Bilateral meeting between Constitutional Court of Latvia and Supreme Court of the Netherlands held in Hague
On 9 February, a delegation of the Constitutional Court of Latvia visited the judges of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in The Hague to discuss the protection of fundamental rights of future generations, rulings in controversial cases, and the limits of the legislator’s discretion in the field of taxation.
A day earlier, President of the Constitutional Court of Latvia Aldis Laviņš and his Advisor Andrejs Stupins-Jēgers also met judges of the Hague District Court. The meeting addressed the matters of effective cooperation between courts of different instances in civil proceedings in the context of upholding the right to fair trial. The Dutch judges also shared their experience on the effectiveness of the institution of advisory opinions/preliminary judgements, as well as the conducting of court hearings in the form of active dialogue between the judge and the parties in the case.
In the bilateral meeting with the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, the Constitutional Court of Latvia was represented by its President Aldis Laviņš, Vice-President Irēna Kucina, Judge Gunārs Kusiņš, Judge Jānis Neimanis, and Adviser to the President Andrejs Stupins-Jēgers.
During the first section of the bilateral meeting, the judges discussed fundamental rights as related to the principle of sustainability and the protection of the rights of future generations. In his report introducing the discussion, Judge of Constitutional Court of Latvia Gunārs Kusiņš drew attention to the application and the detailing of the principle of sustainability in the judgements of the Constitutional Court of Latvia in cases related to spatial planning, environmental protection, property rights, and social security. He emphasised that in applying the principle of sustainability, the Constitutional Court did not limit itself to the matters of environmental law. For example, in a case concerning the amounts of state-paid pensions in the context of the economic recession, the Constitutional Court stressed that the state was required to ensure the sustainability of the pension system, making it possible for future generations to also use the right to social security. A similar approach has been followed in cases concerning the sustainability of the state budget.
In her statement, Supreme Court of the Netherlands Judge Annemarie ter Heide discussed the challenges of protecting the fundamental rights for future generations, as courts will continue to have to weigh different rights and interests in situations where fundamental rights clash in the future. This makes it difficult to make an abstract prediction of the problem of protecting the fundamental rights of future generations, since the legal interests of the persons who will be part of these generations cannot yet be fully determined. At the same time, the state already protects the rights of unborn children, even though they are not yet considered to be subjects to law. Supreme Court President Dineke de Groot also noted that predicting and considering the threats to the fundamental rights of future generations also depends on our ability to objectively assess the information available today. If we do not handle the current challenges combatting fake news, this could jeopardise the right to fair trial in the future. In terms of environmental sustainability, de Groot emphasised the key role the courts play in helping people to engage in dialogue with state authorities, even when the executive and the legislative branches are passive and do not tackle the problems of climate change.
The discussion continued with the judges talking about their experience hearing cases involving controversial and high-profile legal issues. In her report, Vice-President of Constitutional Court of Latvia Irēna Kucina highlighted that the Constitutional Court often has to handle disputes critical to the constitution as well as politically sensitive cases based on such value questions as the democratic rule of law, equality, and the dignity of every human being. Different belief systems may exist within a society, and the attitudes towards the Constitutional Court’s rulings that specifically involve the issues of values vary. The higher the general public’s pluralism, the more mutual tolerance of different opinions and agreement on generally accepted values one has to exhibit. Irēna Kucina examined the cases examined by the Constitutional Court in which such value issues played a prominent role, analysing the actions of the legislator in implementing the corresponding rulings of the Constitutional Court.
Supreme Court Judge Tijs Kooijmans explained the high-profile ruling on life sentences, which played a particularly important role in the development of criminal law. The fact that the laws did not make it possible to revise life sentences was incompatible with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In that case, the Court pointed out that the legislation was to be amended in a way that gives persons convicted to life imprisonment a real possibility of a revision of their sentence leading to a possible commutation or probationary release. At the same time, the Supreme Court drew attention to its competence and instead of overturning the life sentence imposed by the appellate court and instituting a ban on life imprisonment, the Supreme Court postponed the review of the case to allow the government to introduce adjustments in the legal framework within the scope of its discretion.
As part of the third panel discussion of the meeting, the judges discussed the case-law and methodology of both the Courts in the field of tax law. In his introductory statement, Judge of Constitutional Court of Latvia Jānis Neimanis emphasised that the State is often believed to have broad discretion in the area of taxation, whereby the capacity of courts to supervise these matters is limited. But such opinions are an obfuscation of the rule of law, because the constitutional principles of a democratic state also apply to its tax system. For example, the principle of equality before law requires that the tax system be built in such a way that those who have the ability to pay are taxed proportionately. The duty of the state to protect the family in particular requires it to provide differentiated and more favourable conditions for the taxation of families. The principle of a socially responsible state requires the state to take vulnerable people into consideration and to use legal and tax regulations to support them.
Judge Arjo van Eijsden discussed the methodology that the Supreme Court of the Netherlands uses to assess the limits of the legislator’s discretion in making decisions on tax affairs. While the scope of this discretion is extensive, the legislator is limited by the requirements arising from the principle of equality before law, the test for restriction of the right to property, and international obligations. This makes it important for the legislator to provide reasonable justifications that can be objectively substantiated, for example, in the case of differential treatment in the field of taxation.
The Constitutional Court of Latvia supports and promotes cooperation and international dialogue. There are a number of legal matters that are difficult to address in isolation, within a single national legal system. From the point of view of the development of constitutional law in Latvia, it is important that the judges of the Constitutional Court always remain at the centre of advances in legal thought and actively participate in shaping its agenda. The meeting at the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in the Hague took place as part of a return visit, following the Dutch judges coming to the Constitutional Court of Latvia in March last year.