Search

On Compliance of Section 629 (5) of Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and on Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 631 (3) of Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme

The Constitutional Court held:

To recognise Section 629(5) of the Criminal Procedure Law, to the extent a court does not have the right to re-examine the legality and validity of the decision taken by the person directing the proceedings on a person’s right to familiarise himself with materials in the case, as being invalid with respect to IMEX PROVIDER LTD as of the moment when the infringement of fundamental rights occurred, taking into consideration the judgement by the Constitutional Court of 23 May 2017 in case No. 2016-13-01.

To recognise the second sentence of Section 631(3) of the Criminal Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme.

On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 10.4(1) of the law “On Maternity and Sickness Insurance” (in the wording that was in force from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2013) with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court decided to recognise the contested norm as being compatible with Article 110 of the Satversme.

On compliance of Section 253(3) of the Administrative Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court decided to recognise the contested norm as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme.

On compliance of Section 50(1) of the Education Law, insofar it denies the persons who have been punished for serious or particularly serious offences the right to be evaluated and get permission to work as a teacher, with Article 106 of the Constitution of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Para 1 of Section 50 of Education Law, insofar as it denies a person, who has been punished for serious or particularly serious crimes, to work as a teacher, as being incompatible with Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 June 2018.

On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme

Combined case: 2016-14-01

On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme

Combined case: 2016-14-01

On Compliance of Section 17(3.1) of the Insolvency Law with the First Sentence in Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2016-20-01

On Compliance of the Fourth and the Sixth Part of Section 30, the Fifth and the Sixth Part of Section 48, Para 5 of Section 50, and Para 2.1 of the First Part of Section 51 of Education Law with the First Sentence of Article 100 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise the fourth and the sixth part of Section 30, the fifth and the sixth Part of Section 48, Para 5 of Section 50, and Para 2.1 of the first part of Section 51 of Education Law as being compatible with the First Sentence of Article 100 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Para 2 of Annex 2 to the Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2014 No. 16 “Procedure for Assessing and Managing Noise”, insofar it Applies to Moto Racing Tracks Located within a Territory, where Individual Residential Houses and High-Rise Residential Houses are Built, with Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court decided:

1. To recognise Para 2 of Annex 2 to the Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2014 No. 16 “Procedure for Assessing and Managing Noise” as being compatible with Section 181 (3) of the Law “On Pollution”.

2. To recognise Para 2 of Annex 2 to the Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2014 No. 16 “Procedure for Assessing and Managing Noise”, as well as Sub-para 2.4. of this Regulation, insofar it applies to public auto and moto sports events which are held in open-air auto and moto racing tracks located in a populated area (city or village) and for which a permit for organising a public event has been issued in the procedure set out in the Law on Safety of Public Entertainment and Festivity Events as being incompatible with Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

3. To recognise Para 2 of Annex 2 to the Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2014 No. 16 “Procedure for Assessing and Managing Noise” with respect to the applicant in the administrative case No. A420346615 – Elza Freiberga – as being incompatible with Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of the date when the infringement on her fundamental rights occurred.

On Compliance of Section 18(1) and Section 21(1) of Official Language Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court decided:

to terminate legal proceedings in the case “On Compliance of Section 18(1) and Section 21(1) of Official Language Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

On Compliance of Section 4(9) and Section 61 (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 held:

to recognised the first sentence of Section 4(9) and Section 61 (1) of “Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” as being incompatible with Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 January 2019.

On Compliance of Section 3, 5, and 6 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme

Combined case: 2016-16-01

On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2016-14-01

On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme

Combined case: 2016-14-01

On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme

Combined case: 2016-14-01

On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2016-14-01

On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme

Combined case: 2016-14-01

On Compliance of Para 2361 “Use of Territory and Construction Rules” of Binding Regulation No.8 of 24 March 2016 by Jūrmala City Council “On Approving the Graphic Part, Regulation on the Use of Territory and Construction in the Spatial Plan of Jūrmala City” with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court recognised the contested norm as being compatible with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Para 12.1.1 and Para 60 of the Cabinet Regulation of 13 October 2015 No. 591 “Procedure in which Learners are Enrolled at and Discharged from Institutions of General Education and Special Pre-school Education Groups, as well as Moved to a Higher Form” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court ruled:

To recognise the contested norms as being incompatible with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of the moment they were adopted.

On Compliance of Section 17(3.1) of the Insolvency Law with the First Sentence in Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2016-20-01