On 28 September, the Constitutional Court passed a judgment in case No 2025-33-01 recognising the regulation that prohibits a person convicted of violence or the threat thereof from working as a psychologist for life as incompatible with Article 106 of the Constitution. In imposing a life ban, the legislator had not taken into account the different nature of the offences, the age of the person at the time of the offence, the time that had elapsed since the offence, or the fact that a person’s behaviour and value system may change over time.
The case was initiated on the basis of an application by the Administrative District Court. It is considering a case concerning the registration of a person in the Register of Psychologists, which was refused because the person had previously been convicted of a criminal offence involving violence. The contested provision prevents that person from working as a psychologist, irrespective of the extinguishment or removal of the criminal record.
The Constitutional Court found that the prohibition was aimed at protecting the rights of other people and the public welfare. The work of a psychologist is based on a special trust between the psychologist and the client, but the psychologist’s previous actions can affect not only the client’s sense of security, but also the public’s trust in the profession of psychologist. It is therefore reasonable to impose higher requirements on persons who wish to work as psychologists.
The Constitutional Court has already recognised on several occasions that restrictions imposed for life exclude the presumption that a person is able to change his or her behaviour, attitude and value system during his or her lifetime. In the present case, as regards the profession of psychologist, this can be determined by means of an individual assessment aimed at identifying the characteristics of the person revealed by the offence committed and which are relevant specifically to the work of a psychologist. This would allow a reasonable judgement to be made as to whether the person is also able to act in accordance with the basic principles of the professional activities of a psychologist in unforeseeable and changing situations.
The Court noted that such an individual assessment could take into account the degree of harmfulness of the offence and the protected interests against which it was directed, the context in which the offence was committed, the person’s motivation and conduct after the offence, attitude towards the offence, age at the time of the offence, as well as the time that has elapsed since the offence was committed. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that every person who commits a violent offence in his or her teenage years or early adulthood will also be prone to violence later in life and remain so for the rest of his or her life.
The fact of a conviction does not in itself necessarily show that a person is unsuitable to work as a psychologist. The individual assessment of each case can be carried out most objectively by the competent authority directly within the profession of psychologist. However, the possibility of such an individual assessment by no means guarantees that the person will be authorised to work in the profession of psychologist.
The Constitutional Court concluded that the lifetime ban disproportionately restricted the right to freely choose and retain an occupation, which is enshrined in the first sentence of Article 106 of the Constitution.
In order to allow the legislator to adopt a new legal framework, the contested provision will become invalid on 1 June 2027. As for the applicant in the case pending before the Administrative District Court and other persons who have already initiated the protection of their fundamental rights, the norm was declared invalid from the moment the infringement of their fundamental rights arose.
The judgment of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal. It enters into force on the day of its publication in the official gazette “Latvijas Vēstnesis”.
Related case: 2025-33-01