A Case Initiated Regarding the Official Language Proficiency Requirements
On 13 December 2012 the 2nd Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated case “On Compliance of Annex 1 to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 7 July 2009 No. 733 “Regulations of the Level of the Proficiency in the Official Language and the Procedure of Testing the Level of Language Proficiency for Professional and Craft Duties for Receiving of Permanent Residence Permit, and Obtaining the Status of Permanent Resident of the European Community, and State Fee for Examination of Skills of the State Language” with Article 91 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, as well as Section 6(1) of the Official Language Law and Section 31 of the Law on the Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers.”
Contested Norm
The contested norm establishes requirements regarding the level of proficiency in the official language, providing that a member of a local government council shall have C1 level Latvian language proficiency.
Norms of Higher Legal Force
Article 91 of the Satversme: “All human beings in Latvia shall be equal before the law and the courts. Human rights shall be realized without discrimination of any kind.”
Article 101 of the Satversme: “Every citizen of Latvia has the right, as provided for by law, to participate in the work of the State and of local government, and to hold a position in the civil service.”
Section 6 (1) of the Official language Law: “(1) Employees of State and local government institutions, courts and institutions constituting the judicial system, State and local government undertakings, as well as employees of companies in which the greatest share of capital is owned by the State or a local government, shall be fluent in and use the official language to the extent necessary for performance of their professional duties and duties of office.”
Section 31 of the Law on the Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers defines cases, when the Cabinet of Ministers may issue regulatory enactments (regulations), i.e., if the Cabinet of Ministers has been especially authorised to do so by law, or to ratify an international agreement or a draft thereof, to denounce an international agreement or to suspend it, or if it is needed for applying the regulatory enactments of the European Union and if the respective issue is not regulated in law.
The Facts
Nataļja Čehova and Valērijs Kravcovs, the submitters of the constitutional complaint, indicate that the contested norm came into force three months after the local government election and that it sets out requirements that were not set for the candidates. These requirements, for example, do not apply to those, who have graduated from institutions of education with Latvian as the language of instruction. Thus, the contested norm allegedly violates the principle of equality and restricts the right established in Article 101 of the Satversme.
The Applicants hold that the Cabinet of Ministers has issued the contested norm without the legislator’s authorisation. The contested norm is also said to be incompatible with the Official Language Law, which sets requirements for the employees of the local government councils, but not for the council members.
The Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has asked the Saeima to submit a reply on the facts of the case and the legal substantiation by 13 February 2013.
The term for preparing the case is 13 May 2013.
Linked case: 2012-24-03