Previous 19 / 74 Next

provisions until their coming into force was rather short. Thus, persons had been denied the possibility to prepare themselves duly for the changes and to plan their future lives corresponding to the reduced amount of pension, especially considering the fact that pension is not only the substantial but also the only source of income for the majority of pensioners. 12. The Summoned party – the Free Trade Union Confederation of Latvia (hereinafter – LBAS) – maintained that there were no consultations held with them during the preparation of the amendments to the year 2009 budget. Similarly, there were no meetings held with LBAS during the preparation of the impugned provisions. Before signing the Agreement of 11 June, LBAS was offered two alternatives – either to sign the document, or not to sign it, in which case to reckon with the situation that the Republic of Latvia would not receive the international loan. Although LBAS is not competent to offer its opinion on the compliance of the impugned provisions with the Constitution, it considers these provisions to be unconformable with Articles 1 and 109 of the Constitution. It should be especially emphasized that pensions received by the majority of the State pension recipients are below the minimum subsistence level established by the State. There will be 200 000 deprived persons in the country in 2010. Reducing the disbursable pension amount in this way means to achieve the needed budget economy on account of socially least protected persons. 13. The Summoned party – the Employers’ Confederation of Latvia (hereinafter – LDDK) – maintained that the Agreement of 11 June should be considered as an agreement of social partners and other organizations, not just as an agreement of social partners. Before signing the Agreement, there were no other meetings. The only meeting was held on 11 June 2009, before signing the above agreement. LDDK is not competent to assess the compliance of the impugned provisions with the Constitution. 14. The Summoned party – the Latvian Association of Local and Regional Governments (hereinafter – LPS) – maintained that, when the Agreement of 11 June was prepared, the following alternatives were discussed – decrease of personal allowance to LVL 0 or decrease of pensions by 15 percent. LPS did not support the 19

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Compliance of the First Part of Section 3 of State Pensions and State Allowance Disbursement (Case 2009-43-01)

Judgments

Preview

Country

Latvia

Rights Involved

Right to social security

Issue

Minimum core obligations
Participation

National Court

Constitutional Court of Latvia

Date: Dec 21, 2009

Summary: During a crisis where Latvia suffered a 70% increase in its debt-to-GDP ratio, and in accordance with a pledge made to the European Community, the government passed two laws, reducing pensions for unemployed pensioners by 10% and pensions for employed pensioners by 70%; the government also made a commitment to the IMF regarding economic stabilization. The Court here considered several issues and held that: (1) the provisions violated pensioners’ rights; (2) international commitments cannot justify the restriction of constitutionally established human rights; (3) the government had not sufficiently considered better alternatives or adopted the most lenient solution; and (4) the non-temporary nature of the measures was unconstitutional. This case affirms the principle of respecting individuals’ legitimate expectations and their right not to be subjected to unjustified cuts to their pensions, as well as the principle that permanent measures cannot be used to address temporary crises.

Primary Documents

Compliance of the First Part of Section 3 of State Pensions and State Allowance Disbursement in 2009, Case No. 2009-43-01
English
Download View

Resourcing Rights

Select target paragraph3

Compliance of the First Part of Section 3 of State Pensions and State Allowance Disbursement (Case 2009-43-01)

Primary Documents

Notifications