A case initiated with respect to a norm that prohibits the persons, criminal proceedings against whom had been terminated on non-exonerating grounds, to become a candidate for the office of a judge
On 15 October 2021, the 4th Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated the case “On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 55 of the Law “On Judicial Power” with the First Part of Article 101 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The Contested Norm
Para 3 of Section 55 of the law “On Judicial Power” provides that persons against whom criminal proceedings have been terminated for non-exonerating reasons may not be candidates for the office of a judge.
Norms of higher legal force
- The first part of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia (hereafter – 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.
- 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 applicant wishes to become a candidate for the office of a judge; however, in accordance with the contested norm, he has no right to do that because several years ago criminal charges had been brought against him and the criminal proceedings against him had been terminated on non-exonerating grounds.
The applicant holds that the absolute prohibition set out in the contested norm is not proportional since it is based on the unfounded perception that a person who once committed a criminal offence cannot change. The restriction on fundamental rights is said to have a legitimate aim – protecting the order of a democratic state governed by the rule of law and the rights of other persons by ensuring that only persons with good moral character become judges, as well as promoting society’s trust in the judicial power. However, it is alleged that these aims can be reached by measures that restrict a person’s rights to a lesser extent.
Namely, it could be possible to regulate the right of persons, referred to in the contested norm, to become a candidate for a judge’s office in a different way, by taking into account the form of a person’s guilt, the severity of the committed criminal offence, as well as the time that has passed since it was committed, or to provide for an individual assessment of the candidate.
It is contended that the prohibition set out in the contested norm not only does not bring public benefit but even could harm its interests because, in some cases, qualified and competent lawyers cannot become judges due to this prohibition.
Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has requested the Saeima, the institution, which issued the contested act, to submit to the Constitutional Court by 15 December 2021 a written reply, presenting the facts of the case and legal substantiation.
- The term for preparing the case is 15 March 2022.
The Court will decide on the type of proceedings for hearing the case and the date after the case has been prepared.
The decision on initiating the case is available here.
Linked case: 2021-41-01