A case initiated with respect to loyalty requirements set for teachers
On 10 January 2017 the 1st Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated case “On Compliance of the Fourth and the Sixth Part of Section 30, the Fifth and the Sixth Part of Section 48, Para 5 of Section 50, and Para 21 of the First Part of Section 51 of Education Law with the First Sentence of Article 100 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
Contested Norms
Section 30(4) of Education Law provides that a person, who has impeccable reputation, who is loyal to the Republic of Latvia and its Satversme, inter alia, does not breach the prohibition of discrimination and differential treatment of a person, has the relevant education and the necessary professional qualification is entitled to work as a head of an educational institution. A person who has a higher pedagogical education or a higher and pedagogical education is entitled to work as a head of a general basic or general secondary educational institution, as well as a person who has a higher education who is acquiring a pedagogical education.
Section 30(6) of this Law, in turn, provides: “If the State Education Quality Service or the employer establishes that the head of an educational institution or his conduct does not meet the requirements defined in the fourth part of this Section or Para 21 of Section 51(1), then the person is prohibited from being in the position of the head of an educational institution.”
Pursuant to Section 48(5), a person, who is loyal to the Republic of Latvia and its Satversme, inter alia, does not breach the prohibition of discrimination and differential treatment of a person, has the right to work as a teacher.
Section 48(6) of this Law, in turn, provides: “It is prohibited from being in the position of a teacher, if the State Education Quality Service has established, in procedure established by regulatory enactments, that the teacher or his conduct does not meet the requirements defined in Section 30(4) of this Law, the first and the fifth part of this Section, or Para 21 of Section 51(1).”
Para 5 of Section 50 of Education Law provides that a person, who has been dismissed from the position of a teacher, if it has been established in a procedure defined in regulatory enactments that his conduct does not meet the requirements set in Section 30(4), Section 48(5) or Para 21 of Section 51(1) of this Law and one year has not passed after legal employment relationship was terminated, is not entitled to work as a teacher.
Pursuant to Para 21 of Section 51(1) of Education Law, one of the general obligations of a teacher in the process of education is to bring up decent, honest, and responsible people – patriots of Latvia, to strengthen affiliation with the Republic of Latvia.
Norms of Higher Legal Force
First sentence of Article 100 of the Satversme: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to freely receive, keep and distribute information and to express his or her views.”
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.”
Facts of the Case
The application was submitted by twenty members of the 12th Saeima. They note that the prohibition to employ a head of an educational institution and a teacher, who does not meet the loyalty requirements, places disproportional restrictions upon the freedom of speech. It should be also taken into consideration that the freedom of speech is restricted no only in professional activities, but also in private life.
Likewise, the applicants hold that the contested norms place disproportional restrictions upon the right of heads of educational institutions and of teachers to freely choose their employment according to their abilities and qualification.
Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has requested the Saeima to submit by 10 March 2017 to the Constitutional Court a written reply, presenting the facts of the case and legal substantiation.
The term for preparing the case is 10 June 2017. The Court shall decide on the type of procedure and the date for hearing the case after the case has been prepared.
Open in PDF: 2017-03-01_PR_par_ierosinasanu_ENG
Linked case: 2017-03-01