A case initiated with respect to the compatibility of the amount of social security benefit with the Satversme
On 19 November 2019, the 1st Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated the case “On Compliance of Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 22 December 2009 No. 1605 “Regulations Regarding the Amount of the State Social Security Benefit and Funeral Benefit, Procedures for the Review thereof and Procedures for the Granting and Disbursement of Benefits” with Article 1, the Second Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The Contested Norm
Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 22 December 2009 No. 1605 “Regulations Regarding the Amount of the State Social Security Benefit and Funeral Benefit, Procedures for the Review thereof and Procedures for the Granting and Disbursement of Benefits”:
“2. The amount of the State social security benefit shall be as follows:
2.1. for the persons referred to in Section 13, Paragraph one of the Law On State Social Allowances, except persons disabled since childhood – EUR 64.03 per month;
2.2. for persons disabled since childhood – EUR 106.72 per month.”
The Norms of Higher Legal Force
Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia (hereafter – the Satversme): “Latvia is an independent democratic republic.”
The second sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme: “Human rights shall be realised without discrimination of any kind.”
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
The case was initiated on the basis of the Ombudsman’s application. The Ombudsman holds that the amount of state social security benefit defined in the contested norm is insufficient for providing for the basic needs of its recipients – healthy food, clothes, housing, health care, and compulsory education. Although the national economy has developed, the amount of the state social security benefit has not been reviewed for a long time. Therefore, the State has not duly performed its positive obligation to ensure to persons social assistance, which follows from Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme.
The Ombudsman points out that the amount of the state social security benefit causes social exclusion of its recipients and does not ensure to them equal opportunities, compared to economically active persons. Hence, the contested norm is said to be incompatible also with the principle of prohibition of discrimination, included in the second sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme.
The Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has requested the institution, which issued the contested act, the Cabinet, to submit a written reply on the facts of the case and the legal reasoning by 20 January 2020.
The term for preparing the case is 19 April 2020. The Court will decide on the type of procedure and the date for hearing the case after the case has been prepared.
Linked case: 2019-27-03