Speech by the President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia Aldis Laviņš at the opening of the bilateral meeting with the European Court of Human Rights
Strasbourg, 18 April 2024
Dear Colleagues!
Our visit today is a significant moment, because the judges of the Constitutional Court in a full composition visit the European Court of Human Rights for the first time in our 27 years history. So far, we have hosted only individual judges at the Constitutional Court of Latvia, organized staff exchange visits and met at various conferences.
This is the last international visit for this composition of judges all together, and we hope that the next squad, which will consist of only four of the judges present today, will be just as active in their international cooperation. Dialogue on the international level is crucial to ensure that our legal thought remains at the forefront of legal exchange in Europe and beyond.
We are grateful for the responsiveness of the European Court of Human Rights in the dialogue, both at the level of judges and employees. Our Legal Department visited the European Court of Human Rights in October, receiving invaluable support in many specific legal issues. Some of them also seemed so important to us, the judges, that tomorrow we will meet with the Directorate of Filtering and Support Services to familiarize ourselves with such topics as life of an application before the Strasbourg Court and identification and enhanced processing of applications of strategic importance.
The judicial dialogue in the European legal area and international cooperation includes the dialogue of the Constitutional Court with the courts of Latvia, the constitutional courts of other countries, the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. This judicial dialogue allows to share experience, accumulate new knowledge, engage in constructive discussions and exchange views on current issues and challenges in constitutional law not only at the national level, but also at the European and global level.
Today’s meeting in itself is a great example of one of the forms of dialogue. There are actually many more such forms of our dialogue than it might seem at first glance. But it will be explained in depth in the report by Vice President Irēna Kucina.
However, I would like to emphasize one aspect of our dialogue that is particularly relevant in Latvia at this very moment. To ensure the highest possible standard of protection of the rights of every member of Latvian society, the Constitutional Court has come forward with various proposals in the past year. We have drawn attention to the fact that the Constitutional Court is still lacking procedural means that would allow it, if necessary, to apply to the European Court of Human Rights to obtain an interpretation of a rule of law applicable in a difficult legal situation, as Latvia has not ratified Protocol 16 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. I believe that the consideration and ratification of this Protocol by the Saeima should become a national priority, which will provide greater opportunities to protect the human rights of every Latvian citizen.
Today’s meeting will bring us even closer to a common understanding of how the competences of the two courts work together, defending everyone’s fundamental rights and the rule of law. Both directions of dialogue are equally important – in order to solve legal problems at the national level, the vision of the European Court of Human Rights is useful, because it knows the current challenges in all member states of the Council of Europe. And vice versa – it is also important for the Strasbourg Court itself to look deeper into the actualities and specifics of national courts, thus predicting the issues that could end up on its agenda.
One such issue, where it is important to understand the specifics both at the national and international level, is about a “principle of good legislation, derived from the principle of a state governed by the rule of law”.
For the first time the Constitutional Court of Latvia referred to it only on 6 March 2019. Since then, this general principle of law has been referred extensively in the case-law of the Constitutional Court. Broadly speaking, the elements contained within that principle may be sorted in three broad categories:
1) Legality of the legislative process – the requirement to follow the rules governing legislative process contained in the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament, as well as general principles of law. This means, inter alia, that the legislator if obliged to assess the compliance of draft legislation with legal provisions of a higher force (including provisions of the Constitution, international and EU law) and the compliance with the existing case-law of the Constitutional Court with respect to the issues to which the draft legislation pertains;
2) Adequacy of the legislative process – this pertains to:
- the opportunity for individual members of the legislator to debate and vote on draft laws;
- the assessment of possible alternatives to the draft legislation (in particular if it envisages restrictions of fundamental rights); and
- the involvement of the society at large and in particular of the persons potentially affected by the draft legislation (an obligation of consultation).
3) Sustainability of the legislative process – this requires the legislator to study the potential social impact of the draft legislation, by resorting to explanatory research if necessary. The legislator is also obliged to take into account the risks identified by sectoral experts and carry out measures to minimize the identified risks.
Although the Constitutional Court has indicated that not every violation of the principle of good legislation will lead to an automatic conclusion that the particular legal provision is not constitutional, within the last five years the intensity of scrutiny of the legislative process by the Constitutional Court has grown significantly.
Also, the Strasbourg Court does occasionally scrutinize the quality of domestic legislative procedures. However, for your Court a thorough analysis carried out by the domestic legislator is a consideration “in favor” of the respondent governments. In other words, if an in-depth analysis has been carried out by the national legislator, the Court will normally afford the particular member state a broader margin of appreciation.
But a comprehensive analysis of all this will be provided by your future colleague Artūrs Kučs, whom we warmly congratulate! After that, we will be able to discuss together our understanding of how the “principle of good legislation” is applied in both courts.
Finally, as guardians of the rule of law, democracy, security and peace, our courts remain vigilant about the future. Our courts are currently dealing with the issue of sustainability and the protection of the fundamental rights of future generations: If the Strasbourg court made a landmark decision a few days ago that government inaction on climate change violates fundamental human rights, then our court in the case regarding decreasing the diameter of the final felling, which allows to chop some species of trees sooner, as well as in the case regarding the prohibition of breeding fur animals for the sole purpose of obtaining fur, weighed the interests of commercial activities and economic development with the interests of environmental protection and a person’s right to live in a benevolent environment.
All of this generally underscores our shared commitment to vigilance and looking forward at generations to come. Let us have meaningful discussions today!