The Constitutional Court initiated a case on norms of the National Referendum Law
On 20 January 2012, the Second Panel of the Constitutional Curt of initiated a case “On Compliance of Section 11 (1) and Section 25 (1) of the Law “On National Referendum and Legislative Initiatives” with Article 1, Article 77 and Article 78 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
Contested Norms
Section 11 (1) of the Law “On National Referendum and Legislative Initiatives” provides that if the Saeima [Parliament] has not adopted without change as to its content a draft law or a draft amendment to the Constitution submitted by at least one-tenth of the electorate, this draft law or draft amendment to the Constitution must be put to a national referendum.
Section 25 (1) of the Law provides: If the draft law or the draft amendment to the Constitution has been signed by not fewer than one-tenth of Latvian citizens who were eligible to vote in the previous Saeima elections, the President of Latvia shall submit to the Saeima the draft law or the draft amendment to the Constitution.
The Facts
On 12 January 2012, the Constitutional Court received an application signed by 30 members of the 11th Saeima, wherein several claims were included, namely:
1) to suspend the Resolution No. 1 issued by the Central Election Commission [Centrālā vēlēšanu komisija] (hereinafter – CEC) on a national referendum on the draft law “Amendments to the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”,
2) to recognize Section 11 (1) of the Law “On National Referendum and Legislative Initiatives” as non-compliant with Article 1, Article 77 and Article 78 of the Satversme,
3) to recognize the Resolution No. 260 of the President of Latvia as non-compliant with Article 1, Article 77 and Article 78 of the Satversme and the Act of Proclamation of Independence of the Republic of Latvia and to declare it null and void as from the date of coming into effect,
4) to recognize the opinion of the Saeima Presidium as non-compliant with Article 1, Article 77 and Article 78 of the Satversme and the Act of Proclamation of Independence of the Republic of Latvia.
The case was initiated in respect to compliance of norms of the Law “On National Referendum and Legislative Initiatives” with the Satversme, whilst the rest of the application was rejected.
The application contains a request to apply a temporary measure, namely, to suspend the CEC Resolution No. 1 on a national referendum on the draft law “Amendments to the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia’ in order to assure execution of a judgment of the Republic of Latvia.
Pursuant to Article 16 of the Constitutional Court Law, this question was reviewed at the meeting of the Constitutional Court.
Judges of the Court decided that the Satversme does not grant the Constitutional Court the right to interfere with the legislation procedure, whilst the application of the members of the Saeima lack material arguments to apply the temporary measure before examination of the case No. 2012-03-01.
The Constitutional Court decided that there is no reason to suspend the national referendum of 18 February 2012 on the draft law “Amendments to the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”, which has been announced by the Resolution No. 1 of 3 January 2012 of the Central Election Commission.
Legal Proceedings in the case No. 2012-03-01
The Saeima was asked to provide, before 20 March 2012, a reply on the facts of the case and legal substantiation thereof.
The term of preparation of the case is 20 June 2012.
Linked case: 2012-03-01