Search

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

The 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.

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 14 (7.1) of the law “Remuneration of Officials of State and Local Government Authorities” with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

To recognise Para 1 of Section 14 (7.1) of the law “Remuneration of Officials of State and Local Government Authorities” as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

To recognise Para 1 of Section 14 (7.1) of the law “Remuneration of Officials of State and Local Government Authorities” as void as of the moment when a person’s fundamental rights were infringed upon with respect to all persons, who, to defend their rights, have turned to a court in the procedure established in the Administrative Procedure Law and with respect to which the administrative proceedings in the court have not been completed yet, as well as to such persons, who, to defend their rights have turned to the court in the procedure established in the Administrative Procedure Law and with respect to which the administrative proceedings already have been completed.

On Compliance of Para 4 and Para 5 of the Cabinet Regulation of 21 April 1998 No. 139 “Regulation on the Latvian Building Standard LBN 205 97 “The Standards of Designing Masonry and Reinforced Masonry Constructions”” with Article 90 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court decided:

to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2018-13-03 “On Compliance of Para 4 and Para 5 of the Cabinet Regulation of 21 April 1998 No. 139 “Regulation on the Latvian Building Standard LBN 205‑97 “The Standards of Designing Masonry and Reinforced Masonry Constructions”” with Article 90 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

On Compliance of the First Part of Section 1, the Words of the Second Part of Section 1 “on the level of pre-school education and basic education, abiding by the provisions of Section 41 of this Law”, the words of the First Part of Section 3 “primary education” and Section 2 of the Law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the General Education Law” with the Second Sentence of Article 91, Article 112 and Article 114 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

1) to examine the compliance of Section 1 (1) of the law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the Education Law” with the second sentence of Article 91, Article 112 and Article 114 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia within the framework of case No. 2018-22-01;

2) to terminate the case in the part regarding the compliance of Section 1 (2), the first and the second part of Section 3 of the law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the Education Law” and Section 2 of the law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the General Education Law” with Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;

3) to recognise Section 1(2), the first and the second part of Section 3 of the law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the Education Law” and Section 2 of the law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the General Education Law” as being compatible with the second sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;

4) to recognise Section 1 (2), the first and the second part of Section 3 of the law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the Education Law” and Section 2 of the law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the General Education Law” as being compatible with Article 114 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Para 1 and Para 2 of Section 3 (9.2) of the law “On Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 1 and Para 2 of Section 3 (9.2) of the law “On Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” as being incompatible with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the moment they entered into force.

On Compliance of Section 2371 (2) of the Criminal Law, in the Wording that was in Force from 1 April 2013 to 1 December 2015, with Article 90 and the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of Sub-para ”e” of Annex 10A905 to the Cabinet Regulation No. 645 of 25 September 2007 “Regulation on the National List of Goods and Services of Strategic Significance”, in the Wording that was in Force from 28 November 2009 to 23 January 2014, with the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Section 2371 (2) of the Criminal Law, in the wording that was in force from 1 April 2013 to 1 December 2015, as being compatible with Article 90 and the second sentence of Article 92 of the Republic of Latvia;

to recognise sub-para “e” of section 10A905 of the Annex to the Cabinet Regulation No. 645 of 25 September 2007 “Regulation on the National List of Goods and Services of Strategic Significance”, in the wording that was in force from 28 November 2009 to 23 January 2014, as being compatible with the second sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme.

On Compliance of the Eighth Part of Section 257 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code and Para 74 of the Cabinet Regulation of 7 December 2010 No.1098 “Regulation on Handling of Property and Documents Removed in a Case of Administrative Violation” with Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise the eighth part of Section 257 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, in the wording that was in force until 4 July 2018, and Para 74 of the Cabinet Regulation of 7 December 2010 No.1098 “Regulation on Handling of Property and Documents Removed in a Case of Administrative Violation", insofar the obligation was derived from them for a person, who had been made administratively liable, to cover the expenditures of storing the property removed in the case of administrative violation until the moment when the decision of making this person administratively liable became enforceable, as being compatible with Article 105 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Para 18 and Para 20 of the Binding Regulation of the Jūrmala City Council of 4 September 2014 No. 27 “Regulation on the Operations and Maintenance of the Municipal Cemeteries of Jūrmala City” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court decided:

