Search

On Compliance of Section 26 (1), the First Sentence of Para 12 of Section 128(2) and Para 6 of Section 132 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar they Set the Obligation to Indicate in the Statement of Claim the Declared Place of Residence of the Defendant, with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Section 26 (1), the first sentence of Para 12of Section 128(2) and Para 6 of Section 132 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar they set the obligation to indicate in the statement of claim the declared place of residence of the defendant as being compatible with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of the Fifth and 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

Combined case: 2017-16-01

On Compliance of Para 3.1 of the Binding Regulation of 9 June 2015 of the Riga City Council No. 148 “On the Real Estate Tax in Riga” with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the First Part of Article 18 and the First Part of Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The Constitutional Court decided:

to declare the non-compliance of Paragraph 3.1 of the Binding Regulation of 9 June 2015 of the Riga City Council No. 148, On the Real Estate Tax in Riga, with Article 91 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of the Fifth and 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

Combined case: 2017-16-01

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 Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2017-17-01

On Compliance of Para 6 of Section 5 of The Saeima Election Law with Article 1, Article 9 and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Para 6 of Section 5 of The Saeima Election Law as being compatible with Article 1, Article 9 and Article 91 of the Satversme.

On Compliance of Section 213 and 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

Combined case: 2017-16-01

On Compliance of the Second and the Third Part of Section 573 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

1. to recognise the second and the third part of Section (573) of the Criminal Procedure Law, insofar it provides that the matter on initiating cassation proceedings in criminal procedure is decided by one judge, without providing reasoning for refusal to initiate cassation proceedings in criminal procedure, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

2. with respect to the applicant, to recognise the second and third part of Section 573 of the Criminal Procedure Law, insofar it does not envisage that in the refusal to initiate cassation proceedings reasoning must be provided, as being void as of the moment when the violation of his fundamental rights occurred.

On Compliance of the Fifth and 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

Combined case: 2017-16-01

On Compliance of Sub-para “d” of Para 1 of Section 41(1) of Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Sub-para “d” of Para 1 of Section 41(1) of Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law (in the wording that was in force from 1 November 2007 to 15 December 2017) as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and, with respect to persons, to whom it has been applied in court or should be applied in court in legal proceedings that already have been initiated, becomes invalid as of the moment when the infringement upon the fundamental rights of these persons occurred.

On Compliance of the Sixth and the Eighth Sentence of Section 7(5) of the Law “On Official Secrets” with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia” and of the Second Sentence of Para 12 of the Cabinet Regulation of 23 May 2006 No. 412 “Procedure of Applying for, Granting, Registering, Using, Changing the Category of or Annulment of an Industrial Security Certificate” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court decided to terminate legal proceedings in the case No. 2017‑20‑0103 “On Compliance of the Sixth and the Eighth Sentence of Section 7(5) of the Law “On Official Secrets” with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia” and of the Second Sentence of Para 12 of the Cabinet Regulation of 23 May 2006 No. 412 “Procedure of Applying for, Granting, Registering, Using, Changing the Category of or Annulment of an Industrial Security Certificate” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

On Compliance of Section 50.21(5) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar it Applies to a Decision to Refuse Mitigating the Regime for Serving a Sentence, 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. 2017-19-01 “On Compliance of Section 50.21(5) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar it Applies to a Decision to Refuse Mitigating the Regime for Serving a Sentence, with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

On compliance of Section 7(2) and Section 8(4) of the Law on Religious Organisations with Articles 99 and 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and on compliance of Section 7(3) of the Law on Religious Organisations with Articles 91, 99 and 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

1. To recognise Section 7 (2) of the Law on Religious Organisations, insofar it does not envisage to the congregations, which are commencing their activities in the Republic of Latvia and are not affiliated with the religious associations (churches) that are already registered in the state, the right to establish a religious organisation (church) before the re-registration term of ten years has expired, as being incompatible with Article 99 and Article 102 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

2. To recognise Section 7 (3) and Section 8 (4) of the Law on Religious Organisations as being incompatible with Article 99 and Article 102 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

The Constitutional Court ruled to recognise the contested norms as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme and void as of 1 May 2019.

On Compliance of Section 213 and of the Fifth and 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 has ruled:

1. to recognise Section 213 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia;

2. to recognise the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar as they do not envisage the right to request the recusal of the appellate court judges who decide whether the initiation of appellate proceedings in an administrative violation case should be refused, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from 30 November 2018;

3. with regard to the applicant Alvis Hāze, to recognise the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar as they do not envisage the right to request the recusal of the appellate court judges who decide whether initiation of appellate proceedings in an administrative violation case should be refused, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from the day of publication of this judgment;

4. to recognise the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar as it does not envisage an obligation for the court to include reasoning in a decision to refuse initiation of appellate proceedings in an administrative violation case, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia;

5. with regard to the applicants Aleksejs Stepanovs, Alvis Hāze, Raimonds Bētiņš, Mārtiņš Kalniņs and the limited liability company “Alcamo”, as well as the individuals who, for protection of their fundamental rights, applied to the Constitutional Court before the day of coming into force of this judgment, to recognise the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar as it does not envisage the obligation for the court to include reasoning in a decision to refuse initiation of appellate proceedings in an administrative violation case, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from the moment the infringement of a corresponding applicant’s fundamental rights occurred.

On Compliance of Section 531 (7) of Medical Treatment Law with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Para 31 of the Transitional Provisions of Medical Treatment Law as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 January 2019.

On compliance of Para 2 of Annex 2 to Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2014 No. 16 “Procedure for Noise Assessment and Management” with Para 7 of Section 2 and Section 18.1 (3) of law “On Pollution” and Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, as well as of Sub-para 2.4 of this Regulation, insofar it applies to public auto and motor sports events, which are held at open auto or motor racing track located in a populated place (town or village) and for the organisation of which a permit for organising public events has been issued in accordance with the procedure established by Law on Safety of Public Entertainment and Festivity Events, with Para 7 of Section 2 of the law “On Pollution” and Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2017-02-03

On Compliance of Section 4(9) and Section 6.1 of Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” with Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court decided:

to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2017-13-01 “On Compliance of Section 4(9) and Section 6.1 of Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” with Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

On compliance of Part 123 and Part 125 of Section 12 of the Law “On Value Added Tax” (in the wording that was in force from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2012), insofar as they restrict the right to have tax overpayment refunded within a reasonable term, with the first, second and third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

1) to recognise Part 123and Part 125 of Section 12 of the Law “On Value Added Tax” (in the wording that was in force from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2012), insofar they did not ensure that the over-paid VAT was returned to the taxpayer within a reasonable term, as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;

2) respect to all persons, to whom the contested norms had been applied and who had begun protecting their rights in the procedure established by the Administrative Procedure Law and with respect to which the administrative proceedings had not been concluded yet, to recognise Part 123and Part 125 of Section 12 of the Law “On Value Added Tax” (in the wording that was in force from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2012), insofar they did not ensure that the over-paid VAT was returned to the taxpayer within a reasonable term, as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the moment they entered into force.

On Compliance of Para 91 of the Cabinet Regulation of 17 June 2014 No. 350 “Procedure for Evaluating Professional Activities of Teachers” with Article 1, 64 and 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and with the First and the Third Part of Section 49.1 of Education Law, and of Para 27 of the Cabinet Regulation of 5 July 2016 No. 445 “Regulation on Remuneration for Teachers’ Work” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court decided to recognise Para 91 of Regulation No. 350 and Para 27 of Regulation No. 445 as being incompatible with Article 1 and Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the moment of their adoption.