The Constitutional Court Terminates Judicial Proceedings in the Case on a Norm of the Education Law
On 12 February 2012 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision on terminating the judicial proceedings in Case No. 2012-11-01 “On Compliance of Section 50 (1) of the Education Law with Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The Contested Norm
At the time of submitting the application Section 50 (1) of the Education Law provided that a person who had been punished for an intentional crime and had not been rehabilitated, was not allowed to work as a teacher.
Norm of Higher Legal Force
Article 106 of the Satversme: “Everyone has the right to freely choose their employment and workplace according to their abilities and qualifications. Forced labour is prohibited. Participation in the relief of disasters and their effects, and work pursuant to a court order shall not be deemed forced labour.“
The Facts
The applicant, Mr Leons Cēbergs, on the basis of the contested norm was formerly dismissed from his position as the principal of an educational institution. The applicant holds that the contested norm infringes upon his right to choose occupation freely and is disproportional, since the scope of the contested norm is too broad, covering absolutely all intentional crimes, for example, as in the applicant’s case – entering false information in the public official’s income declaration set out in the law.
The Saeima informs that on 5 July 2012 at an extraordinary sitting law “Amendments to the Education Law” was adopted, which provided new wording of the contested norm. The new wording of the Law provides that “a person, who has been punished for committing an intentional crime (irrespectively of the extinguishment or setting aside of criminal record), except for the cases, when following the extinguishment or setting aside of criminal record an institution appointed by the Cabinet of Ministers has assessed, whether this does not harm the interests of the students and has allowed a person, who had been punished for committing an intentional crime or a less severe offence, to work as a teacher. The Cabinet of Ministers shall lay down the procedure for assessing, whether allowing such a person to work as a teacher will not harm the interests of the students.”
The Saeima holds that these amendments eliminate the deficiencies of the regulation referred to by the applicant, which could have testified of an incompatibility of the contested norm with Article 106 of the Satversme. The applicant, having acquainted himself with the materials of the case, expressed satisfaction that the Saeima and the summoned persons had recognised that the contested norm was incompatible with Article 106 of the Satversme and that “the Saeima amended the contested norm.”
Court Findings and Rulings
The Constitutional Court recognised that the Saeima had eliminated the conditions, which were the ground for submitting the application to the Constitutional Court.
Thus, the Constitutional Court terminates the judicial proceedings in Case No. 2012-11-01 “On Compliance of Section 50 (1) of the Education Law with Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
However, the Constitutional Court drew the attention of the Saeima and the Cabinet of Ministers to the fact that the contested norm had been amended, but the mechanism for ensuring the personal rights had not yet been established, i.e., the Cabinet of Ministers had neither appointed the institution, which would perform the assessment, nor established the procedure for assessing, whether a person, who had been punished for committing an intentional crime, was allowed to work as a teacher and whether this would not be harm the students’ interests. A situation like this might infringe upon a person’s fundamental rights enshrined in the Satversme. [11]
The decision of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal.
Linked case: 2012-11-01