Search

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.

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

The 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.

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

The 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.

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

Combined 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

The 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

Combined 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

The 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”.

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 163 (4) of the Civil Law with the Articles 96 and 110 of the Satversme

The 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.

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.

The 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.

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

The 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

The 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

The 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

The 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.

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

The 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

The 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”.

On Compliance of Section 14.1 (2) of the Road Traffic Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The 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.

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

The 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

The 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.