Date of the judgment: 19.02.2021.
Official publication: 22.02.2021.
On compliance of Section 236 (1) of the Criminal Law (in the Wording that was in Force until 31 March 2013) with Article 90 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of the Transitional Provision of the Law of 29 October 2015 “Amendments to the Criminal Law” with Article 1 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Clarity and retroactive force of Criminal Law provisions on negligent storage of firearmsThe Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Section 236 (1) of the Criminal Law (in the wording that was in force until 31 March 2013) as being compatible with Article 90 and the second sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise the Transitional Provision of the law of 29 October 2015 “Amendments to the Criminal Law”, insofar it does not provide for retroactive effect of Section 236 (1) of the Criminal Law with respect to offences, which subsequently have been recognised as being criminally unpunishable, as being incompatible with Article 90 and the second sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and with respect to persons, to which this provision, insofar it does not provide for retroactive effect of amendments to Section 236 (1) of the Criminal Law, has been applied or should be applied in court, as invalid from the moment when the violation of fundamental rights occurred.
Press-releases
- The provision criminalising negligent storage of firearm ammunition is compatible with the Constitution; the transitional provision of the amendments to the Criminal Law is not
- A case initiated with respect to the clarity of a norm of the Criminal Law and the period of validity of amendments to the Criminal Law