A case initiated with regard to recalculation of pension or discontinuing disbursement of pension to former military
On 15 January 2016 the 2nd Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated a case “On Compliance of Para 421 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On State Pensions” with Section 1, Section 91, Section 105 and Section 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The Contested Norm
The contested norm of the law “On State Pensions” provides: “If a person has been granted pension of another state for periods of length of insurance, which have been taken into account in granting or recalculation of Latvian pension, the Latvian pension shall be recalculated or disbursement thereof shall be discontinued, excluding such periods, if it has not been laid down otherwise in Regulation No 883/2004 or the international agreements ratified by theSaeima.”
Norms of Higher Legal Force
Article 1 of the Satversme: “Latvia is an independent democratic republic.”
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 105 of the Satversme: “Everyone has the right to own property. Property shall not be used contrary to the interests of the public. Property rights may be restricted only in accordance with law. Expropriation of property for public purposes shall be allowed only in exceptional cases on the basis of a specific law and in return for fair compensation. “
Article 109 of the Satversme: “Everyone has the right to social security in old age, for work disability, for unemployment and in other cases as provided by law.”
The Facts
An application has been submitted to the Constitutional Court by a number of natural persons. Before the contested norm entered into force, the applicants were receiving both the old-age pension of the Republic of Latvia and, as former military, the service pension granted by the Russian Federation. When the contested norm was applied their old-age pension (disbursed by the Republic of Latvia) was decreased or its disbursement was discontinued.
The applicants hold that their right to continue receiving the old-age pension granted by the Republic of Latvia has been guaranteed by the Satversme and that they had the grounds to feel certain that the pension would be retained and the disbursement thereof would not be discontinued. The applicants hold that the contested norm is incompatible with the right to social security, the right to own property guaranteed in the Satversme, as well as with the principle of equality and the principle of legal certainty.
Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has asked the Saeima to provide a reply on the facts of the case and legal substantiation by 15 March 2016.
The term for preparing the case is 15 June 2016. The Court shall decide upon the procedure and the date for hearing the case after the case has been prepared.
Linked case: 2016-03-01