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 1 of Section 3 and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2014-12-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3, Para 1 of Section 4, and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2014-12-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3, Para 1 of Section 4, and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2014-12-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3 and Para 1 of Section 4 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2014-12-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3 and Para 1 of Section 4 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2014-12-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 36(2) of Protection Zone Law with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Construction in the Coastal Dune Protection ZoneOn Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3 and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2014-12-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3 and Para 1 of Section 4 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2014-12-01
On Compliance of Section 635(6) of Civil Procedure Law, insofar it Applies to the Reversal of Execution of a Judgement in Matters Regarding Recovery of Remuneration for Work, with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Reversal of an Execution of a JudgementOn Compliance of Para 1 and 2 of Section 3, Para 1 of Section 4, and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Subsidized Electricity TaxConstitutional Court held to recognise Para 1 and Para 2 of Section 3, Para 1 of Section 4 and Section 5 of the Subsidized Energy Tax Law as being compatible with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Subparagraph "f" of Para 1 of Section 3(1), Section 19.1 of Natural Resources Tax Law, the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 14 January 2014 No.27 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 June 2007 No.404 "Procedures for the Calculation and Payment of Natural Resources Tax and Procedures for the Issuance of Permits for Use of Natural Resources"" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Natural Resources Tax for Small Hydroelectric Power StationsConstitutional Court held :
1. To recognise Subparagraph “f” of Para 1 of Section 3(1) and Section 191 of Natural Resources Tax Law as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 14 January 2014 No. 27 “Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 June 2007 No. 404 “Procedures for the Calculation and Payment of Natural Resources Tax and Procedures for the Issuance of Permits for Use of Natural Resources”” as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Subparagraph 3.2 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 17 May 2005 No. 331 "Regulation on the Amount of Insurance Indemnity and the Procedure for Calculating it for Non-material Losses Caused to a Person" with the Third Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme and Para 1 of Article 15(1) of Compulsory Insurance of the Civil Liability of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law
Combined case: 2014-06-03
On Compliance of Section 495(1) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence in Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Arbitration CourtsConstitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Section 495(1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar it prohibits from contesting the jurisdiction of an arbitration court at a court of general jurisdiction, as being incompatible with Article 92 of the Satversme.
2. As regards the submitter of the constitutional complaint the limited liability company “HIPOTĒKU BANKAS NEKUSTAMĀ ĪPAŠUMA AĢENTŪRA” (at present – limited liability company ”Hiponia”) to recognise Section 495(1) of the Civil Procedure Law, to the extent it prohibits from contesting the jurisdiction of an arbitration court at a court of general jurisdiction, as being incompatible with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of the moment when the party’s, who submitted the constitutional complaint, fundamental rights were violated.
3. To recognise Section 24(1) of the Law on Arbitration Courts, insofar it prohibits from contesting the jurisdiction of an arbitration court at a court of general jurisdiction, as being incompatible with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Para 555 of Annex 16 "Tariffs of Health Care Services for Preventive, Diagnostic, Treatment and Rehabilitation Services" to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 17 December 2013 No. 1529 "The Procedure for Organising and Financing Health Care", insofar it does not Envisage a Tariff for Scheduled Birth outside Inpatient Facilities, with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Home BirthConstitutional Court held to recognise Para 7 of the 17 December 2013 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 1529 “The Procedure for Organising and Financing Health Care”, as well as Para 555 of Annex 16 “Tariffs of Health Care Services for Preventive, Diagnostic, Treatment and Rehabilitation Services”, insofar it does not Envisage a Tariff for Scheduled Delivery outside Inpatient Facilities, as being compatible with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Paragraph 3, Sub-paragraph 5.5. and Paragraph 10 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 17 May 2005 No. 331 "Regulation on the Amount of Insurance Indemnity and the Procedure for Calculating it for Non-material Losses Caused to a Person" with Article 105 of the Satversme and Para 1 of Article 15(1) of Compulsory Insurance of the Civil Liability of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law
Combined case: 2014-06-03
On Compliance of Para 7 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 17 May 2005 No.331 "Regulation on the Amount of Insurance Indemnity and the Procedure for Calculating it for Non-Material Losses Caused to Person" with the Third Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Para 1 of Section 15(1) of Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Motor Vehicles Law
-
A number of provisions in the Regulation by the Cabinet of Ministers that establish the amount of insurance indemnity and the procedure for calculating it for non-material losses caused to a person are incompatible with the Satversme
-
A Case Initiated Regarding a Norm in the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation, which Limits the Amount of Insurance Indemnity due to the Death of a Breadwinner
On Compliance of Section 16(4) of Law On State Pensions (in the Wording, which was in Force from 7 January 1997 to 30 September 2013, and in the Wording of 17 July 2013), Insofar it Applies to the Formula for Recalculating the Disability Pension if the Disability Group is Changed, if the Recipient of the Disability Pension Prior to the Change of the Disability Group Had Been an Employee and Had Made Social Insurance Contributions, with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Disability PensionOn Compliance of Para 55 and Para 56 of the Riga City Council Binding Regulation of 18 June 2013 No. 221 "The Binding Regulation on the Use of and Construction in the Territory of Culture and Recreation Park "Mežaparks"", as well its Annex No. 1 "The Planned (Permitted) Use of the Territory", Insofar They Apply to the Planned (Permitted) Use of the Immovable Property at 10 Pāvu Street, Riga (Cadastre No. 0100 095 0003) with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 15(1) of Law On Election of the Republic City Council and Municipality Council, Insofar it Does Not Allow Associations of Electors to Submit Lists of Candidates in Municipalities Where the Number of Residents Exceeds 5,000 and in Cities, with Article 91 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Candidates of Associations of Electors at the Local Government ElectionConstitutional Court held to recognise Section 15 (1) of the Law on Elections of the Republic City Council and Municipality Council, insofar it does not allow associations of electors to submit lists of candidates in municipalities where the number of resident exceeds 5 000 and cities, as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first sentence of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Para 4 of Section 17 of Deposit Guarantee Law with the First Sentence of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Deposit Guarantee FundConstitutional Court held to recognise Para 4 of Section 17 of Deposit Guarantee Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.