Search

On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 8 of Law On Residential Tenancy with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2013-17-01

On Compliance of Para 4.1 and Para 15 of the Binding Regulations of 19 June 2007 of the Riga City Council "Public Order Regulations in Riga" with the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme

On Compliance of Para 4.3 and Para 4.4 of the Binding Regulations of 8 July 2008 of the Riga City Council No. 125 "On Taking Care of Riga City Territory and Maintenance of Buildings" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of the Binding Regulations of 30 May 2013 by the Council of Pāvilosta District No.3 "On the Spatial Planning of Pāvilosta District for 2012-2024. Rules on the Use of Territory and Construction, and Graphic Part," Insofar it Pertains to Zaļkalna Forest Adjacent to Nature Reserve "Pāvilosta pelēkā kāpa" and to the Part of Akmeņrags Forest Adjacent to Nature Reserve "Ziemupe", with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of the Sixth Sentence of Section 56.3(3) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme

Constitutional Court held to recognise the sixth sentence in Section 563 (3) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 8 of the Law On Residential Tenancy with Section 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1. To terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding Didzis Kalniņš’ claim (Application No. 230/2013).
2. To recognise the first sentence of Section 8 of the law “On Residential Tenancy” as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 464.1 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2013-14-01

On Compliance of the Words "joining in trade unions" of Section 49(1) of Border Guard Law with Article 102 and the Second Sentence of Article 108 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held to recognise the words “join into trade unions” in the first part of Section 49 of Border Guard Law as being incompatible with the second sentence of Article 108 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 464.1 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Para 8 of Transitional Provisions of Law on the Conservation of Species and Biotopes with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Para 8 of Transitional Provisions of the Law on Conservation of Species and Biotopes with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise Para 8 of Transitional Provisions of the Law on Conservation of Species and Biotopes with regard to Ltd. “Sātiņi-S” as being incompatible with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as of the date of its adoption.

On Compliance of Section of 43.2 of Road Traffic Law, Insofar it Affects the Rights of the Vehicle Owner in Administrative Violations Record-keeping, with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held :
1. To recognise Section 432 of the Road Traffic Law, insofar it does not provide for the right to contest and appeal against a report-notification to a vehicle owner, who has not been the driver of the vehicle at the moment when parking rules were violated, as being incompatible with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise Section 432 of the Road Traffic Law, insofar it does not provide for the right to contest and appeal against a report-notification to a vehicle owner, who has not been the driver of the vehicle at the moment when parking rules were violated, with respect to Inese Nikuļceva as being incompatible with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 December 2011.
3. To prescribe that until the moment, when the legislator has ensured compatibility of Section 432 of the Road Traffic Law, insofar it affects the rights of a vehicle owner in record-keeping regarding an administrative violation, with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the fundamental rights of a vehicle owner, who has not been the driver of the vehicle at the moment when parking rules have been violated, established in this Article shall be ensured by granting to him the same right to contest and appeal against the report-notification as the one envisaged for the driver of the vehicle.

On Compliance of Section 246 (2) of Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court decided to terminate legal proceedings in Case.

On Compliance of the Order of 8 February 2013 by the Minister for Environment Protection and Regional Development No. 67 "On Suspending Binding Regulation of 11 October 2012 by Jūrmala City Council No. 42 "On Approval of the Graphic Part of the Spatial Planning, Regulation on the Use of Territory and Building of Jūrmala City" in the Part" Regarding the Land Unit with Cadastre Registration No. 1300 002 1202 with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Section 10(1) and Section 10(3) of State Administration Structure Law, Section 26(1) of Spatial Development Planning Law and Section 49(1) of Law On Local Governments

On Compliance of the Words in Section 21 (2) of Latvian Administrative Violations Code "if the Fine Intended for it Does Not Exceed 30 lats" with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held to recognise the words of Section 21(2) of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code “if the fine intended for it does not exceed thirty lats” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Section 483 and Section 484 of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held to recognise Section 483 and Section 484 of the Civil Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence in Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On the Compliance of the Third Part of Section 567 of Civil Procedure Law, Insofar it Does Not Envisage Covering the Remuneration for the Duties of Office Performed by a Sworn Bailiff from the State Budget Resources, When the Enforcer of the Debt is Exempt from Paying the Costs of Enforcing the Judgement, with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Compliance of Paragraph 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 August 2011 No. 670 "Regulation on the Amount of Expenditure Necessary for Performing Enforcement Activities and the Procedure for Payment" with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2012-22-0103

On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 23(5) and Section 23.1(1) of Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initiative with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held to recognise Para 2 of Section 23(5) and Section 231(1) of Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initiative as being compatible with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”

On Compliance of Section 22(1) of Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initiative (in the Wording of the Law of 8 November 2012, which Enters into Force on 1 January 2015) and of Para 4 and Para 5 of Transitional Provisions with Article 1 and Article 2 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held to recognise Section 22(1) (in the wording of the Law of 8 November 2012, which enters into force on 1 January 2015) and of Para 4 and Para 5 of Transitional Provisions of the Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initiative as being compatible with Article 1 and Article 2 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 33(3) of Civil Procedure Law with Article 91 and Article 92 of the Satversme

Constitutional Court held to recognise Para 1 of Section 33(3) of the Civil Procedure Law as being compatible with Article 91 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 464.1 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2013-02-01