Published: 11.02.2005.
On the Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 59 (2) in the Part on Participation in Financing of Private Educational Institutions if the Programs are Implemented in the Official language of Education Law with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (in Interconnection with Article 2 of the First Protocol)
Years
2005
Stages of the proceedings
Adjudicated
Outcome of the proceedings
Judgement
Type of the proceedings
Written procedure
Applicant
Not less than 20 deputies of Parliament
Applicant: 8.Saeimas deputāti Juris Sokolovskis, Nikolajs Kabanovs, Vladimirs Buzajevs, Andris Tolmačovs, Andrejs Aleksejevs, Jakovs Pliners, Aleksandrs Golubovs, Oļegs Deņisovs, Igors Solovjovs, Sergejs Fjodorovs, Martijans Bekasovs, Boriss Cilevičs, Jānis Jurkāns, Ivans Ribakovs, Aleksejs Vidavskis, Vitālijs Orlovs, Andrejs Klementjevs, Valērijs Agešins, Aleksandrs Bartaševičs un Jānis Urbanovičs
Date of the judgment: 14.09.2005.
Official publication: 16.09.2005.

On the Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 59 (2) in the Part on Participation in Financing of Private Educational Institutions if the Programs are Implemented in the Official language of Education Law with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (in Interconnection with Article 2 of the First Protocol)

Constitutional Court ruled to declare the phrase ”the State language”, included in Section 59 (the second sentence of the second Paragraph) of the Education Law as unconformable with Article 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void from the moment of publication of the Judgment.

Judgment_1 (Case No 2005-02-0106)