, to whom these legal norms had been applied or would have to be applied in the framework of administrative proceedings and who have begun to defend their fundamental rights in the framework of administrative proceedings, as of the moment when the infringement on the fundamental rights of these persons occurred.
-
Discontinuing the disbursement of the remuneration for performing the duties of a guardian if the guardian moves for permanent residence abroad is incompatible with the Satversme
-
A case initiated with respect to norms that prohibit a child’s guardian, who resides abroad, from receiving the state social child maintenance allowance
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 27 (5) and the First Sentence of Section 30 (4) of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Employment contracts for the academic personnel IIThe Constitutional Court decided
to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2018-20-01 “On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 2 (5) and the First Sentence of Section 30 (4) of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On Compliance of Para 100 and Para 139 of the Binding Regulation of the Ventspils City Council of 2 March 2012 No. 9 “Ventspils Free Port Rules” with Article 64 and the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme
Case short name: Cargo evaporationsThe Constitutional Court decided:
to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2018-19-03 “On Compliance of Para 100 and Para 139 of the Binding Regulation of the Ventspils City Council of 2 March 2012 No. 9 “Ventspils Free Port Rules” with Article 64 and the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme”.
-
The Constitutional Court terminates legal proceedings in a case pertaining to norms that determine environment protection requirements that must be met while reloading cargos in ports
-
A case initiated with respect to the norms of the binding regulation of the Ventspils City Council that define the environmental protection requirements for cargo vapour emission
On Compliance of Section 14.1 (2) of the Road Traffic Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Access to information from the National vehicle and driver information systemThe Constitutional Court decided:
to declare Section 14.1(2) of the Road Traffic Law, insofar as it stipulates that information on the penalty points imposed for road traffic offences is generally accessible information, to be incompatible with Article 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and void from the date of entering into force of the Judgment.
-
Setting the status of generally accessible information for information about a person’s demerit points is incompatible with the Satversme
-
The Constitutional Court adopts the decision to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling the second time
-
A case initiated with respect to the norm of the Road Traffic Law, which provides that certain information included in the State Register of Vehicles and Drivers is generally accessible
On Compliance of Para 459 of the Binding Regulation of the Riga City Council of 7 February 2006 No. 38 “Regulation on the Use of and Construction in the Territory of the Historical Centre of Riga and the Protective Zone Thereof” with the First, the Second and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Gambling establishments in the historic centre of RigaThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 459 of the Binding Regulation of the Riga City Council of 7 February 2006 No. 38 “Regulation on the Use of and Construction in the Territory of the Historical Centre of Riga and the Protective Zone Thereof” as being compatible with the First, the Second and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Para 91, Para 92, Para 98 and Para 99, and Para 2 of Annex 8 of the Cabinet Regulation of 10 March 2019 No. 221 “Regulations Regarding Electricity Production and Price Determination upon Production of Electricity in Cogeneration” and of the last sentence of Para 638, Para 106, Para 107, Para 113 and Para 114, and Para 2 of Annex 10 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 March 2010 No. 262 “Regulations Regarding Electricity Production and Price Determination upon Production of Electricity from Renewable Resources” with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Overcompensation calculation for the mandatory procurement of electricityThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 91, Para 92, Para 98 and Para 99, and Para 2 of Annex 8 of the Cabinet Regulation of 10 March 2019 No. 221 “Regulations Regarding Electricity Production and Price Determination upon Production of Electricity in Cogeneration” and of the last sentence of Para 638, Para 106, Para 107, Para 113 and Para 114, and Para 2 of Annex 10 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 March 2010 No. 262 “Regulations Regarding Electricity Production and Price Determination upon Production of Electricity from Renewable Resources” as being compatible with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
-
The norms of the Cabinet Regulation on the implementation of the mandatory electricity procurement – control of self-consumption and calculation of overcompensation – comply with Article 64 of the Satversme
-
A case initiated with regard to norms that regulate the calculation of overcompensation and control of self-consumption for producers of electricity, who receive state support in the form of mandatory electricity procurement
On Compliance of Section 27 (5) and Section 30 (4) of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Employment contracts for the academic personnel IThe Constitutional Court decided to:
declare Section 27(5) of the Law on Higher Education Institutions, with regard to associate professors and professors, Section 28(2) and Section 30(4), in so far as they do not provide protection against the abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts, as non-compliant with the first sentence of Article 106 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
-
The conclusion of successive fixed-term contracts with a person elected to the position of an associate professor or a professor, without ensuring protection against abuse of such contracts, is incompatible with the Satversme
-
A case initiated with respect to norms that envisage conclusion of a fixed-term employment contract with a person who has been elected to an academic position