Search

Filter results

  • Stages of the proceedings
  • 1
  • More
  • Outcome of the proceedings
  • 1
  • More
  • Type of the proceedings
  • 1
  • More
Results: 1
Print
Case No 2018-24-01
On Compliance of Para 40 in the Cabinet Regulation of 30 May 2006 No. 423 “The Internal Regulations of an Institution for Deprivation of Liberty” provides: “Upon receiving the permission of the administration of the institution for deprivation of liberty, the sentenced persons may use in cells and common use premises during the period set in the daily regime their personal radio-broadcast receivers, television sets and video games attached to them. It is allowed to use personal fridges and electric kettles for storing and preparing food purchased from the store of the institution for deprivation of liberty.”
Adjudicated
Augstākā tiesa
28.06.2019.

02.07.2019.

On Compliance of Para 40 in the Cabinet Regulation of 30 May 2006 No. 423 “The Internal Regulations of an Institution for Deprivation of Liberty” provides: “Upon receiving the permission of the administration of the institution for deprivation of liberty, the sentenced persons may use in cells and common use premises during the period set in the daily regime their personal radio-broadcast receivers, television sets and video games attached to them. It is allowed to use personal fridges and electric kettles for storing and preparing food purchased from the store of the institution for deprivation of liberty.”

Case short name: Surveillance of the correspondence of the detainees

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Section 28 (2) of the law “On the Procedure for Holding under Arrest”, in the wording that was in force until 2 January 2018, insofar it envisages control of correspondence for the whole duration of arrest without an individual assessment of circumstances and without an identified threat to other persons’ rights or public security, as being incompatible with Article 96 of the Satversme and with respect to persons, to whom this norm had been applied and who have begun defending their rights in the framework of an administrative procedure but with respect to whom the administrative proceedings have not been concluded yet, as void as of the moment when the infringement on the rights of these persons occurred.