The Constitutional Court recognizes as constitutional the restriction to receive social insurance benefit when serving sentence in an open prison
On 21 June 2012, the Constitutional Court adopted a judgment in the case No. 2011-20-01 “On Compliance of Section 20 (1) Indent 1 of the Law on State Social Allowances” with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The term “full State support” in each individual case shall be interpreted when applying the norm
The Contested Norm
Section 20 (1) Indent 1 of the Law on State Social Allowances provides that disbursement of the State social allowances disbursed at regular intervals shall be discontinued temporarily while the recipient of the allowance or a child for whom an allowance is disbursed is fully State supported.
Facts
The Applicant Mr Andrejs Klišins does not have the right to disability pension due to the fact that his term of social insurance does not exceed three years; therefore, based on the Law on State Social Allowances, he has been granted the social security benefit. Pursuant to the Contested Norm, disbursement of the benefit has been discontinued due to the fact that the particular person started serving his sentence in an open prison and therefore it is assumed that he is fully State supported.
The Applicant indicates that normative acts do not define the term “full State support”. The purpose of the State social security benefit is reduction of consequences caused by disability rather than meeting of basic needs of a person (for instance, food, clothes, dwelling). The Latvian prison Administration [Ieslodzījuma vietu pārvalde] does not have means at its disposition to reduce consequences caused by disability; therefore needs of disabled prisoners are not met. Moreover, persons who have the right to disability pension become fully State supported and therefore they lose this right.
The Applicant indicates that the procedure included in the Contested Norm does not comply with the principle of equality established in Article 91 of the Satversme and infringes the right to social security included in Article 109 of the Satversme.
Court Decision and Ruling
On the scope of the Contested Norm
The Constitutional Court indicated that the Contested Norm is broad and it applies to all beneficiaries of benefits disbursed on regular basis, including socially non-insured persons with disability who have been granted State social security benefit. Moreover, being fully State supported means imprisonment of a person or keeping of them in other institutions, for instance, long term State social health care and social rehabilitation institutions, or specialized medical institution. The Contested Norm applies to cases when a benefit disbursed on regular basis is granted in respect to a child is fully State supported. The Contested norm assessed the Contested Norm only insofar as it applies to discontinuation of disbursement of State social security benefit to persons with disability who serve their sentence in a prison [11.2].
On the Content of the term “full State support”
The Constitutional Court concluded that one of the basic needs of persons with disability is health care services that prevent deterioration of health and reduce consequences of disability. Consequently, persons disabled persons need more health care services, and a disabled person serving his or her sentence in a prison is fully State supported only in case if the persons receives necessary health care services. Consequently, those needs that are related with the particular health condition of a person shall also be regarded as basic needs of disabled persons, and these needs should be met in case if a disabled person is fully State supported [12.3].
The Constitutional Court added that the fact that a person is fully supported by the State does not prohibit requesting participation in covering such expenses that exceed the mandatory minimum to be met [13].
On commitment of the State in the field of social rights
The Constitutional Court concluded that the right of socially non-insured and disabled persons to social security in Latvia are being implemented by applying one of the alternative means, namely, in the form of the right to receive State social security benefit or the right to receive health care when being fully State supported. If a disabled person serves his or her sentence in a prison, his or her right to social security at the minimum level are implemented in the frameworks of State maintenance. Consequently, the State social insurance system ensures exercise of the right of each socially non-insured disabled person to social security at the minimum level [14].
The Constitutional Court indicated that, instead of derogating from the positive duty of the State to exercise the right to social security at least at the minimum level, the Contested Norm protects welfare and rights of other persons and prevents double provision of health care to disabled persons serving their sentence in prison. Consequently, the Contested Norm restricts the right of persons to receive State social security benefit in certain cases, though the norm as such does not infringe the right to social security enshrined in Article 109 of the Satversme [14].
On relation of the present case to case-law of the Constitutional Court
In the judgment in the case No. 2003-22-01, the Constitutional Court concluded that disabled persons kept in prison who have been granted disability pension and persons who have been granted remuneration for the loss of capacity to work enjoy equal and comparable conditions (see: Judgment of 26 March 2004 by the Constitutional Court in the case No. 2003-22-01, Para 9 and 10).
However, in the present matter the Constitutional Court indicated that, unlike disability pension or other payment in the frameworks of social insurance, granting of a social security benefit and its amount does not depend on social insurance contributions made, the amount of these payments of the term of insurance, namely, beneficiaries of a social security benefits have not accumulated funds by making social insurance payments into the budget [16.1].
On compliance with the principle of equality
The Constitutional Court concluded that disabled persons serving their sentence in prison who have been suspended disbursement of a social security benefit and persons who have been granted disability pension do not enjoy equal and, according to certain criteria, comparable criteria [16.1].
The Constitutional Court indicated that disabled persons in freedom have the right to receive different kinds of social assistance and social security services from the State and a local government. However, the social security benefit and social assistance provided by a local government often is the only source for meeting the basic needs of disabled persons in freedom, including reduction of consequences of disability, though basic needs of inmates, like dwelling, clothes (in the case of necessity, also in open prisons), food and health care at least at the minimum level are covered from the State budget. Consequently, these groups of persons do not enjoy equal and, according to certain criteria, comparable criteria [16.2].
The Constitutional Court indicated that the normative regulatory framework that establishes the procedure for meeting the basic needs of prisoners and the amount of services to be provided, for instance, health care services, provide for the possibility to ensure each particular prisoner with services required. Likewise, disabled persons have the right to receive technical aids pursuant to Section 25 (1) indent 1 of the Social Services and Social Assistance Law. Consequently, it can not be recognized that an equal attitude should be ensured in respect to both groups of persons who do not, in fact, enjoy equal and, according to certain criteria, comparable circumstances [16.3].
On application of the Contested Norm
The Constitutional Court concluded that normative regulatory framework should be disassociated from the actual situation in respect to disabled persons serving their sentence in a prison and being fully State supported. However, this does not mean that it is not possible to make an exceptional conclusion that a certain person is not ensured full State support, for instance, due to lack of public resources. Consequently, the right of disabled persons to social security shall be exercised when applying legal norms, namely, when the State Social Insurance Agency [Valsts sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūra] and administrative courts would assess whether a particular beneficiary of the State social security benefit serving his or her sentence in prison is or not under full State support, namely, whether all his or her basic needs are met, including those needs that are related with reduction of consequences of disability [17].
The issue whether the Applicant is under full State support or not shall be decided when applying the Contested Norm rather than by the Constitutional Court [17].
The Constitutional Court recognized Section 20 (1) Indent 1 of the Law on State Social Allowances as compliant with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
The judgment of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it shall come into force on the date of publishing it.
Linked case: 2011-20-01