A case initiated regarding the prohibition to judges to combine offices
On 14 April the 1st Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated a case “On 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 91 and Article 110 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 allowed 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.”
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 State shall provide special support to disabled children, children left without parental care or who have suffered from violence.
The Facts
The constitutional complaint has been submitted by a judge, who has a disabled child that needs special care. The Cabinet of Ministers Regulation “The Procedure for Granting and Funding the Services of an Assistant in Local Government” envisages that a child in such a case is entitled to an assistant’s services that are paid for. The disabled person’s mother may also become his assistant.
However, in this particular case, allegedly the contested norm prohibits the submitter of the complaint to become an assistant to her disabled child. Thus, the rights of a family and a disabled child to receive protection, guaranteed in Article 110 of the Satversme, are allegedly violated. The submitter of the complaint holds that all parents of disabled children are in similar and comparable circumstances; however, the contested norm without objective and reasonable grounds prohibits a judge to become an assistant to his or her disabled child. Thus, the principle of equality is violated.
Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has requested the Saeima to submit a written reply on the facts of the case and legal substantiation by 14 June 2015.
The term for preparing the case is 14 September 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: 2015-10-01