Restriction on the full participation of a Member of the Saeima non-vaccinated against COVID-19 in the work of the Saeima is unconstitutional
The Constitutional Court held that the norms which established vaccination against COVID-19 as a precondition for participation in the work of the Saeima as a Member of the Saeima did not comply with the first part of Article 101 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court emphasised that every Member of the Saeima had a fundamental role in Latvia as a parliamentary democracy. Even a view expressed by just one or a few MPs is relevant to the work of the Saeima. A Member of the Saeima can represent the people, including expressing the will of the people, only if he or she is given the opportunity to exercise the rights that are crucial to the work of a Member of the Saeima.
The case was initiated before the Constitutional Court after Constitutional complaints by a Member of the 13th Saeima. The applicant considers that Section 2 of the Law “On Temporary Additional Requirements for the Work of Members of the Saeima and Municipal Councillors” infringes her right to inviolability of private life, as well as the right to participate in the activities of the State, enshrined in Article 96 and Article 101(1) of the Constitution, respectively. According to the contested norm, in order to be able to participate in the work of the Saeima from 15 November 2021, a Member of the Saeima had to submit to the Saeima’s Mandates, Ethics and Submissions Committee a vaccination or re-vaccination certificate or an opinion of a clinical specialist or council of a university hospital on postponing vaccination for a certain period, together with a certificate of a negative COVID‑19 test result. The applicant did not submit a certificate or the council opinion, and was therefore restricted in her ability to participate in remote and in-person meetings of the Saeima and its committees.
In examining the case, the Constitutional Court first of all assessed whether the prohibition for a Member of the Saeima to participate in the work of the Saeima established in the contested norm complied with the right to participate in the activities of the State enshrined in Article 101(1) of the Constitution.
In assessing the restriction of the applicant’s right contained in the contested norm, which prevented her from participating in remote sessions of the Saeima and its committees, The Constitutional Court found that the restriction was aimed at increasing vaccination coverage in order to reduce the number of persons infected with COVID-19, thereby easing the workload of hospitals and the health care system as a whole. Consequently, the legitimate aim of the restriction provided for in the contested norm was the protection of the public welfare. The Constitutional Court drew attention to the fact that although solidarity with the public in overcoming the COVID-19 crisis and public confidence in the Saeima and the policy of managing the spread of COVID-19 infection in the country were important values, they could not be recognised as a legitimate aim for which the right of a Member of the Saeima to participate in the work of the Saeima should be restricted.
Consequently, the Constitutional Court assessed whether the negative consequences incurred by the applicant due to restricting her rights do not exceed the benefit created by this restriction for the public in general. The Constitutional Court concluded that each Member of the Saeima had a special role in Latvia as a parliamentary democracy. Even a view expressed by just one or a few MPs is relevant to the work of the Saeima. A Member of the Saeima may represent the people, including expressing the will of the people, only if he or she is guaranteed the right to participate in meetings of the Saeima and its committees, the right to speak and the right to vote. Although the applicant retained some of her rights as a Member, the possibility of exercising them is not equivalent to the aforementioned rights as a Member.
When assessing the restriction on participation in-person sessions of the Saeima established in the contested norm, the Constitutional Court concluded that its legitimate aim was the protection of the rights of other persons. At the same time, the Constitutional Court found that the state of emergency was terminated as of 1 March 2022 and, with its termination, a number of restrictions, including on employment, were lifted. The requirement for a vaccination or a certificate of exposure to the disease was maintained until 31 March 2022 for only four groups of workers. On 15 February 2022, the Cabinet of Ministers predicted, on the basis of expert advice, that the situation would improve. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court recognised that the legislator was obliged to react without delay to the changes in the situation in relation to overcoming the COVID-19 crisis. The COVID-19 crisis required coordinated action by public authorities. Moreover, it was necessary to take into account the specific role of each Member of the Saeima in a democratic state governed by the rule of law and the fact that the contested norm restricted the rights of a Member of the Saeima which are of decisive importance for the work of a Member of the Saeima. Moreover, the Saeima itself had already recognised on 28 February 2022, when the Saeima Presidium decided that the Saeima would meet in person on 3 March 2022, that the epidemiological safety requirements could be relaxed by retaining the requirement to wear a medical mask and to keep a distance between persons.
The Constitutional Court recognised that at the time when the responsible institutions no longer saw the need to maintain the same strict epidemiological safety requirements as they had been in the autumn of 2021, there was no objective basis for continuing to restrict the right of a Member of the Saeima to attend in-person meetings of the Saeima. Therefore, the contested norm was held to be non-compliant with the first sentence of Article 101 of the Constitution. Since the contested norm has been declared incompatible with the first part of Article 101 of the Constitution, The Constitutional Court held that it was not necessary to assess the compatibility of this norm with Article 96 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court recognised the contested norm as null and void as of 15 November 2021, i.e., as of the moment when the applicant was deprived of the right to fully participate in the work of the Saeima.
Linked case: 2022-20-01