Search

On Compliance of Section 9 (4) of Road Traffic Law with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held to recognise Section 9(4) of the Road Traffic Law as compliant with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Section 4 (1) of Law on State Funded Pensions with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held to recognise Section 4(1) of the Law on State Funded Pensions as compatible with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme.

On Compliance of the Binding Regulation of 26 August 2010 by the Council of Pāvilosta County No. 22 "Rules on Using of Construction in the Property at 2E Dzirnavu Street, Pāvilosta, Pāvilosta County" with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 13(1) of Insolvency Law, Insofar it Applies to Persons, Who Have Started their Activities in the Office of the Administrator of Insolvency Proceedings Pursuant to the Requirement Set Out in Section 13 of Law On Insolvency of Enterprises and Capital Companies with Regard to Higher Education in the Field of Economics, Management and Finance, with Article 91 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Law.

Combined case: 2011-04-01

On Compliance of Para 6 of Section39(1) of Public Procurement Law with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1) proceedings in the present case insofar as it applies to compliance of Section 39 (1) indent 6 of the Public Procurement Law with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia shall be terminated;
2) Section 39 (1) indent 6 of the Public Procurement Law insofar as it restricts the rights of applicants and tenderers of procurement procedures that have made all tax payments shall not comply with Article 91 of the Satversme and become null and void on 1 March 2012.

On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 13 of Insolvency Law, Insofar It Applies to Persons Who have Started Their Activities in the Office of the Administrator of Insolvency Proceedings Pursuant to the Requirement of Section 13 of Law On Insolvency of Enterprises and Capital Companies Regarding Higher Education in the Field of Economics, Management or Finance, and of Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of Insolvency Law with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1) the words “from 1 January 2017” of the first sentence, the words “from 1 January 2017” of the second sentence and the words “from 1 January 2012” of the third sentence of Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of the Insolvency Law do not comply with Article 1 of the Satversme and shall be null and void as from 1 March 2012;
2) Section 13 (1) (2) of the Insolvency Law insofar as it applies to persons who have started working as an insolvency procedure administrator pursuant to the requirement of Section 13 of the Law “On Insolvency of Enterprises and Companies” regarding higher education in economics, management or finance does comply with Article 91 and Article106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia in case if the legislator would amend the terms established in the first, the second and the third sentence of Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of the Insolvency Law before 1 March 2012 by ensuring persons with the possibility to meet the requirement of higher legal education in law within reasonable time frame.

On Compliance of Section 5 (4) and Section 21 (2.1) of Law On State Social Insurance with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the second sentence of Section 5 (4) and Section 21 (2.1) of the Law “On State Social Insurance” complies with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 22 (1) of Law On Land Reform in Rural Areas of the Republic of Latvia with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1. The second sentence of Section 22 (1) of the Law “On Land Reform in Rural Areas of the Republic of Latvia” insofar as it applies to persons whose ownership right has been restored by grating land of an equivalent value in another administrative territory due to objective reasons shall not comply with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. The second sentence of Section 22 (1) of the Law “On Land Reform in Rural Areas of the Republic of Latvia” insofar as it applies to Ms Inta Bogdānova and other persons, whose ownership right has been restored by granting land of an equivalent value in another administrative territory due to objective reasons and who have not been assured performance of cadastral survey of the land due to the fact that they have started litigating shall not comply with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be declared as null and void as from the date of its adoption.

On Compliance of Section 1068 (1) of Civil Law with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the first part of Section 1068 of the Civil Law does comply with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Land Reform in Republican Cities of Latvia, Insofar It Applies to Land Beneath Apartment Buildings, and of Para 40 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of the Binding Regulation of 21 April 2010 by the Council of Salacgrīva County No. DL-1/2010 "Spatial Planning for the Immoveable Property "Zivtiņas", Cadastre Reg. No. 66600030167, Salacgrīva County, Liepupe Paris, Tūja" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 78 (3) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 and Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2010-72-01

On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 78 (3) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 and Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1) legal proceedings in the present matter insofar as it concerns compliance of the first sentence of Section 78 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia shall be terminated;
2) the first sentence of Section 78 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law in conjunction with Section 238 (1) indent 6 of the Civil Procedure Law shall be regarded as compliant with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Section 59.5 of Credit Institution Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the Section 59.5 of the Credit Institutions Law does not comply with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be null and void as from the fate of publishing of the present judgment.

On Compliance of Section 14 (2) and (3) of Law On the Enterprise Income Tax with Article 91 and 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the Section 14 (2) and (3) of the Law “On Enterprise Income Tax” does comply with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Para 6 and Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Protection of Employees in Case of Insolvency of Employer with Article 1 and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1) Para 6 and Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Protection of Employees in Case of Insolvency of Employer” insofar as they apply to persons whose employer has been recognized as insolvent before 9 July 2009 fail to comply with Article 1 of the Satversme and shall become null and void as from the date of adoption thereof;
2) Para 6 and Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Protection of Employees in Case of Insolvency of Employer” comply with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Section 51 (13) Indent 1 of the Latvian Sentence Execution Code with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitution Court held that the Section 51 (13) indent 1 of the Latvian Sentence Execution Code does comply with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Section 6(1) of The Saeima Election Law, Insofar It Applies to a Judge, Who Has been Nominated as a Candidate, with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of the Words in Section 396(1) of Civil Procedure Law "or the pledgee who has the right to sell the pledge on the open market", the Words in Section 396(2) "but if the application has been submitted by a pledgee – also a true copy of the pledge agreement, evidence regarding warning of the debtor, unless it does not follow from the law that such warning is required", the Words in Section 397(1) "without notifying the applicant and the debtor thereof", and the words in Para 1 of Section 397(2)"the immovable property is owned by the submitter of the application or by a debtor of a pledgee and the pledgee has the right to sell the immovable property on the open market" with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2010-58-01

On Compliance of the Binding Regulation of 18 February 2010 by the Council of Grobiņa County No. 62 "Spatial Planning for Immoveable Property "Papardes" in Medze Parish" with Article 105 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2010-54-03