The Judiciary: Structure
The separation of the Latvian
judiciary from the other powers appears secure. Judges are appointed by
the Minister of Justice and their appointments are confirmed by Parliament
after two years’ professional practice. From then on, they have absolute
security of office, which can only be called into question if they have
committed a crime. The judges at the Supreme Court are appointed by the
President of that body. Latvia has no specialised courts but the ordinary
courts all have lawyers responsible for handling specific types of cases
(administrative, civil, criminal). The judges are not subject to any pressure
from the Government.
The Chief Prosecutor is elected
for 7 years by Parliament on the proposal of the President of the Supreme
Court. He is totally independent of the Minister of Justice. The compatibility
of decrees and acts of the President of the Republic, the Government and
local authorities with the Constitution and the law is subject to the judicial
review of the Constitutional Court while in other cases judicial review
is exercised by the ordinary courts.
The role traditionally assigned
to an Ombudsman is among the many functions fulfilled by the National Human
Rights Office set up in July 1995. It is responsible for handling complaints,
including those concerning the private sector, proposing such amendments
to legislation or regulations as it sees fit and informing the public about
human rights. More particularly, it has the task of overseeing the protection
of the most vulnerable social groups (children, the handicapped etc.) and
may, of its own initiative, conduct any investigation it regards as appropriate
in the field of the protection of human rights. It is completely independent
from the Government and reports to the Saeima.
The Constitutional Court,
which was set up in June 1996, consists of 7 judges elected for 10 years
by an absolute majority of the members of the Saeima (3 are nominated by
Parliament, 2 by the Government and 2 by the Supreme Court). It verifies
the constitutionality of primary legislation, treaties and secondary legislation.
Matters may be referred to the Constitutional Court by the President of
the Republic, the Government, 1/3 of the members of the Saeima, the Chief
Prosecutor or even a local authority. However, the courts and the citizen
may not apply to it directly.
Functioning of the Judiciary
Considerable improvements
are needed in the workings of the judicial apparatus in order to reduce
the time taken to judge cases. The judicial system is also somewhat inefficient
as regards the enforcement of decisions taken by the courts. This is attributable
either to the lack of appropriate instruments (bailiffs do not exist in
Latvia) or to lack of authority particularly over certain public bodies
(for example occasional failure of the body responsible for managing the
naturalisation system - to implement decisions taken concerning it by the
courts in this area).
The National Human Rights
Office plays an essential role in ensuring respect for fundamental rights
in Latvia. It enjoys real independence from the other public authorities
as illustrated for example by its investigation of the differences in status
between citizens and non-citizens in Latvia (December 1996).
The Judiciary
Recent developments include
the following.
The enhancement of the status
of judges. With the entry into force of the amendments to the laws “On
Judicial Power” and “On the Disciplinary Liability of Judges” in November
1998, a more objective system of evaluation (by Disciplinary Board of Judges)
and granting of judicial qualifications degrees (by Judicial Qualification
Board) has been installed and higher standards for qualifications of judges
have been set. The system creates incentives for judges to promote their
professional skills and qualifications. Life-long appointments for judges
have been introduced by the new Law on Civil Procedure (see below). In
addition, the basic salaries of judges have been raised at the end of 1998
and increased– albeit voluntary – possibilities for training of judges
have been provided for. The number of vacant judge positions has
further declined.
The improvement in the functioning
of the courts system. With the coming into force of a new “Law on Civil
Procedure” in March 1999, delays of court proceedings have been shortened,
inter alia by imposing stricter criteria for non-appearance in court hearings
and regulating lawsuits in absentia. In addition, the computerisation of
courts has progressed.
The adoption of the amended
new Penitentiary Law in November 1999. The law improves the
mechanisms for carrying out sentences, the establishment of a probation
service and the application of alternative non-confinement punishments.
There have thus been important
improvements compared to the previous year. Nevertheless, a number
of issues still need to be addressed. A basic framework for the reform
of the institute of court bailiffs was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers
in March 1998. This transformed court bailiffs into an independent
legal profession. However, the relevant legislation has yet to be
adopted. Between the beginning of 1998 and 1999, there has been a slight
increase in the total number of unsolved court cases (civil and criminal).
During the first half of 1999, the number of unsolved civil cases has started
to decrease, whereas the number of unsolved criminal cases has increased
further. It is, however, too early to assess whether the new legislation
adopted in March 1999 has had an impact on this backlog (see Administrative
and judicial capacity). The infrastructure of courts (buildings, furniture,
computers etc.) still needs to be improved considerably. Concerning prison
sentences, time spent in pre-trial detention in prisons remained long (see
below under section on civil and political rights).