to declare Paragraphs 18 and 20 of the Jūrmala City Council Binding Regulation No. 27 of 4 September 2014 "Regulation on the Operations and Maintenance of the Municipal Cemeteries of Jūrmala City" as incompatible with Article 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of the Order by the Minister for Environmental Protection and Regional Development of 26 September 2017 No. 1-2/7346 “On Suspending Para 1.3, in the part determining catering costs (parents’ payment) in the special pre-school institutions of education, and suspending Para 7 of the Decision by the Rēzekne City Council of 22 December 2016 No. 1872 “On Determining the Catering Costs in the Municipal Institutions of Education of Rēzekne and Approving the Mark-up” with Section 49 of the Law “On Local Governments

The Constitutional Court held:
to recognise the Order by the Minister for Environmental Protection and Regional Development of 26 September 2017 No. 1-2/7346 “On Suspending Sub-para 1.3., in the part determining catering costs (parents’ payment) in the special pre-school institutions of education, and suspending Para 7 of the Decision by the Rēzekne City Council of 22 December 2016 No. 1872 “On Determining the Catering Costs in the Municipal Institutions of Education of Rēzekne and Approving the Mark-up” (minutes No. 103, Para 13) as being compatible with Section 49 of the law “On Local Governments”.

On Compliance of Section 12 (1) of the Law “On State Social Allowances” and Annex 9 to the Cabinet Regulation of 23 December 2014 Nr. 805 “Regulations Regarding the Criteria, Time Periods and Procedures Determining Predictable Disability, Disability, and the Loss of Ability to Work “ with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

1. To recognise Section 12 (1) of the law “On State Social Allowance” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme.

2. To recognise Annex 9 to the Cabinet Regulation of 23 December 2014 Nr. 805 “Regulations Regarding the Criteria, Time Periods and Procedures Determining Predictable Disability, Disability, and the Loss of Ability to Work”, insofar it does not envisage the granting of the transport mobility to a disabled person with restricted mobility, who has mental health disorders, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the date of its adoption.

On Compliance of Section 213 and of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Combined case: 2018-01-01

On Compliance of Section 7 (3) of the Law “On Immoveable Property Tax”, insofar it does no Provide for Cessation of the Duty to Pay Additional Immovable Property Tax Rate for Agricultural Land that is not being Farmed, with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Section 7 (3) of the law “On Immoveable Property Tax”, insofar it did no provide for cessation of the duty to pay additional immovable property tax rate for agricultural land that was not being farmed as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2017-34-01

On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2017-34-01

On Compliance of the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code 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. 2018-01-01 “On Compliance of the Seventh Part of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

On Compliance of Sub-para 3.2.1. of the Binding Regulation of the Riga City Council of 9 June 2015 No. 148 “On the Real Estate Tax in Riga” with the First Sentence of Article 91 and the First Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court decided to recognise the contested norm as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme.

On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2017-17-01

On Compliance of Para 3.1 and Para 15 of the Cabinet Regulation of 5 November 2013 Nr. 1268 “Regulation on the Functioning of the Treatment Risk Fund” with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Para 3.1 and Para 15 of the Cabinet Regulation of 5 November 2013 No. 1268 “Regulation on the Functioning of the Treatment Risk Fund” as being compatible with Article 64 of the Satversme.

On compliance of the Order of 1 August 2017 by the Minister for the Environmental Protection and Regional Development No. 1-13/6038 “On suspending Para 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the decision of 16 June 2017 by the Salaspils Regional Council “On Establishment of the Standing Regional Committees and Election of Members thereof” (Minutes No. 12, § 4)” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 49 of the law “On Local Governments”

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise the Order of 1 August 2017 by the Minister for the Environmental Protection and Regional Development No. 1-13/6038 “On suspending Para 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the decision of 16 June 2017 by the Salaspils Regional Council “On Establishment of the Standing Regional Committees and Election of Members thereof” (Minutes No. 12, § 4)” as being incompatible with the first sentence of Section 49 (1) of the law “On Local Governments” and invalid as of the date it was issued.

On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2017-17-01