A case initiated with respect to norms that defined the state budget financing for political parties
On 30th August 2021, the 2nd Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated the case “On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 7 1 (1) of the Law on Financing Political Organisations (Parties) with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The Contested Norm
Para 2 of Section 7 1 (1) of the Law on Financing Political Organisations (Parties) provides that a political organisation (party) for which more than two per cent of voters have voted in the last elections of the Saeima are granted the State budget financing within a calendar year in the amount of EUR 0.50 for each vote acquired in the last elections of the Saeima.
The Norm of Higher Legal Force
The first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia (hereafter – the Satversme): “All human beings in Latvia shall be equal before the law and the courts.”
The Facts
The case was initiates with respect to an application submitted by the political party “Mēs – Talsiem un novadam” [We – for Talsi and the region] (hereafter – the Applicant). The Applicant was founded in February 2017 with the aim of defending and implementing the interests of the inhabitants of Talsi region. The Applicant participated in the election of the Talsi Regional Council on 3 July 2017 with a separate list of candidates and obtained three seats in the Council, as well as in the election of the Talsi Regional Council on 5 June 2021, gaining four seats in the Council. Pursuant to the contested norm, the state budget financing is granted only to those political organisations (parties), for whom more than two per cent of electors voted at the Saeima election. Allegedly, this creates for these political organisations (parties) obvious and considerable advantages vis-à-vis parties that have been elected to the local government council but have not participated in the Saeima election. This procedure is said to be particularly unequal for the parties that have been elected to a local government council but have not participated in the Saeima election, inter alia, also because the state budget financing is granted also for each vote obtained at the local government election. Hence, it is alleged that the contested norm violates the principle of legal equality enshrined in the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme.
Legal proceedings
The Constitutional Court has requested the Saeima, the institution, which issued the contested act, to submit to the Constitutional Court by 1 November 2021 a written reply, presenting the facts of the case and legal substantiation.
- The term for preparing the case is 31 January 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: 2021-36-01