The Constitutional Court terminates legal proceedings in the case regarding norms that defined the criteria for assessing a scientist’s research activities in deciding on granting the rights of an expert
On 12 December 2019, the Constitutional Court adopted a decision in case No. 2019-02-03 “On Compliance of Para 3 of the Cabinet Regulation of 12 December 2017 No. 724 “Regulation on the Qualification Criteria of the Experts of the Latvian Council of Science, Establishing of Experts’ Committees and Organising of the Work thereof” and the decision of 15 January 2018 by the Latvian Council of Science No. 19-1-1 “The Procedure for Granting the Rights of an Expert of the Latvian Council of Science” with Article 1 and Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The Contested Norms
Pursuant to Section 18 (5) of the Law on Scientific Activity, the Cabinet Regulation No. 724 “Regulation on the Qualification Criteria of the Experts of the Latvian Council of Science, Establishing of Experts’ Committees and Organising of the Work thereof” was adopted on 12 December 2017, Para 3 of this Regulation, which is one the norms contested in the case, provides that with respect to the outcome of research activities referred to in Para 2 of this Regulation, which is being assessed in deciding on granting the right of an expert, the quality criteria in the respective branch of science, the procedure for assessing these criteria and for granting the rights of an expert is determined by the Latvian Council of Science.
On the basis of the aforementioned norm of Regulation No. 724, the Latvian Science Council adopted the decision of 15 January 2008 No. 19-1-1 “The Procedure for Granting the Rights of an Expert of the Latvian Council of Science”, which also has been contested in the present case.
Norms of Higher Legal Force
Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia (hereinafter – the Satversme): “Latvia is an independent democratic republic.”
Article 64 of the Satversme: “The Saeima, and also the people, have the right to legislate, in accordance with the procedures, and to the extent, provided for by this Satversme.”
The Facts
The case was initiated on the basis of an application by the Administrative District Court. The contested norms are applicable in the administrative case that this court is adjudicating and was initiated with respect to a person’s application regarding imposing the obligation upon the Latvian Council of Science to issue a favourable administrative act, i.e., to grant an expert’s rights.
Section 18 (5) of the Law on Scientific Activity is said to include Cabinet’s authorisation to regulate the issues related to defining qualification criteria for experts. Allegedly, the Cabinet does not have the right to derogate from the authorisation. The Cabinet had to define the criteria for assessing a scientist’s research activities in deciding on granting the rights of an expert. The Latvian Council of Science, in turn, can adopt only individual decisions with respect to a particular person in accordance with the qualification criteria defined by the Cabinet.
The Applicant holds that the principle of legality or the rule-of-law principle has been violated, as this principle provides that institutions of public administration may act only within the framework of authorisation established in law.
The Court’s Findings
On terminating legal proceedings because the contested norms have become void.
The Cabinet acknowledged that Para 3 of Regulation No. 724 had been issued ultra vires. Para 3 of Regulation No. 724 was deleted by the Cabinet Regulation of 23 April 2019 No. 172 “Amendments to the Cabinet Regulation of 12 December 2017 No. 724 “Regulation on the Qualification Criteria of the Experts of the Latvian Council of Science, Establishing of Experts’ Committees and Organising of the Work thereof””. Hence, also the procedure for granting the rights of an expert of the Latvian Council of Science has become invalid.
On 13 June 2019, the Saeima adopted the law “Amendments to the Law on Scientific Activity”. The Transitional Provisions of the Law on Scientific Activity provide that the Cabinet issues the regulation referred to in the fifth and eighth parts of Section 18 of this Law until 31 July 2019. With the coming force of the law “Amendments to the Law on Scientific Activity” on 1 July 2018 Regulation No. 724 has become invalid. Pursuant to Para 30 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law on Scientific Activities, on 9 July 2019, the Cabinet has issued Regulation No. 320 “Procedure of Granting the Rights of an Expert of the Latvian Council of Science and Establishing Expert Committees.” [15.]
Hence, as regards the aspect of authorisation, the contested norms have been replaced. No other circumstances requiring continuation of legal proceedings were established in the case. [16.]
In its decision, the Constitutional Court has underscored compliance with the principle of good legislation. It includes, inter alia, the legislator’s obligation to ensure, with the mediation of parliamentary control, that the authorisation granted by the legislator is exercised in accordance with the Satversme. This control is necessary to avoid contradictions in the legal system. This is particularly important in the area, which is so important for sustainable development of the state as the legal regulation on science. [17.]
The Constitutional Court decided:
to terminate legal proceedings in the case “On Compliance of Para 3 of the Cabinet Regulation of 12 December 2017 No. 724 “Regulation on the Qualification Criteria of the Experts of the Latvian Council of Science, Establishing of Experts’ Committees and Organising of the Work thereof” and the decision of 15 January 2018 by the Latvian Council of Science No. 19-1-1 “The Procedure for Granting the Rights of an Expert of the Latvian Council of Science” with Article 1 and Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The decision is not subject to appeal.
The text of the decision in Latvian is available on the homepage of the Constitutional Court: https://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/web/viewer.html?file=/wpcontent/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-03-_Lemums-par-tiesved%C4%ABbas-izbeig%C5%A1anu.pdf#search=
Linked case: 2019-02-03