Search

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.

On Compliance of Section 179 (1) of Credit Institutions Law with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 179 (2) of Credit Institutions Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1) to recognise Section 179(1) of the Credit Institution Law as compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
2) to terminate legal proceedings in the part of the case regarding the compliance of Section 179(2) of the Credit Institution Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme.

On Compliance of Para 3, Para 5 and Para 7 of Section 128 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with Article 90 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held to recognise Para3, Para 5 and Para 7 of Section 128(1) of the Civil Procedure Law as being compatible with Article 90 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Section 141 (1), Insofar as It Fails to Provide the Right to Submit an Ancillary Complaint for a Decision Rejecting an Application on Securing of a Claim and a Decision Rejecting an Application on Revocation of the Security of a Claim, with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held to recognise Section 141(1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar as it fails to provide the right to submit an ancillary complaint for a decisions satisfying an application on revocation of the security of a claim, as compatible with Article 92 of the Satversme.

On Compliance of Para 6 and Para 7 of 30 March 2012 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 311 "Provisions Regarding Number of Members of the Board of State or Local Government Capital Companies and Remuneration of a Member of the Council or the Board, a Representative of a Local Government Shareholder and the Chief Employee" with Section 96 (2) of Law On State and Local Government Capital Shares and Companies and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Section 11 (1) and Section 25 (1) of Law On National Referendum and Legislative Initiatives with Article 1, Article 77 and Article 78 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held to terminate judicial proceedings in the Case.

On Compliance of the Words "and a fine in accordance with Law On Taxes and Fees" of Section 33 (5) of Law On Excise Duties with the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Constitutional Court held to recognize the words “and fine in accordance with the Law on Taxes and Fees” in Section 33(5) and Section 33(7) of the law “On Excise Duty” compatible with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

On Compliance of Para 12 of Transitional Provisions of Waste Management Law, insofar as it Applies to Contracts Entered into not Applying the Regulatory Enactments Regarding Public Procurement or in Non-Compliance with the Regulatory Enactments Regarding Public Procurement, with Article 1 of the Satversme

Constitutional Court held to recognise the first sentence of Para 12 of Transitional Provisions in the Waste Management Law, insofar it applies to contracts, which have been concluded without applying or in on-compliance with the regulatory enactments on public procurement, as being incompatible with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 July 2013.

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 20 (1) of Law On State Social Benefits with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held to recognise Para 1 of Section 20 (1) of the Law on State Social Allowances as compatible with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Section 8 (2) of Law on Compensation for Losses Caused by State Administration Institutions with the third sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1. The word “only” of Section 8 (2) of the Law on Compensation for Losses Caused by State Administration Institutions do not comply with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be declared as null and void as from the date of its adoption.
2. Section 8 (2) of the Law on Compensation for Losses Caused by State Administration Institutions shall be applied by analogically applying the list of non-material rights and interests included in the words “or other non-material rights or interest protected by law” included in the first paragraph of the same section.

On Compliance of Para 4 of Section 6 (2) of Law on the Rights of Landowners to Compensation for Restrictions on Economic Activities in Specially Protected Nature Territories and Microreserves with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Para 4 of Section 6(2) of the Law on the Rights of Landowners to Compensation for Restrictions on Economic Activities in Specially Protected Nature Territories and Microreserves, insofar as it envisages the requirement that the title to property must be registered in the Land Register prior to the establishment of restriction on forestry activities as incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise Para 4 of Section 6(2) of the Law on the Rights of Landowners to Compensation for Restrictions on Economic Activities in Specially Protected Nature Territories and Microreserves, insofar as it envisages the requirement that the title to property must be registered in the Land Register prior to the establishment of restriction on forestry activities with regard to Sandis Cīrulis and other persons, who have initiated judicial proceedings for the protection of their fundamental rights infringed by Para 4 of Section 6(2) of the Law on the Rights of Landowners to Compensation for Restrictions on Economic Activities in Specially Protected Nature Territories and Microreserves, incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as of the date of its adoption.

On Compliance of Section 16.2 (4) and Section 19 (5) of Law On Budget and Financial Management with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 87 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Para 3 and Para 4 of 10 May 2005 Cabinet of Minister Regulation No. 312 "Regulations Regarding the Amount of the Blank Tape Levy and the Levy of Equipment Used for Reproduction and the Procedures for the Collection, Repayment, Distribution and Payment Thereof" with Article 64, Article 105 and Article 113 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that Section 3 and 4 of 10 May 2005 Cabinet of Minister Regulation No. 312 “Regulations regarding the Amount of the Blank Tape Levy and the Levy of Equipment Used for Reproduction and the Procedures for the Collection, Repayment, Distribution and Payment Thereof” fails to comply with Article 113 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall become invalid as on 1 November 2012 if the Cabinet of Ministers would fail to reassess validity of the list of blank tapes and equipment based on changes introduced by technology development according to the authorization established in Section 34 of the Copyright Law.

On Compliance of Sub-Para "c" of Para 19 of Section 9(1) of Law On Personal Income Tax (in the Wording of the Law of 22  November 2001) with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Section 62 (1) of Insolvency Law and Section 363.2 (2) of Civil Procedure Law, Insofar as It Fails to Establish the Right of the Court to Release Persons from Deposit Payment, with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held to recognise the norms of Section 62(1) of the Insolvency Law and Section 3632 (2) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar as these apply to employees, the only legal remedy of whom is declaration of the employer insolvent, incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Sub-para 3.1 5 and Para 11 of 13 March 2001 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 120 "Regulation on Funding of Residentship Education and Posting of Resident Doctors" and Para 11 of 25 August 2009 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 972 "Regulation on Funding of Residentship Education and Posting of Resident Doctors" with Article 91 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held to recognise Subparagraph 3.1 5 and Section 11 of 13 March 2001 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 120 "Regulation on Posting of Residents and Funding of Residency" and Section 11 of 25 August 2009 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 972 "Regulation on Posting of Residents and Funding of Residency " as compatible with Article 91 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of the Words "and the Annual Fee for the Land Lease shall not Exceed 5% from the Cadastral Value of the Land" of the Note to Para 1 and Para 2 of Section 12(1) of Law On Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Para 1 of Transitional Provisions of Law On the Social Protection of the Participants of the Chernobyl Nuclear Clean-up and Persons who Suffered as a Result of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station Accident with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Sub-programme 23.00.00 of Law On the State Budget 2011 with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held to declare the subprogram 23.00.00 of the Annex 4 to the Law “On the State Budget for 2011” “Itemised List of State Basic Budget Revenue and Expenditure according to Programs and Subprograms” compatible with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.