| Basic information | Substance of the ruling | Accessibility of the case and further relevant links | |||||||
| Date | Name of the case (or case number) | The body delivering the decision | Keywords, topic | Executive part | Brief summary | Full text | Page at the website of the issuing court | Page in other databases | Unofficial materials, press communications |
| December 7. 2023. | Constitutional Court of Latvia | Covid and parliaments; vaccination | The Constitutional Court held unconstitutional the ban on non-vaccinated parliamentarians to take part in in person parliamentary sittings. | During the main vawes of the global pandemic, the Latvian Parliament held fully remote sittings, then transformed its work to fully virtual sessions. A law was adopted which explicitely banned for non-vaccinated parliamentarians to attend in person parliamentary meetings. A former deputy attacked this law before the Constitutional Court which was striked down by the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court argued that public health restrictions should not interfere into the rights of parliamentarians to take part effectively in the parliamentary work. Public trust in the Parliament should outweigh the solidarity required by the public health challenges. | https://eng.lsm.lv/article/politics/saeima/07.12.2023-restriction-on-saeima-deputies-with-no-covid-certificate-was-wrong-rules-court.a534549/ | https://www.covid19litigation.org/news/2023/12/latvia-constitutional-court-strikes-down-ban-person-parliamentary-participation | |||
| May 26. 2022. | No. 2021-33-0103. | Constitutional Court of Latvia | Right to education, distance learning | The Constitutional Court of Latvia dismissed a claim of secondary school students against the maintenance of distance learning after the end of the public health emergency. | The Constitutional Court of Latvia heard a case concerning online education after the termination of the public health emergency. Secondary school students considered, that due to the poor quality of this form of education, insisting on this method outside from the public health emergency amounts to an unconstitutional limitation of right to education. The Constitutional Court dismissed the claims since the regulation was based on proper parliamentary authorization, and the implemented measures had a temporary character. Moreover, the regulation increased the flexibility of the educational system during an uncertain period, but provided those principles, which should determine, whether online or in person education should be preferred. Based on these arguments, the claims were rejected. | https://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2021-33-0103_PR_par_spriedumu.pdf | https://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/en/press-release/a-case-initiated-with-regard-to-the-regulations-that-provide-for-remote-learning-process-in-schools-also-after-the-end-of-the-emergency-situation/ | https://www.covid19litigation.org/news/2022/06/latvia-distance-learning-after-emergency-situation-declared-during-pandemic-not | |
| March 10. 2022. |
No. 2021-37-03. No. 2021-24-03 |
Constitutional Court of Latvia | Right to property; right to equality | The Constitutional Court of Latvia held, that the general measure on closing large supermarkets over 7000 M2 for two months during the spring of 2021 violated right to property and right to equality, since those stores in large supermarkets, which have separate external access were treated equally with those, which not have the same facility. | The Constitutional Court of Latvia merged three cases related to store closure during the spring of 2021. The first applicant was the owner of a store merchandising household goods in a large supermarket with separate external access provided for the clients. The other two applicants were owners of large supermarkets which leased commercial premises. The impugned measure prescribed that all supermarkets over 7000 M2 should be closed except from those of solding fundamental products. The claimants alleged the violation of their right to property and right to equality. The Constitutional Court held, that the smaller shops located in larger supermarkets with separate external access are in the same situation as smaller stores outside from larger supermarkets. By other words, the law did not distinguish between shops in large supermarkets with or without separate external access. Therefore, the implemented measure meant a violation of right to equality. However, the limitation on large supermarkets was legitimate and reasonable, therefore, the validity of these restrictions were upheld. | https://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A//www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2021-10-03_lemums_par_tiesvedibas_izbeigsanu.pdf#search= | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/latvia-constitutional-court-republic-latvia-decision-no-2021-24-03-2022-03-10 | https://ellex.legal/project/the-big-shopping-malls-defeat-the-latvian-state-in-the-constitutional-court/; https://ellex.legal/project/shopping-centres-in-latvia-apply-to-constitutional-court-due-to-restrictions-caused-by-covid-19/ | |
