Obligation of local governments to dismantle objects glorifying the Soviet regime is constitutional
The Constitutional Court held that the norms imposing an obligation on local governments to dismantle objects glorifying the Soviet regime, partly financing their dismantling from their own budget, were compatible with Article 1 and the first sentence of the second part of Article 101 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court emphasised that the contested norms concretised the principle of continuity of the State in order to restore historical justice and protect the statehood of Latvia.
The case was initiated before the Constitutional Court on the application of the Daugavpils City Council. The applicant holds that the norms of the Law “On the Prohibition of the Display of Objects Glorifying the Soviet and Nazi Regimes and Their Dismantling in the Territory of the Republic of Latvia”, which establish the procedure for identifying the objects to be dismantled, impose on local governments the obligation to dismantle the objects, which must be fulfilled by a certain deadline, as well as provide that the dismantling of the objects shall be partly financed by local governments, violate the principle of local government derived from Article 1 and Article 101 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court concluded that the objects commemorating the Red Army to be dismantled according to the contested norms were erected with the aim of transforming the memories and emotions of the Latvian population about the crimes committed by the occupying power against individuals, humanity and the state system and to remind them of the permanent presence of the Soviet power. Taking into account the reasons for the origin of the objects glorifying the Soviet regime and the fact that local governments had been bound by the principle of continuity of the State since the adoption of the Declaration on the Restoration of Independence, the Constitutional Court concluded that even before the contested norms entered into force, only such actions of local governments aimed at eliminating the symbolic impact of the objects, such as dismantling the objects or placing them in accredited museums, were permissible. The contested norms which include the principle of continuity of the State have specified it by limiting the scope for the local government to take action in respect of the symbolic impact of objects and by imposing on it a specific obligation to improve the territory.
When assessing the impact of the obligation to dismantle objects on the performance of the autonomous function of local governments, the Constitutional Court recognised that the legislator had given local governments the discretion to choose the manner of dismantling, to plan the works to be carried out and the time when they would be carried out. Local governments were also given the opportunity to inform the public about the work to be carried out. Finally, the competence of municipalities to improve the area of the dismantled site in accordance with the local government’s perception of its external environment was not restricted. Moreover, the establishment of the time limit for compliance with the obligation contained in the contested norms was motivated, inter alia, by the increasingly active use of objects praising the Soviet regime for propaganda purposes and the growing threat to Latvia’s statehood. Consequently, the Constitutional Court concluded that the obligation to dismantle the objects established in the contested norms proportionately restricted the autonomous competence of the local government.
When assessing compliance of the obligation to finance the dismantling of objects with Article 1 of the Constitution and the first sentence of the second part of Article 101 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court concluded that the prevention of the consequences of the occupation and the promotion of the unity of society require cooperation between all levels of the State, both direct and indirect, directed towards a single objective and in solidarity. In addition, it is the legislator who has borne the greatest financial burden in the implementation of the obligation to dismantle the objects, as the state budget also finances the evaluation and documentation of the objects, as well as the inclusion and maintenance of original parts and fragments of the dismantled objects that meet certain criteria in the collection of the Latvian Museum of the Occupation.
Finally, the Constitutional Court found that the applicant was the only local government which considered that the obligation to dismantle the objects had imposed a disproportionate financial burden on it. In assessing the actual impact of the financial burden caused by the dismantling of the objects on the budget of the applicant, the Constitutional Court did not find that this burden had prevented the local government from performing its autonomous functions or other tasks, as it was equivalent to 0.018 per cent of the expenditure planned in the 2022 budget of Daugavpils, or 0.02 per cent of the planned income. In any case, the funds were used in the interest of the local government to improve its public environment. The Constitutional Court recognised that the principle of continuity of the State underlying the obligation to dismantle the objects, the unique nature of this obligation and the low financial burden were factors which, taken together, made it possible to conclude in the given case that adequate funding was available to the local government.
Linked case: 2022-41-01