Latvia

Primary tabs

Caselaw

Caso No 2009-43-01 Sobre el cumplimiento de la primera parte del artículo 3 de la Ley de Pago de Pensiones y Asignaciones Estatales de 2009 a 2012, según se aplica a las pensiones estatales por edad avanzada

Los demandantes, pensionados del Estado latvio, cuestionaron la constitucionalidad de la Ley de Pago de Pensiones y Asignaciones Estatales en el período 2009 a 2012 (en adelante, "Ley de Pensiones"), que se había aprobado con la intención de reducir el déficit estatal. En 2009, la economía en general estaba debilitándose rápidamente y el Parlamento latvio argumentó que debía responder a la brevedad a la crisis económica del país.

Case No. 2009-43-01 On Compliance of the First Part of Section 3 of State Pensions and State Allowance Disbursement in 2009 2012) insofar as it Applies to State Old-Age Pension with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme (C

Petitioners, pensioners of the Latvian State, challenged the constitutionality of the Law on State Pension and State Allowance Disbursement in the period from 2009 to 2012 (hereinafter the "Disbursement Law"), which had been passed in an effort to reduce the State's budget deficit. The overall economy was rapidly declining in 2009, and the Latvian Parliament argued that it had to act quickly to respond to the country's economic crisis. The law decreased the amount received by current pensioners by 10% and decreased the pensions of future pensioners (individuals currently employed) by 70%.

Case No. 2000-08-0109 Constitutional Court of Latvia on Compliance of Item 1 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law On Social Insurance with Articles 1 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Veinte diputados del Parlamento de Letonia (Saeima) denunciaron que ciertos empleadores no estaban aportando primas del seguro social a un fondo para sus empleados. Los diputados sostuvieron que se trataba de una violación del derecho constitucional a la seguridad social y de los Artículos 9 y 11 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (PIDESC), dado que el Estado no había asegurado que la legislación pertinente garantizara que se abonaran las primas.

Case No. 2000-08-0109 Constitutional Court of Latvia (On Compliance of Item 1 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law On Social Insurance with Articles 1 and 109 of the Satversme (Constitution) of the Republic of Latvia and Articles 9 and 11 (the

Twenty deputies of the Latvian Parliament (the Saeima) claimed that certain employers were not paying social insurance premiums into a fund for their employees. The deputies asserted a breach of the constitutional right to social security and Articles 9 and 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) since the State had failed to ensure the relevant legislation ensured that premiums were paid by employers.