A Case has been Initiated with regard to the Prohibition for a Judge to Combine Offices
On 27 October 2015 the 3rd Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated the case “On the Compliance of Section 7(3) of the Law “On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials” with the First Sentence of Article 110 and the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”
The Contested Norm
The persons referred to in Section 7 (3) of the law “On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials” (also judges) are permitted to combine the office of a public official only with:
1) offices which they hold in accordance with the law or international agreements ratified by the Saeima, Cabinet regulations and orders, if it does not jeopardize the independence of the public official or institution, in which the relevant public official is employed, stipulated in laws and regulations;
2) the work of a teacher, scientist, professional athlete and creative work;
3) the work of an expert (consultant) performed in the administration of another state, international organisation or a representation (mission) thereof, if it does not entail a conflict of interests and a written permit has been received from the public official or collegial authority which has appointed, elected or approved the relevant person in the office or which is referred to in Section 81, Paragraph eleven of this Law;
4) the office in a trade union or association of the relevant profession, except the heads of the institutions referred to in this Paragraph;
5) the office in an association, if it does not entail a conflict of interests and a written permit has been received from the public official or collegial authority which has appointed, elected or approved the relevant person in the office or which is referred to in Section 81, Paragraph eleven of this Law, and if it is not provided otherwise by the law.”
The Norms of Higher Legal Force
The first sentence in Article 91 of the Satversme: “All human beings in Latvia shall be equal before the law and the courts.”
The first sentence in Article 110 of the Satversme: “The State shall protect and support marriage – a union between a man and a woman, the family, the rights of parents and rights of the child. “
The Facts
The constitutional complaint was submitted by a judge, whose mother is a disabled person. The mother needs special care. The Cabinet regulation “The Procedure for Granting and Financing the Services of an Assistant in a Municipality” provides that in this case the applicant’s mother is entitled to an assistant’s services that are paid for. A daughter of a disabled person also may become her assistant.
However, allegedly the contested norm prohibits the applicant from becoming her mother’s assistant. Thus, the right to the protection of a family, guaranteed in the first sentence of Article 110 of the Satversme, is said to be violated. The applicant holds that all relatives of disabled persons are under similar and comparable circumstances. However, the contested norms prohibit a judge from becoming an assistant to his or her relative (in this particular case – to a mother), without objective and reasonable grounds. Hence, the principle of equality established in the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme is violated.
Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has invited the Saeima to submit to the Constitutional Court a written reply on the facts of the case and the legal substantiation by 29 December of the current year.
The term for preparing the case is 27 March 2016. The Court shall decide on the type of procedure and the date for hearing the case after the case has been prepared.
Linked case: 2015-22-01