A case on the right of a person to perform the work of a teacher if he/she has been punished for an intentional less serious crime has been initiated before the Constitutional Court
A case “On Compliance of Section 50(1)(1) of the Education Law with Article 106 of the Constitution” has been initiated before the Constitutional Court.
The contested provision stipulates that a person who has been convicted of committing a deliberate criminal offence (irrespective of the extinguishment or removal of the criminal record) may not work as a teacher, unless after the extinguishment or removal of the criminal record the State Education Quality Service has assessed whether it is not detrimental to the interests of pupils and has allowed that person to work as a teacher.
It appears from the application and the documents annexed to it that the applicant has been found guilty of deliberately committing a less serious crime. On the basis of the contested provision, the employment relationship with the applicant was terminated. The application indicates that the contested provision, with regard to persons whose criminal record has not been extinguished or removed, provides for a mandatory prohibition to work as a teacher, i.e., in such cases it is not individually assessed whether the permission to work as a teacher for a person who has been convicted of a deliberate less serious criminal offence would not harm the interests of pupils. Therefore, the fundamental rights of the applicant included in Article 106 of the Constitution have been infringed by the contested provision.
The Constitutional Court invited the institution that has issued the contested law – the Saeima – to submit to the Constitutional Court a reply with the explanation of the actual circumstances of the case and the legal basis by 15 September 2023.
The deadline for preparing the case is 15 December 2023. The Court shall decide on the procedure and date for hearing the case after the case is prepared.
Linked case: 2023-34-01