Search

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

Constitutional Court held to recognise Para 2 of Section 4641 (2) of the Civil Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence in Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 3 of Law On the Service Pensions of the Officials of the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held to recognise Para 3 of Section 3 of the Law on the Service Pensions of the Officials of the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau, insofar it does not envisage including service in the institutions belonging to the system of the Ministry of Interior of the Latvian SSR into the service period, as being incompatible with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme.

On Compliance of Sub-para 67.1.3 (in the Wording of 28 December 2010) of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 31 October 2006 No. 899 "Procedures for the Reimbursement of Expenditures for the Acquisition of Medicinal Products and Medicinal Devices Intended for Out-patient Medical Treatment" with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held to recognise Para 3 of Section 671 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 31 October 2006 No. 899 “Procedures for the Reimbursement of Expenditures for the Acquisition of Medicinal Products and Medicinal Devices Intended for Out-patient Medical Treatment” with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Section 138 of Insolvency Law of 1 November 2007 with Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Annex 1 to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 7 July 2009 No. 733 "Regulations of the Level of the Proficiency in the Official Language and the Procedure of Testing the Level of Language Proficiency for Professional and Craft Duties, for Receiving of Permanent Residence Permit, and Obtaining the Status of Permanent Resident of the European Community, and State Fee for Examination of Skills of the State Language" with Article 91 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, as well as Section 6(1) of Official Language Law and Section 31 of Law on the Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers

Constitutional Court held to recognise Annex 1 to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 7 July 2009 No. 733 “Regulations Regarding the Amount of the Knowledge of the Official Language and the Procedures for Examination of the Knowledge of the Official Language for the Performance of Professional Duties and Duties of Office, Receipt of the Permanent Residence Permit and Obtaining of the Status of a Long-term Resident of the European Union and the State Fee for Examination of the Fluency in the Official Language”, insofar it applies to members of local government councils, as compatible with Article 91 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, as well as Section 6(1) of the Official Language Law and Section 31 of the Law on the Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers.”

On Compliance of the First Part of Section 257 of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise the words in the second sentence of Section 257 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code “[if such administrative violation has been committed, which is provided for in Section 1494, Paragraph seven; Section 1495, Paragraph four or Section 14915 of this Code (except for the violation provided for in Paragraph six) up to the implementation of the fine applied]:
1) with regard to Liene Vegnere, as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 14 June 2012;
2) with regard to other vehicle owners (holders indicated in the vehicle registration certificate), who have not committed the administrative violation for which a fine has been imposed and whose vehicles on the day when this Judgement is published are stored by the Provision State Agency, as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme and invalid as of the date when the decision was adopted in the respective administrative case;
3) with regard to other vehicle owners (holders indicated in the vehicle registration certificate), who have not committed the administrative violation for which a fine has been imposed, as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of the date when the Judgement by the Constitutional Court is published.
2. To establish the following procedure for implementing the Judgement by the Constitutional Court: the Provision State Agency, on the basis of this Judgement, shall return vehicles in its storage to the owners and holders of vehicles indicated in the registration certificate of a vehicle referred to in subparagraph 1 and 2 of Para 1 in the Substantive Part of this Judgement upon their request, irrespectively of the enforcement of the fine.

On Compliance of Section 567(3) 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 the 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 of Payment" with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1) to recognise Section 567 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law as being compatible with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
2) to recognise 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 paying it” as being incompatible with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 January 2014.

On Compliance of Section 5 of the Law of 12 March 2009 "Amendments to the Law On the Career Course of Service of Officials with Special Service Ranks Working in Institutions of the System of the Ministry of the Interior and the Prisons Administration" with Article 1 and 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held to recognise Section 5 of the Law of 12 March 2009 “Amendments to the Law On the Career Course of Service of Officials with Special Service Ranks Working in Institutions of the System of the Ministry of the Interior and the Prisons Administration" as being compatible with Article 1 and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Para 407.16.3, 434.23 and 572.6 of Aizpute Regional Council Binding Regulations No. 7 of 28 March 2012 "The Graphic Part and the Regulation on the Use of the Territory and Building of Aizpute Regional Spatial Planning for 2012 – 2023" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Para 434.23 and 572.6 of Aizpute Regional Council Binding Regulations No. 7 of 28 March 2012 "The graphic part and the regulation on the use of the territory and building of Aizpute Regional Spatial Planning for 2012 – 2023" as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”
2. To terminate legal proceedings with regard to compliance of Para 407.16.3 of Aizpute Regional Council Binding Regulations No. 7 of 28 March 2012 "The graphic part and the regulation on the use of the territory and building of Aizpute Regional Spatial Planning for 2012 – 2023" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”

On Compliance of Para 7 of Section 128 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with Article 90 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2012-17-01

