Search

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

The Court’s Findings and Decisions:

On 6 January 2017 the law “Amendments to the Insolvency Law” entered into force, by which, inter alia, Section 17 was deleted from the Insolvency Law.

Pursuant to Para 2 of Section 29 (1) of the Constitutional Court Law, legal proceedings in a case may be terminated before a judgement is pronounced by a decision of the Constitutional Court, if the contested legal form has become invalid. In assessing, whether there were grounds for terminating legal proceedings in the case, the Constitutional Court examined: 1) whether the contested norm had become invalid; and 2) whether no circumstances requiring continuation of legal proceedings were present.

The Constitutional Court found that the provisions of the Insolvency Law that were currently in force did not comprise such grounds for terminating the operation of an administrator’s certificate as the one that was included in the contested norm. Legal regulation on terminating the operation of an administrator’s certificate and removing an administrator from office has changed substantially. Thus, the contested norm has become invalid.

In examining, whether no circumstances existed requiring continuation of legal proceedings, the Constitutional Court assessed, whether the fact that the contested norm had become invalid was sufficient grounds for considering that the violation of a person’s fundamental rights caused by the contested norm had been eliminated.

The Constitutional Court recognised that the contested norm did not violate the applicant’s fundamental rights, since the administrative cases regarding terminating the operation of administrator’s certificates that had been issued to them had been terminated. I.e., the applicants still have valid administrators’ certificates. Thus, there are no circumstances in the case that would require continuation of legal proceedings and the Constitutional Court decided to terminate legal proceedings.

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, 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, 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, and 6 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme

The Constitutional Court held:

1) to terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding compliance of Section 3 and Section 5 of the law “On Solidarity Tax” with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
2) to recognise Section 6 of the law “On Solidarity Tax as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 January 2019.

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

The Constitutional Court held:

1) to terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding compliance of Section 3, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7 and Section 9 of the law “On Solidarity Tax” with Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;

2) to terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding compliance of Section 3, Section 5, Section 7 and Section 9 of the law “On Solidarity Tax” with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;

3) to recognise Section 6 of the law “On Solidarity Tax” as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 January 2019.

On Compliance of the Fifth Part of Section 629 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. The contested norm, insofar a court may not re-examine the legality and validity of a decision by the person directing proceedings on a person’s right to get acquainted with case materials in proceedings regarding criminally acquired property, is incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme.
2. With respect to the limited liability company “Cell Finance”, insofar a court may not re-examine the legality and validity of a decision by the person directing proceedings on a person’s right to get acquainted with case materials in proceedings regarding criminally acquired property, the contested norm is incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme as of the moment when the violation of fundamental right occurred.

On Compliance of Section 50.21 (5) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court decided:

To recognise the contested norm, insofar it applies to a decision on increasing a sentenced prisoner’s regime for serving the sentence, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 January 2018.

On Compliance of Section 11(4) of the Law “On State Pensions” with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court ruled:

The contested norm, insofar it denies to a person the right to retire before reaching the full retirement age and demands establishing that the child’s disability had been recognised in accordance with criteria for granting disability status envisaged in regulatory enactments of the USSR, is to be recognised as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme.

With respect to persons, who have started protecting their rights in procedure established in the Administrative Procedure Law and to whom the contested norm is applicable, it is recognised as being invalid as of the moment of its adoption.

On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 9(1) of Insolvency Law and Para 26 of Section 4(1) and Para 22.2 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials” with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On 6 April 2017 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision to terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2016-10-01 “On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 9(1) of Insolvency Law and Para 26 of Section 4(1) and Para 22.2 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials” with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

On Compliance of the word “the Internet” in Section 32(1) of “Pre-election Campaign Law” with Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On 18 January 2017 the Constitutional Court decided to terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2016-09-01 “On Compliance of the word “the Internet” in Section 32(1) of “Pre-election Campaign Law” with Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

On Compliance of Law “On Expropriation of Part of Immoveable Property “Kaktiņi” in Lēdmane Parish, Lielvārde County for Public Needs to Implement Reconstruction Project of State Road E22 in the Section Rīga (Tīnūži) – Koknese" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court decided to recognise law “On Compliance of Law “On Expropriation of Part of Immoveable Property “Kaktiņi” in Lēdmane Parish, Lielvārde County for Public Needs to Implement Reconstruction Project of State Road E22 in the Section Rīga (Tīnūži) – Koknese” as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Section 356(2) and Section 360(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with Article 1, the first sentence of Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held :

1. To recognise Para 2 of Section 356(2) and Section 360(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law as being compatible with Article 1, the first sentence of Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To terminate legal proceedings in the case regarding compliance of Para 1 of Section 356(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with Article 1, the first sentence of Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
3. To terminate legal proceedings in the case regarding compliance of Para 2 of Section 356(2) and Section 360(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On compliance of the fifth part of Section 11 and the third and fourth part of Section 13 of the law “On Official Secrets” with the first sentence of Article 92, Article 96 and the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:
1) to terminate legal proceedings in the part regarding compliance of Section 11 (5) and Section 13(3) and Section 13(4)of the law “On Official Secrets”with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
2) to recognise Section 11 (5) and Section 13 (3) of the law “On Official Secrets”, insofar these norms with respect to annulment of a special permit provide that the Prosecutor’s General decisions is final and not subject to appeal, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 July 2018;
3) to recognise the second sentence of Section 13(4) of the law “On Official Secrets”, insofar it provides that following adoption of the final decision on annulment of a special permit a person must be transferred immediately to a job that is not related to official secrets or legal employment (service) relations with him must be terminated,as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
4) to recognise words“and henceforth he or she shall be denied receipt of a special permit” in the second sentence of Section 13 (4) of the law “On Official Secrets”as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 July 2018.

On Compliance of Para 42.1 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On State Pensions” with Section 1, Section 91, Section 105 and Section 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2016-03-01

On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 14 April 2015 No.187 “Amendment to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 November 2004 No.1002 “Procedure for Implementing the Programming Document “Latvia’s Rural Development Plan for the Implementation of Rural Development Programme for 2004-2006” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 14 April 2015 No.187 “Amendment to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 November 2004 No.1002 “Procedure for Implementing the Programming Document “Latvia’s Rural Development Plan for the Implementation of Rural Development Programme for 2004-2006””” as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Para 42.1 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On State Pensions” with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On 21 October 2016 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision to terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2016-03-01 “On Compliance of Para 42.1 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On State Pensions” with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

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

On 23 November 2016 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision on terminating legal proceedings in Case No. 2016-02-01 “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”.

On compliance of Section 363.20 (5) of the Civil Procedure Law (in the wording that was in force until 31 October 2010), insofar it denies the debtor the possibility to appeal against the decision by the court by which insolvency proceedings have been terminated without releasing the debtor from the remaining liabilities with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 363.20 (5) of the Civil Procedure Law (in the wording that was in force until 31 October 2010), insofar it denies the debtor the possibility to appeal against the decision by the court by which insolvency proceedings have been terminated without releasing the debtor from the remaining liabilities, as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.