Published: 14.03.2000.
On Compliance of Para 5 and Para 6 of Section 5 of The Saeima Election Law and Para 5 and Para 6 of Section 9 of the Law on Electing City Council and County Council with Articles 89 and 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Years
2000
Stages of the proceedings
Adjudicated
Outcome of the proceedings
Judgement
Type of the proceedings
Court sitting with the participation of the participants of the case
Applicant
Not less than 20 deputies of Parliament
Applicant: 7.Saeimas deputāti: A.Bartaševičs, J.Jurkāns, A.Klementjevs, P.Maksimovs, J.Sokolovskis, M.Mitrofanovs, M.Bekasovs, B.Rastopirkins, A.Golubovs, O.Deņisovs, M.Lujāns, O.Tolmačovs, J.Pliners, I.Solovjovs, J.Urbanovičs, B.Cilevičs, J.Ādamsons, O.Zvejsalnieks, P.Salkazanovs, L.Bojārs, J.Čevers, G.Bojārs un I.Burvis
Date of the judgment: 30.08.2000.
Official publication: 01.09.2000.

On Compliance of Para 5 and Para 6 of Section 5 of The Saeima Election Law and Para 5 and Para 6 of Section 9 of the Law on Electing City Council and County Council with Articles 89 and 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Constitutional Court decided to declare that Items 5 and 6 of Article 5 of the Saeima Election Law and Items 5 and 6 of Article 9 of the City Dome, Region Dome and Rural Council Election Law comply with Articles 89 and 101 of the Satversme, Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 3 of the First Protocol of this Convention as well as Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Judgment_1 (Case No 2000-03-01)
Dissenting opinion_1 (Case No 2000-03-01)