Date of the judgment: 23.12.2019.
Official publication: 27.12.2019.
On Compliance of the Second Part of Article 17 and Article 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Saeima with the second sentence of Article 92 and the first sentence of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Removal of a Member of the Parliament after consent for criminal prosecutionThe Constitutional Court held:
1. To terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding the compliance of the second sentence of the second part of Article 17 and the second and the third sentence of Article 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Saeima with the second sentence of Article 92 and the first sentence of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise the first sentence of the second part of Article 17 and the first sentence of Article 19 as being incompatible with Article 5, the second sentence of Article 92 and the first sentence of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and, with respect to Juris Jurašs, void as of 31 January 2019.
Press-releases
- The norms, which prohibit a member of the Saeima, against whom criminal prosecution has been commenced, from participating in the work of the Saeima and receiving remuneration in full amount, are incompatible with the Satversme
- A case initiated with respect to norms that prohibit a member of the Saeima, against whom criminal prosecution has been commenced, from participating in the work of the Saeima