The think tank on How to strengthen the rule of law so that an individual would feel secure?
On Friday, 11 December, the Constitutional Court held a remote Constitutional ideas think-tank session on How to strengthen the rule of law so that an individual would feel secure? Raising the effectiveness of the implementation of the Constitutional Court judgments.
Participating and offering their opinion were the President of Latvia Egils Levits, the Speaker of the Saeima Ināra Mūrniece, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Aigars Strupišs, the Minister for Justice Jānis Bordāns, Judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union and former President of the Constitutional Court of Latvia Ineta Ziemele, the former President of the Constitutional Court of Latvia Gunārs Kūtris, and Justices of the Constitutional Court of Latvia. The session was chaired by the President of the Constitutional Court Sanita Osipova.
Opening the session, Sanita Osipova expressed delight at the fact that representatives of all the constitutional bodies which, within their competence, were responsible for the strengthening of the rule of law in Latvia, met for a joint discussion on raising the effectiveness of the implementation of the Constitutional Court judgments. “Behind every judgment of the Constitutional Court, there is the story and the future of the state and of a particular individual. It is important that an individual feels that the state cares about his or her rights and freedoms and has created instruments to safeguard them”, said the President of the Constitutional Court in elaborating on the theme of the think-tank session.
The State President Egils Levits spoke about the possibilities of improving the effectiveness of the implementation of the Court’s judgments and about the apparent problems in the process of such implementation. As one of the problems, the State President highlighted the lack of coordination. “One of the possible solutions is to return to how it used to be, namely, to having a representative of the Cabinet at the Constitutional Court. It functioned well but was terminated during the 2008/2009 crisis, when there were cuts in public administration. However, we see in practice that it worked well, as there was one official in charge, constantly monitoring and pushing the relevant officials in the Saeima and the Cabinet so that the judgments would be executed,” the President said.
The Speaker of the Saeima Ināra Mūrniece stressed in her speech that in parliamentary democracy with multi-party system the legislative process was and would remain a political one, whereas the administration of justice was a legal process. When thinking about a full-scale communication and understanding between constitutional bodies, one should realise that the criteria for adopting legal provisions in parliament are not the same as those for repealing them in the Constitutional Court. The Speaker emphasised: “Both the legal process in the Constitutional Court and the political process in the Saeima should strengthen the rule of law and be aimed at improving the quality of democracy and fulfilling the interests of the public.”
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Aigars Strupišs affirmed that the judiciary respected and, in passing judgments, observed the interpretation of legal provisions as laid down in the judgments of the Constitutional Court. Debatable issues are discussed as part of the dialogue between the courts. Speaking about the possibilities of introducing a mechanism to monitor the implementation of the Constitutional Court judgments, he expressed the opinion that such a mechanism should not become the only authority in matters of the interpretation of the judgments. In his speech, Aigars Strupišs also emphasised the need to jointly strengthen the public’s trust in the power of law. “The rule of law cannot just exist hypothetically, the operation of law needs to be seen,” said the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
“In view of the need to strengthen the rule of law and the public’s confidence in the judiciary, the Ministry of Justice declares its readiness to undertake the leading role in coordinating the implementation of the Constitutional Court judgments, with a specific solution proposed and institutional fragmentation reduced,” said the Minister for Justice Jānis Bordāns. He explained that effective supervision of the implementation of the Constitutional Court judgments should rest on three pillars: sufficient time for full-scale implementation; proper monitoring of whether there is a uniform understanding of the implementation of judgments, and the monitoring of their integration into the legal framework; an open dialogue between the Constitutional Court, all the branches of state power and the public about the impact of the judgments on the legal framework and the formation of state policy. The strengthening of the rule of law requires an overall public consensus, especially on the matters touching upon the values of our people.