| March 10. 2022. | No. 2021-29-03. | Constitutional Court of Latvia | Right to property; right to equality | The Constitutional Court of Latvia held, that the general measure on closing large supermarkets over 7000 M2 for two months during the spring of 2021 violated right to property and right to equality, since those stores in large supermarkets, which have separate external access were treated equally with those, which not have the same facility. | The Constitutional Court of Latvia merged three cases related to store closure during the spring of 2021. The first applicant was the owner of a store merchandising household goods in a large supermarket with separate external access provided for the clients. The other two applicants were owners of large supermarkets which leased commercial premises. The impugned measure prescribed that all supermarkets over 7000 M2 should be closed except from those of solding fundamental products. The claimants alleged the violation of their right to property and right to equality. The Constitutional Court held, that the smaller shops located in larger supermarkets with separate external access are in the same situation as smaller stores outside from larger supermarkets. By other words, the law did not distinguish between shops in large supermarkets with or without separate external access. Therefore, the implemented measure meant a violation of right to equality. However, the limitation on large supermarkets was legitimate and reasonable, therefore, the validity of these restrictions were upheld. | https://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A//www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2021-10-03_lemums_par_tiesvedibas_izbeigsanu.pdf#search= | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/latvia-constitutional-court-republic-latvia-decision-no-2021-24-03-2022-03-10 |
https://ellex.legal/project/the-big-shopping-malls-defeat-the-latvian-state-in-the-constitutional-court/;
https://ellex.legal/project/shopping-centres-in-latvia-apply-to-constitutional-court-due-to-restrictions-caused-by-covid-19/ |
|
| February 18. 2022. | case no. 2021-10-03 | Constitutional Court of Latvia | Freedom of movement | The Constitutional Court of Latvia terminated a proceeding concerning the constitutional review of negative Covid-19 test requirement to enter into Latvia during the public health emergency, because the impugned decree has been already abrogated. | A Latvian women left Latvia and she was unable to return to the country because during the public health emergency, negative Covid-19 test was required even from Latvian citizens for their own cost to enter into the country. The applicant could not afford these expenses, therefore, she was unable to return to Latvia, so she turned to the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court terminated the proceeding without any decision from the merits, because the impugned law has been already abrogated. | https://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/web/viewer.html?file=https://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2021-10-03_Decision_on_termination_of_the_proceedings.pdf#search= | |||
| December 11. 2020. | No. 2020-26-0106 | Constitutional Court of Latvia | Right to property; right to conduct a business; right to equality; right to legitimate expectations | The Constitutional Court of Latvia held, that the ban on face-to-face gambling meant a reasonable state intervention during the public health emergency, however, the limitation on interactive gambling without personal presence meant a disproportionate limitation on right to property, right to equality, right to property and right to conduct a business. | The owners of gambling centers challenged the restrictions on face-to-face and interactive gambling during the public health emergency, ordered for three months. The claimants argued, that these measures amounted an unconstitutional limitation on right to property, right to conduct a business, right to equality and right to legitimate expectations. The Constitutional Court held, that the ban on face-to-face gambling was reasonable during the public health emergency, several other service providers were also forced to suspend their activities during that period. Nevertheless, the general prohibition on interactive gambling was an overbroad restriction on such activities. Although such a step may have legitimate purposes especially in the light of the unstable mental conditions of several people during an extra-ordinary period, restrictions might be imposed only on high risk groups, not on all persons. The implemented measure did not constitute a proper balancing of competing rights and interests. | https://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A//www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2021-10-03_lemums_par_tiesvedibas_izbeigsanu.pdf#search=;
https://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A//www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2020-26-0106_Judgement.pdf#search= |
https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/latvia-constitutional-court-republic-latvia-no-2020-26-0106-2020-12-11 | https://igamingbusiness.com/legal-compliance/operators-fight-latvian-gambling-suspension-in-court/ | |