Upcoming events

Latvian report

Regarding evaluation of the Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 12 to member states on judges : Independence, efficiency and responsibilities there are some possible infringement examples which we have noticed in Latvia.


Selection and career


According to Article 60 of the law „On Judicial Power” judges of a district (city) court shall be appointed to office by the Saeima (Parliament), upon the proposal of the Minister for Justice, for three years.

After a judge of a district (city) court has held office for three years, the Saeima (Parliament), upon the proposal of the Minister for Justice, and on the basis of an opinion of the Judicial Qualifications Board, shall confirm him or her in office, for an unlimited term of office, or shall re-appoint him or her to office for a period of up to two years.

If the work of a Judge is unsatisfactory, the Minister for Justice, in accordance with an opinion of the Judicial Qualification Board, shall not nominate a judge as a candidate for a repeated appointment to or confirmation in office.

It means that the decision on suitability of candidate for judicial appointment or to the position of higher instance is taken by the Minister of Justice which is based on opinion of the Qualifications Board of Judges (consisting of judges). The opinion of the Qualifications Board of Judges practically is based on the opinion of the Judge of higher instance (approved by the Head of higher court), on the opinion of the Head of the court and on the report of the Administration of Courts.

Before final appointment the Parliamental Judicial commission (consisting of parlamentarians) scrutinises the candidate and gives the opinion to the Parliament which usually follows the decision of the Minister of Justice. The final appointment is made by the Parliament. According to case law of the Latvian Supreme court the decision of the Saeima (Parliament) is political decision which is not challenged in the court. Nevertheless in the administrative court can be challenged the decision of the Minister for Justice. The judge which was not re-appointed because of lack of professional competence has challenged negative decision of the Minister of Justice and there is a case in the Court of Appeal.


According to 47 of Recommendation where the constitutional or other legal provisions prescribe that the head of state, the government or the legislative power take decisions concerning the selection and career of judges, an independent and competent authority drawn in substantial part from the judiciary should be authorised to make recommendations or express opinions which the relevant appointing authority follows in practice. In practice there have been some cases when the Minister for Justice, in accordance with an opinion of the Judicial Qualification Board, has taken positive decision to nominate a candidiate for judicial appointment in higher instance or for re-appointment but the Saeima (Parliament) refuses the candidate.

For example, the judge of the Court of Appeal received positive opinion of the Judicial Qualifications Board and positive decision of the Minister of Justice for appointing in the Supreme court. Also Parliamental Judicial commission took positive opinion for appointment of judge in the Supreme court. But in the final voting in the Parliament the candidate was refused, by the possible (in mass media spreaded) reason that a judge in the Court of Appeal has made negative decision according to a political person with significant influence in the political party. The only consequences in that case was public criticism but the judge has not possibility to challenge decision of the Parliament. Also approximately one year ago the judge of first instance was not re-appointed in the Parliament nevertheless the Qualifications Board of Judges and the Minister of Justice advised re-appoint the judge for 2 years.
The positive tendence is that form 1 January 2013 in the level of law are approved evaluation criteria which should be taking into account by preparing opinion before advising on appointment or promotions. In practice before that significant role in the evalutaion of judge play statistics relating to reversals on appeal.


Cuts in the remuneration of judges


Latvia facing economic crisis have opted for twice a cut in the salaries of judges – by 15% from 1 July 2009 and by 27% from 1 January 2010. Regardless of the rationale behind such measures, practically judicial remuneration was reduced in a greater proportion than that of public officers because of fact that before reducing salaries of judges was in the lower level than salaries of the adequate position in the state institutions because in the time of growing economics the salaries of state institutions more flexible could fit in line with growing salaries generally. This decision was challenged in the Constitutional court and it was reversed because it was not proportionate and adequate decision. Nevertheless the Parliament adopted the common system of officials (employees) of the State, including judges in this system and the salary of judges in this moment is in previous level as before crisis.
In this moment according to Law On Remuneration remuneration of judges is included in the common system of officials (employees) of the State and local government authorities. Remuneration of judge of lower instance without qualification class is similar to highest possible level of remuneration of the head of judicial division in the State institution (LVL 1157). In practice the system of salaries and allowances in the State institutions are more flexible than system of salaries and allowances for judges and it means that in the State institutions following in line with the cost of living overall salary with included allowances can be higher than salary of judge. For this reason position of judge is not so attractive and competitive in the meaning of salary as adequate positions in state institutions.