In her speech, the CJEU judge and the former President of the Constitutional Court Ineta Ziemele singled out the three interconnected factors which predetermine effectiveness in implementing judgments. She said: “The Constitutional Court should continue to self-improve and work on the clarity of the reasoning provided in the judgments. This requires a constant reinforcement of the court’s analytical resources.” Ineta Ziemele pointed out that law studies needed to be strengthened in Latvia, as court judgments required high-quality scholarly commentaries. She emphasised that the communication practice established by the Constitutional Court of Latvia was relatively unique for Europe and should be viewed as a privilege by other constitutional bodies – addressees of judgments. Ineta Ziemele expressed the opinion that the Ministry of Justice should become a focal point where the Court’s rulings are comprehended, through a cross-sectoral and cross-disciplinary lens, for effective implementation, with all the available information taken into account, including the Justices’ dissenting opinions and the commentaries of scholars.
The former President of the Constitutional Court Gunārs Kūtris stressed that the judgments of the Constitutional Court were generally being implemented. “The Constitutional Court Law also gives the Court wide discretion to influence the implementation of its judgments by specifying the time when the contested provision ceases to be in force. Furthermore, the Court may point to an implementation mechanism in the judgment, for example, by setting strict criteria as to the content of the new regulation,” said Kūtris. He suggested that the Constitutional Court should include information about the implementation of the judgments in the Court’s annual report and continue with all its annual dialogue-oriented activities, which allow bringing up the effective implementation of judgments as one of the topics.
Vice President of the Constitutional Court Aldis Laviņš accentuated the Court’s dialogue with the representatives of other constitutional bodies and with other courts. This dialogue is necessary as it allows to strengthen the relationships of mutual respect, as well as to discuss problematic issues, including those concerning the implementation of judgments, on an intermittent basis. “What I see is a responsible driving force which steers the process so that discussions take place and the judgments of the Constitutional Court are implemented accurately,” stressed Laviņš. At the same time, he admitted that the competence of supervising the implementation of the Constitutional Court judgments should not be vested in just one body.
“We are working on behalf of the Latvian sovereign, for this country to be democratic, ruled by law, and independent. This is our basic norm, whose observance we can only ensure by working together,” stressed the Constitutional Court Justice Daiga Rezevska. She spoke about the role of the Constitutional Court in a democratic rule-of-law state, the principle of good legislation, and the adoption of lawful decisions. She expressed the conviction that the work of the Constitutional Court was not finished with the announcement of judgment: the Court should promote the understanding of its judgment using the public means at its disposal.
The Constitutional Court Justice Artūrs Kučs emphasised the importance of the think-tank session’s theme in Latvia, pointing out several other European countries where the theme was not relevant as there had been dangerous attacks on the judiciary, challenging democracy and the rule of law. He spoke about the communication constraints for the Constitutional Court Justices when providing information on judgments. “Raising the effectiveness of the implementation of the Constitutional Court judgments requires a coordinating institution at the level of the executive power, which in a specific situation will cooperate with the bodies involved and carry out the necessary analysis of judgments prior to their implementation,” said Kučs.
In closing the session, the President of the Court Sanita Osipova stressed: “The state is a single organism, which functions and communicates as a whole, whose actions are deliberate and aimed at strengthening a law-governed, democratic, independent Republic of Latvia.”
Photo: screenshot from the think-thank.
The think-tank session was held to mark the 24th birthday of the Constitutional Court and as a symbolic opening of the next year – an anniversary year for the Court.
The recording of the session is available here:
About the think tank
December 2018 was when the Constitutional Court organised the first session of the Constitutional law experts’ think tank and thus established a new tradition in honour of the Court’s birthday. Its aim was to invite and bring together constitutional law scholars in order to discuss the constitutional law issues of current importance in Latvia. During the first session, the participants shared their thoughts and searched for answers to questions related to the following themes: “Identity and nationalism”; “Marriage and family as a value”; “State consolidation instruments in the next century”.
The video is available here:
The second think-tank session took place in December 2019. In it, constitutional law scholars discussed the themes such as “The improvement of the legislative process as the background for the development of a democratic rule-of-law state” and “The significance of the Constitutional Court judgments in Latvia”.
The video is available here: