Human Rights Law at Latvia
1. Overview of Human Rights Law in Latvia
Latvia’s human rights system is grounded in its Constitution (Satversme, 1922) and aligned with international human rights treaties, primarily the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Key Sources of Human Rights in Latvia:
Satversme (Latvian Constitution)
Guarantees rights such as:
Right to life and personal liberty (Articles 91–93)
Freedom of expression (Article 100)
Freedom of assembly and association (Article 99)
Property rights (Articles 105–107)
Non-discrimination and equality (Article 91)
International Obligations:
Latvia is a party to the ECHR, and its decisions influence domestic law.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and CERD are also binding.
Constitutional Court:
Ensures that domestic laws comply with the Satversme and ECHR standards.
Can annul laws violating fundamental rights.
Principle: Latvian courts interpret national laws to be consistent with international human rights obligations.
2. Key Case Law on Human Rights in Latvia
Here are seven significant cases illustrating human rights law in Latvia:
Case 1: Constitutional Court Judgment, 2004-05-18, Case No. 2003-09-01
Facts:
Activists challenged municipal prohibitions on holding public demonstrations.
Legal Issue:
Did restrictions violate freedom of assembly (Article 99 Satversme and Article 11 ECHR)?
Decision:
Blanket bans were unconstitutional.
Restrictions must be necessary and proportionate to public safety.
Significance:
Established proportionality tests for assembly restrictions.
Reinforced ECHR compliance in Latvian law.
Case 2: Constitutional Court Judgment, 2012-04-17, Case No. 2011-09-01
Facts:
Citizens contested state expropriation of land without fair compensation.
Legal Issue:
Violation of property rights (Article 105 Satversme; Protocol 1, Article 1 ECHR).
Decision:
Expropriation without fair compensation is unconstitutional.
Proportionality and legal remedies must be guaranteed.
Significance:
Strengthened protection of private property.
Clarified standards for state deprivation of property.
Case 3: Andrejeva v. Latvia (ECHR, 2009)
Facts:
Ms. Andrejeva argued that pension laws discriminated against women who worked in the USSR before Latvian independence.
Legal Issue:
Violation of Article 14 ECHR (non-discrimination) with Protocol 1, Article 1 (property rights/pensions).
Decision:
ECHR ruled in favor of Andrejeva.
Pension laws were discriminatory.
Significance:
Landmark case on gender equality and social rights.
Prompted reforms in Latvia’s pension system.
Case 4: Constitutional Court Judgment, 2005-06-14, Case No. 2004-12-01
Facts:
Challenge against restrictions on freedom of expression under media regulations.
Legal Issue:
Violation of Article 100 Satversme and Article 10 ECHR?
Decision:
Blanket restrictions on expression were unconstitutional.
Limitations allowed only to protect rights of others or national security.
Significance:
Balanced public interest with freedom of speech.
Set a precedent for proportional restrictions.
Case 5: Constitutional Court Judgment, 2010-11-02, Case No. 2009-29-01
Facts:
Minority groups challenged language restrictions in public administration.
Legal Issue:
Did mandatory Latvian language policies violate minority rights (Article 114 Satversme; Article 14 ECHR)?
Decision:
Court upheld state interest in Latvian language but required protection of minority education and cultural rights.
Significance:
Balanced official language policies with minority rights.
Influenced bilingual education policy.
Case 6: Ždanoka v. Latvia (ECHR, 2006)
Facts:
Ms. Ždanoka was barred from elections due to prior Communist Party membership.
Legal Issue:
Violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1 ECHR (free elections) and Article 14 (non-discrimination).
Decision:
Total ban on candidacy was disproportionate.
Latvia amended restrictions to allow political participation.
Significance:
Strengthened political rights for minorities.
Highlighted ECHR influence on Latvian electoral law.
Case 7: Constitutional Court Judgment, 2008-05-20, Case No. 2007-13-01
Facts:
Prisoner challenged inhumane conditions in Latvian prisons.
Legal Issue:
Violation of Article 92 Satversme (personal liberty) and Article 3 ECHR (prohibition of torture/inhuman treatment).
Decision:
Overcrowding and inadequate facilities violated human rights.
Authorities directed to improve conditions.
Significance:
Set standard for humane detention.
Reinforced state accountability under ECHR standards.
3. Key Themes in Latvian Human Rights Jurisprudence
ECHR Integration: Domestic law aligns with international human rights.
Proportionality: Restrictions on rights must be necessary and proportional.
Minority Protection: Language, cultural, and political rights are emphasized.
Non-Discrimination: Gender, historical, and ethnic equality are actively protected.
Judicial Oversight: Constitutional Court ensures laws comply with human rights standards.
RELATED Blog
comments