A case has been initiated with regard to establishing the status of public official for the administrators of insolvency proceedings
On 16 January 2015 the 1st Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated a case “On Compliance of Section 2 of the law “Amendments to the Insolvency Law” of 25 September 2014 and the law “Amendments to the Law On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in the Activities of Public Officials” of 30 October 2014 with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”
The Contested Norms
Section 2 of the law “Amendments to the Insolvency Law” added a second sentence to Section 9(1) of the Insolvency Law, worded as follows: “The administrators of insolvency proceedings in performing their activities of office shall be equalled to public officials.” Pursuant to Para 34 of the Transitional Provisions of the Insolvency Law the aforementioned amendment will enter into force on 1 March 2015.
Whereas the law “ Amendments to the Law On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials” of 30 October 2014 envisages supplementing to the enumeration of public officials set out in Section 4(1) of the law On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials with a new paragraph, Para 26 “administrator or insolvency proceedings”. The law sets out that these amendments will enter into force on 1 July 2015.
The Norm of Higher Legal force
Article 1 of the Satversme: “Latvia is an independent democratic republic.”
The first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme: “Everyone has the right to freely choose their employment and workplace according to their abilities and qualifications.”
The Facts
The case has been initiated on the basis of an application submitted by sworn attorneys – Madara Volksone, Dāvis Volksons, Lelde Švāģere, Ivo Švāģers, Evija Novicāne, Kaspars Novicāns and Vija Ritenberga.
The applicants hold that the status of a public official that the contested norms establish for them as the administrators of insolvency proceedings prohibits them from being at the same time sworn attorneys, thus restricting the applicant’s right to freely choose their employment and workplace, established in the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme. The contested norms allegedly violate also Article 1 of the Satversme, which comprises the principle of legal certainty, since the applicants have developed legal certainty regarding the unchangeability of the legal regulation, i.e., that they would be able to combine the vocations of sworn attorney and administrator of insolvency proceedings. Likewise, the legislator has not envisaged a sufficiently long transition period and a reasonable mechanism for implementing the contested norms.
Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has requested the Saeima to submit a written reply on the facts of the case and legal substantiation by 16 March 2015.
The term for preparing the case is 16 June 2015. The Court shall decide upon the type of procedure and the date for hearing the case after the case has been prepared.
Linked case: 2015-03-01