Regarding evaluation of the Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 12 to member states on judges : Independence, efficiency and responsibilities there are some possible infringement examples which we have noticed in Latvia.


Selection and career


According to Article 60 of the law „On Judicial Power” judges of a district (city) court shall be appointed to office by the Saeima (Parliament), upon the proposal of the Minister for Justice, for three years.

After a judge of a district (city) court has held office for three years, the Saeima (Parliament), upon the proposal of the Minister for Justice, and on the basis of an opinion of the Judicial Qualifications Board, shall confirm him or her in office, for an unlimited term of office, or shall re-appoint him or her to office for a period of up to two years.

If the work of a Judge is unsatisfactory, the Minister for Justice, in accordance with an opinion of the Judicial Qualification Board, shall not nominate a judge as a candidate for a repeated appointment to or confirmation in office.

It means that the decision on suitability of candidate for judicial appointment or to the position of higher instance is taken by the Minister of Justice which is based on opinion of the Qualifications Board of Judges (consisting of judges). The opinion of the Qualifications Board of Judges practically is based on the opinion of the Judge of higher instance (approved by the Head of higher court), on the opinion of the Head of the court and on the report of the Administration of Courts.

Before final appointment the Parliamental Judicial commission (consisting of parlamentarians) scrutinises the candidate and gives the opinion to the Parliament which usually follows the decision of the Minister of Justice. The final appointment is made by the Parliament. According to case law of the Latvian Supreme court the decision of the Saeima (Parliament) is political decision which is not challenged in the court. Nevertheless in the administrative court can be challenged the decision of the Minister for Justice. The judge which was not re-appointed because of lack of professional competence has challenged negative decision of the Minister of Justice and there is a case in the Court of Appeal.


According to 47 of Recommendation where the constitutional or other legal provisions prescribe that the head of state, the government or the legislative power take decisions concerning the selection and career of judges, an independent and competent authority drawn in substantial part from the judiciary should be authorised to make recommendations or express opinions which the relevant appointing authority follows in practice. In practice there have been some cases when the Minister for Justice, in accordance with an opinion of the Judicial Qualification Board, has taken positive decision to nominate a candidiate for judicial appointment in higher instance or for re-appointment but the Saeima (Parliament) refuses the candidate.

For example, the judge of the Court of Appeal received positive opinion of the Judicial Qualifications Board and positive decision of the Minister of Justice for appointing in the Supreme court. Also Parliamental Judicial commission took positive opinion for appointment of judge in the Supreme court. But in the final voting in the Parliament the candidate was refused, by the possible (in mass media spreaded) reason that a judge in the Court of Appeal has made negative decision according to a political person with significant influence in the political party. The only consequences in that case was public criticism but the judge has not possibility to challenge decision of the Parliament. Also approximately one year ago the judge of first instance was not re-appointed in the Parliament nevertheless the Qualifications Board of Judges and the Minister of Justice advised re-appoint the judge for 2 years.
The positive tendence is that form 1 January 2013 in the level of law are approved evaluation criteria which should be taking into account by preparing opinion before advising on appointment or promotions. In practice before that significant role in the evalutaion of judge play statistics relating to reversals on appeal.


Cuts in the remuneration of judges


Latvia facing economic crisis have opted for twice a cut in the salaries of judges – by 15% from 1 July 2009 and by 27% from 1 January 2010. Regardless of the rationale behind such measures, practically judicial remuneration was reduced in a greater proportion than that of public officers because of fact that before reducing salaries of judges was in the lower level than salaries of the adequate position in the state institutions because in the time of growing economics the salaries of state institutions more flexible could fit in line with growing salaries generally. This decision was challenged in the Constitutional court and it was reversed because it was not proportionate and adequate decision. Nevertheless the Parliament adopted the common system of officials (employees) of the State, including judges in this system and the salary of judges in this moment is in previous level as before crisis.
In this moment according to Law On Remuneration remuneration of judges is included in the common system of officials (employees) of the State and local government authorities. Remuneration of judge of lower instance without qualification class is similar to highest possible level of remuneration of the head of judicial division in the State institution (LVL 1157). In practice the system of salaries and allowances in the State institutions are more flexible than system of salaries and allowances for judges and it means that in the State institutions following in line with the cost of living overall salary with included allowances can be higher than salary of judge. For this reason position of judge is not so attractive and competitive in the meaning of salary as adequate positions in state institutions.