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 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
Case short name: The Parents' Benefit (of a Self-employed Person)The Constitutional Court decided to recognise the contested norm as being compatible with Article 110 of the Satversme.
-
The norm, which envisaged the right of a self-employed person to receive parents’ benefit only, if during the period of caring for the child she did not gain income, complies with Article 110 of the Satversme
-
A case initiated with respect to a self-employed person’s right to receive childcare benefit until the child reaches the age of one
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
Case short name: The Court's Right to Amend an Administrative ActThe 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
Case short name: Teachers and Persons Punished for Severe CrimesThe 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.
-
The norm of Education Law, which establishes an absolute prohibition for a person, who has been punished for serious or particularly serious crimes, to work as a teacher, is incompatible with Article 106 of the Satversme
-
A case initiated regarding the right of a person who has been punished for serious or particularly serious offences to be evaluated and get permission to work as a teacher
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
Case short name: The Solidarity Tax - Natural PersonsCombined 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
Case short name: The Certificate of an Insolvency AdministratorCombined 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
Case short name: The Teachers' LoyaltyThe 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
Case short name: Noise in Moto and Auto Racing TracksThe 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
Case short name: Signs of Street NamesThe 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
Case short name: The Judges'Salaries IVThe 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.
-
The norms that establish linking judges’ monthly salary to the maximum amount of monthly salary of a highly qualified lawyer of state direct administration institution or the 12th group of monthly salaries are recognised as being incompatible with Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme
-
A case initiated with respect to determining the amount of judges’ remuneration
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
Case short name: The Solidarity Tax - Natural PersonsCombined 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
Case short name: The Solidarity Tax - Natural PersonsCombined 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
Case short name: The Spatial Plan in Jūrmala, BulduriThe 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
Case short name: The Minimum Number of StudentsThe 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.
-
Norms of the Cabinet Regulation that define the minimum number of students in the 10th form or the secondary school of a district educational institution have been adopted by exceeding authorisation granted by the legislator
-
A case initiated with regard to the minimum number of learners in the 10th forms or in the secondary school in general in regional institutions of education
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 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