Honourable Mr Strupišs,
Senators,
Conference participants,
Ladies and gentlemen,
I
I sincerely welcome you to the international conference “Role of Supreme Courts in Strengthening Constitutional Values” hosted by the Supreme Court of Latvia.
It is a true pleasure to see our Supreme Court – its Senate – taking active participation in marking the centennial of our Constitution (the Satversme). The Senate has organised many valuable events which have given an opportunity to look at the Satversme we know so well from a new perspective.
II
I would like to remind you that, in Latvia, it is the Supreme Court, and more specifically its Senate, that has historically played a crucial role in enforcing and protecting the Satversme. After the restoration of the independence of Latvia and up until the establishment of the Constitutional Court in 1996, it was the Senate’s duty to provide a final interpretation of the Satversme and rule on issues of constitutional law.
During the inter-war period, the Senate effectively implemented constitutional control of Latvia’s justice system. It verified the constitutionality of legislation applicable to any given case. Thus, in effect, the Senate applied the so-called principle of “diffuse control of constitutionality”.
Back then there was also an active dialogue between the Senate and the Saeima as regards the interpretation of the Satversme. At that time, many authors of the Satversme were members of parliament and they were not always pleased with how the Senate had interpreted the Satversme. Yet the opinion of the Senate was always respected and taken into account.
It can be no other way in a state which is based on the rule of law – the decisions of the court must be respected and implemented.
III
In marking the centennial of the Constitution at the Supreme Court today, I would especially like to recall my academic teacher professor Dītrihs Andrejs Lēbers. On 4 January of next year the institution of the President of Latvia and the Faculty of Law of the University of Latvia will host a special event to mark his 100th birthday. As the son of Senator Augusts Lēbers, he made an invaluable contribution to maintaining the traditions of the Senate of Latvia and restoring them within the justice system of Latvia after the restoration of the independence of Latvia.
IV
Here, I would also like to highlight an important Senate decision and that is the 22 June 2018 decision of the Department of Administrative Cases on the restoration of historical justice regarding the belonging of the Lēbers’ family to the body of Latvian citizenry. This decision provides a fundamental analysis of the doctrine of the continuity of the state, a legally precise assessment of the work done by the Latvian diplomatic and consular service abroad during the occupation of Latvia, and it also reinforces and deepens the constitutional foundations of the state of Latvia.
V
In turn, the 30 April 2013 decision of the Department of Administrative Cases highlighted an important aspect of Article 1 of the Constitution of Latvia, namely, the principle of a self-defending democracy which derives from this article and which has, through no wish of our own, become extremely topical today.
Allow me to quote: “A democratic system of the state should by no means need to wait for actions aimed at abolishing the democratic system of the state to reach such a level where they are already tangibly destabilizing and threatening this system. At that point, the elimination of such a threat could require significantly more effort from the state, society would have to endure more extensive restrictions of rights, and the outcome would be less secure. It could already be too late. Therefore, the state has the right and, indeed, a duty to curb such threats at the very outset.”
VI
In turn, in its decision of 12 February 2014 when defining the term “the people of Latvia” as it is contained in Article 2 of the Satversme, the Department of Administrative Cases combined two guiding principles of the system of the state of Latvia established in the preamble of the Satversme, namely, that Latvia a democratic and concurrently a Latvian national state.
That means that term “the people of Latvia” covers citizens of Latvia who are linked to the state of Latvia by legal citizenship, as well as people belonging to the state nation of Latvians who are linked with the state of Latvia by their national and cultural belonging. In other words, within the meaning of Article 2 of the Satversme, the Latvian nation consists of all Latvian citizens regardless of their nationality, as well as all Latvians regardless of their citizenship.
In turn, the body of citizenry acts on behalf of the Latvian nation and consists of all legally capacitated citizens, and according to the guiding principle of a national state, any Latvian has the right to obtain Latvian citizenship.
This decision stipulates that the identity of the body of citizenry is part of the constitutional identity of the state of Latvia. This is not something that may be manipulated. It follows that mass naturalisation without individual verification whether the relevant candidate is loyal and has integrated into the existing body of citizenry, especially through knowledge of the official language and fulfilment of other criteria, is impermissible. Let us recall that this decision was taken regarding the initiative proposed for a referendum on automatically granting citizenship to all non-citizens.
VII
In conclusion, I would like to mention another decision of the Department of Administrative Cases in regard to the constitutional foundations of the state. That is the decision of 28 March 2014, which, first of all, notes that, as a national state, Latvia was founded by the state-nation of Latvians in accordance with its constitutional power or poivour constituant, as we know from legal theory. The aforementioned interpretation of the term “the people of Latvia” mentioned in Article 2 of the Satversme is derived from this.
The decision, furthermore, notes that neither the body of citizenry, not the Saeima as the legislator may alter the core of the Satversme. The core of the Satversme is inviolable. Importantly, in this decision, the Senate also stipulates that the core of the Satversme may not be infringed upon by European Union law. In case of contradictions, prevalence shall be given to the Satversme, namely, the core of the Satversme.
Thus, years before this issue was ever to be raised by the European Union, in order to safeguard our constitution, this decision already established protection for the core of the Satversme against anti-constitutional amendments, as well as against legal norms imposed by the European Union that would go against the core of the Satversme.
VIII
These specific decisions, which I have mentioned here today, as well as many other rulings of the Senate demonstrate that, alongside the Constitutional Court, the Senate, too, brings a significant contribution to interpreting the Satversme by creating uniform case-law, verifying the compliance with the rule of law of decisions taken by lower courts and directly enforcing the Satversme.
May you have the inspiration and strength to always stand up for Latvia and our Satversme!
I wish you a successful conference, valuable discussions and useful conclusions!