The Norm on the Jurisdiction of the Central Election Commission and the Supreme Court Senate is compatible with the Satversme
On 18 December 2013 the Constitutional Court passed a judgement in Case No. 2013-06-01 “On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 23(5) and Section 231(1) of Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initiative with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”
The Central Election Commission must register all draft laws submitted by the electorate, except for the cases, if the draft law obviously is not fully elaborated as to its content.
Contested Norms
Para 2 of Section 23(5) of Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initiative provides that the Central Election Commission refuses to register a draft law or draft amendments to the Satversme, if the draft law or draft amendments to the Satversme are not completely elaborated as to their form or contents.
Section 231 (1) of Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initiative envisages that the initiative group may appeal the decision by the Central Election Commission to refuse the registration of the draft law or draft amendments to the Satversme to the Administrative Cases Department of the Supreme Court Senate
The Constitutional Court, taking into consideration the circumstances of the particular case, assessed the contested norms only insofar these pertained to the evaluation of a draft law, submitted by the electorate, as to its content. [10.1]
Norm with a Higher Legal Force
Article 1 of the Satversme: “Latvia is an independent democratic republic”.
The Facts
The application is submitted by the Administrative Cases Department of the Supreme Court Senate (hereinafter – the Senate), which is examining the case concerning the decision by the Central Election Commission (CEC) not to submit the draft law “Amendments to the Citizenship Law” for collection of signatures.
The applicant expresses the opinion that the contested norm is incompatible with the principle of the division of power enshrined in Article 1 of the Satversme. The jurisdiction of CEC and the Senate, defined by the contested norms, is allegedly too broad. CEC must verify the constitutionality of the submitted draft law. The Senate, in its turn, in examining the legality of the CEC’s decision, must perform the control of the legislative initiative as to its content. Issues like these should be only within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
Court Findings and Ruling
On the jurisdiction of CEC
The Constitutional Court noted that the Central Election Commission must assess, whether the submitted draft law is fully elaborated as to its content. A draft law cannot be considered to be fully elaborated as to its content, if 1) it envisages deciding upon issues, which are not regulated by law at all; 2) in case of its adoption, it would be incompatible with the norms, principles and values included in the Satversme; 3) in case of its adoption, it would be incompatible with Latvia’s international commitments. [13.2]
In establishing, the scope of CEC’s jurisdiction in assessing the draft laws submitted by the electorate as to their content, the Constitutional Court noted that people should be able to influence decision taking in the state, that the will of the people should be the source of the state power [14]. The right to legislative initiative, in its turn, is an important tool, which the people can use to act as a legislator. Hence, CEC must register all draft laws submitted by the electorate, except for the cases, when it is obviously not fully elaborated as to its content [14.3]
On the jurisdiction of the Senate
In accordance with law, the Senate verifies the legality of the decision adopted by CEC. The Senate must establish, whether the submitted draft law really and obviously is not fully elaborated as to its content and whether the incompatibility of the draft law with the respective requirement has been legally substantiated in the decision adopted by CEC. [15.4]
The Constitutional Court also noted that it had exclusive jurisdiction to recognise legal norms as being incompatible with legal norms of higher legal force and invalid. However, also the administrative court, in the framework of each case, must verify the compatibility of the applicable legal norms with legal norms of higher legal force. [15.3]
Hence, the Constitutional Court recognised the contested norms as being compatible with the principle of the division of power.
The Constitutional Court recognised Para 2 of Section 23(5) and Section 231(1) of Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initiative compatible with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
The Judgement is final and not subject to appeal, it comes into force as of the day of its pronouncement.
Linked case: 2013-06-01