On Compliance of the Words "if the Taxpayer Agrees to the Additional Amount of Estimated Tax, Fee or Other State-established Payment [Including a Late Charge That is Calculated for the Period of Tax Payment Delay Starting From the Following Day After the Setting in of the Term of Payment of the Tax up to the Starting Date of a Tax Audit] and, Within 30 Days as From the Day when a Decision of the Tax Administration on Results of the Tax Audit is Taken, Pays the Total Sum of Calculated Tax, Fee or Other State-established Payment into the Budget at the Amount of 15 Per cent of the Basic Tax Debt" in Section  33.3(1) of Law on Taxes and Fees, in the Wording that was Effective Until 9 November 2011, with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that with respect to cases still under judicial review to recognise the words included in Section 333 (1) of the Law “On Taxes and Fees” “if the taxpayer agrees to the additional amount of estimated tax, fee or other State-established payment [including a late charge that is calculated for the period of tax payment delay starting from the following day after the setting in of the term of payment of the tax up to the starting date of a tax audit] and, within 30 days as from the day when a decision of tax administration on results of the tax audit is received, pays the total sum of calculated tax, fee or other State-established payment into the budget at the amount of 15 per cent of the basic tax debt” in the wording that was effective before 8 November 2011, incompatible with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Para 3, Para 5 and Para 7 of Section 128 (2 )of Civil Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Section 86 (3) of Law On Judicial Power with Article 102 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held to recognise Section 86 (3) of the law “On Judicial Power” compatible with Article 102 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of the Third, Fifth, Seventh and the Eighth Part of Section 43.6 of Road Traffic Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Section 43 6 of Road Traffic Law, insofar it does not envisage the right to contest and appeal the report-decision to the owner (possessor) of a mechanical vehicle, who has not been the driver of the vehicle at the moment of committing the violation, which was recorded by technical means (photo or video equipment), without stopping the vehicle, as incompatible with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 October 2013, unless the legislator has improved the regulation envisaged by the legal acts in conformity with the instructions included in this Judgement.
2. To recognise Section 436 of the Road Traffic Law, insofar it regulates recording the violations of road traffic rules with technical means (photo or video equipment), without stopping the vehicle, as well as regulation on applying and enforcing the penalty, in the remaining part as compatible with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
3. To establish that until the moment the deficiencies of the aforementioned legal regulation are rectified, the fundamental rights envisaged in Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia of the persons referred to in Para 1 of the part of Ruling of this Judgement, shall be ensured by granting to them the same rights to contest and appeal the report-decision, which have been envisaged to the driver of the vehicle, who at the moment of recording the violation with technical means (photo and video equipment, without stopping the vehicle, was driving the vehicle.

On Compliance of Para 84.1 and 89 of the 31 October 2006 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 899 "Procedures for the Reimbursement of Expenditures for the Acquisition of Medicinal Products and Medicinal Devices Intended for Out-patient Medical Treatment" with Article 91 and Article 111 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Para 841 and the first and the second sentence of Para 89 of the 31 October 2006 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 899 “Procedures for the Reimbursement of Expenditures for the Acquisition of Medicinal Products and Medicinal Devices Intended for Out-patient Medical Treatment” compatible with Article 91 and Article 111 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”
2. To terminate legal proceedings regarding compliance of the third sentence in Para 89 of the 31 October 2006 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 899 “Procedures for the Reimbursement of Expenditures for the Acquisition of Medicinal Products and Medicinal Devices Intended for Out-patient Medical Treatment par” with Article 91 and Article 11 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Section 483 of Civil Procedure Law, Insofar It Establishes the Right of the Chairperson of the Senate Department of Civil Cases to Submit a Protest, with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1) to recognise Section 483 of the Civil Procedure Law insofar as it establishes the right of the Chairperson of the Senate Department of Civil Cases to submit a protest (in the wording, which was in force until 1 January 2013) incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
2) the cases, which have been initiated following a protest submitted by the Chairperson of the Senate Department of Civil Cases, shall be heard by an expanded composition of the Senate, ensuring to persons the right to an impartial court guaranteed by Article 92 of the Satversme.

On Compliance of the Words "up to 31 December 2011" of Para 41 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article 91. and 109. of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held to recognise the words and numbers in Para 41 of Transitional Provisions of the law “On State Pensions” “until 31 December 2011” as being compatible with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Section 50 (1) of Education Law with Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of the Words "but not Later than within Five Years after Coming into Effect of the Unlawful Administrative Act Issued by the Institution or the Date of having Performed the Illicit Factual Action" of Section 17 of Law On Indemnification of Losses Caused by Public Administration Institutions with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Sub-para1 of Para 16 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions insofar as It Applies to Invalidity Pension Recalculation Formula in Case of Change of the Invalidity Group Provided that the Beneficiary of Invalidity Pension before the Change of the Invalidity Group was an Employee or Made Social Contributions, with Article 91 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Para 16(1) of transitional provisions of the law “On State Pensions”, insofar as it applies to disability pension recalculation formula in case of change of the disability group provided that the beneficiary of disability pension before the change of the disability group was an employee or made social contributions at least for three years incompatible with Article 91 of the Satversme and invalid as of 1 October 2013, 2. To recognise Para 16(1) of transitional provisions of the law “On State Pensions”, insofar as it applies to disability pension recalculation formula in case of change of the disability group provided that the beneficiary of disability pension before the change of the disability group was an employee or made social contributions at least for three years incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia with regard to Uldis Strautkalns and other persons, who have started defending their infringed rights with general legal remedies, invalid as of the date of its adoption.