Global Integrity Report

Latvia Home

Facts

Timeline

Notebook

Integrity Scorecard

2007 Assessment

Latvia: Integrity Indicators Scorecard

Latvia: Integrity Scorecard Report > Sub-Category: Judicial Accountability
Indicators		Score
33	Are judges appointed fairly?	100
34	Can members of the judiciary be held accountable for their actions?	83
35	Are there regulations governing conflicts of interest for the national-level judiciary?	86
36	Can citizens access the asset disclosure records of members of the national-level judiciary?	100

Indicator and sub-Indicator Details

Are judges appointed fairly?

33a: In law, there is a transparent procedure for selecting national-level judges.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: Law "On the Judiciary". Sec.60. Order of Appointment and Affirmation of a District (City) Court Judge. Sec.61. Order of Affirmation of a Regional Court Judge. Sec.62. Order of Affirmation of a Supreme Court Judge.

33b: In practice, there are certain professional criteria required for the selection of national-level judges.

Score:

100

Comments: The list of established criteria for judges is rather limited, but strictly followed. These include the age limit of at least 30 years, higher education in law, at least five years experience in a legal profession, successful qualification examination result. The contents of the qualification exam are not disclosed in a public document.

References: Requirements for judges: [ LINK ]

Elksne, I. Varna varnai aci var ieknabt [Inteview with Mr. Andris Gulans, President of the Supreme Court.] Public policy portal Politika.lv. 04.04.2006. [ LINK ]

33c: In law, there is a confirmation process for national-level judges (i.e. conducted by the legislature or an independent body).

Score:

YES

Comments: Judicial appointments shall be confirmed by the Saeima and they shall be irrevocable.

References: The Constitution of Latvia. Sec.84 [ LINK ]

Can members of the judiciary be held accountable for their actions?

34a: In law, members of the national-level judiciary are obliged to give reasons for their decisions.

Score:

YES

Comments: According to Civil Procedure Law: The reasoned party shall state the facts established in the matter, the evidence on which the conclusions of the court are based, and the arguments by which such evidence, or other evidence, has been rejected. This party shall also set out the regulatory enactments, to which the court has acted pursuant , and a judicial assessment of the facts determined in the matter, as well as the conclusions of the court regarding the validity or invalidity of the claim. The reasoned part shall indicate a reference to the law in accordance with which the adjudication was taken, and shall justify the conclusion made.

In the reasoned party shall be set out: 1) the facts determined in the matter, the evidence upon which the court conclusions are based and the arguments pursuant to which one or more items of evidence have been rejected; 2) the norms of law on which the court has based itself; 3) legal assessment of the facts determined in the matter; 4) references to published court judgments and legal literature, as well as to other special literature, which has been used by the court in its reasoning; and 5) the court conclusions regarding the validity of the application.

References: Civil Procedure Law. Sec.193. Form and contents of a judgment. Clause 5.

Criminal Procedure Law. Sec.320. Structure of an Adjudication. Clause 4. [ LINK ]

Administrative Procedure Law. Sec.251. Form and Content of Judgments. Clause 5.

34b: In practice, members of the national-level judiciary give reasons for their decisions.

Score:

100

Comments: The President of the Supreme Court Andris Gulans spoke of missing grounds in some judgments: "The Supreme Court carried out a court practice summarization on the quality of judgments of appellate courts and the Supreme Court Department of Civil Matters prepared recommendations for the argumentation and adherence to the norms of the civil process of appellate judgments. [..] The Senate Department of Civil Matters [instance of cassation] recently turned down two judgments of the Riga Regional Court that opposed the judgments of the court of first instance. However, differing from the first instance, the appellate judgments did not present an assessment of evidence, did not have argumentation and their conclusions contradicted the actual merits of the case."

References: Speech of the President of the Supreme Court. Kadu tiesu varu Latvija mes velamies? [What Kind of Judiciary do We Want in Latvia?] 09.03.2007. [ LINK ]

Skujeniece, V. The Quality of Court Judgments. Centre for Public Policy "Providus" (2003). [ LINK ]

34c: In law, there is a disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) for the national-level judicial system.

Score:

YES

Comments: Matters concerning disciplinary and administrative violations by judges of district (city) courts, Land Registry Offices, regional courts and the Supreme Court shall be examined by the Judicial Disciplinary Board.

References: Judicial Disciplinary Liability Law. Sec.2, Clause 1.

34d: In law, the judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) is protected from political interference.

Score:

YES

Comments: The composition of the Judicial Disciplinary Board reflects the principle that judiciary officials only shall review the disciplinary matters of judges.

References: The Judicial Disciplinary Liability Law. Sec.2, Clause 2. The composition of the Judicial Disciplinary Board shall be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and his or her deputy, three judges of the Supreme Court, two Chief Judges of regional courts, two Chief Judges of district (city) courts and two Heads of Land Registry Offices. The members of the Judicial Disciplinary Board (with the exception of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) shall be elected by secret ballot for four years at a conference of judges.

34e: In practice, when necessary, the judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) initiates investigations.

Score:

100

$Scoring Criteria :: 100 Score Criteria: The judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) aggressively starts investigations -- or participates fully with cooperating agencies\' investigations -- into judicial misconduct. The judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) is fair in its application of this power. <p>50 Score Criteria: The judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) will start or cooperate in investigations, but often relies on external pressure to set priorities, or has limited effectiveness when investigating. The judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism), though limited in effectiveness, is still fair in its application of power. <p>0 Score Criteria: The judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) rarely investigates on its own or cooperates in other agencies\' investigations, or the judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) is partisan in its application of this power.$

Comments: The Judicial Disciplinary Board reviewed 19 disciplinary matters in 2005, 17 in 2006, and eight in the first half of 2007.

References: Web site of the Judicial Disciplinary Board [ LINK ]

Elksne, I. Varna varnai aci var ieknabt [Inteview with Mr. Andris Gulans, President of the Supreme Court.] Public policy portal Politika.lv. 04.04.2006. [ LINK ]

34f: In practice, when necessary, the judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) imposes penalties on offenders.

Score:

100

Comments: The Judicial Disciplinary Board has applied the following penalties:

In the first half of 2007: one annotation, four reprimands, one reduction of salary for one year.

In 2006: five annotations, five reprimands (including one case also sent to the Judicial Qualification Board for a decision regarding the downgrading of the qualification category of the judge), three recommendations to remove judges from office.

In 2005: two annotations, nine reprimands, one recommendation to remove a judge from office.

References: Web site of the Judicial Disciplinary Board [ LINK ]

Elksne, I. Varna varnai aci var ieknabt [Inteview with Mr. Andris Gulans, President of the Supreme Court.] Public policy portal Politika.lv. 04.04.2006. [ LINK ]

Are there regulations governing conflicts of interest for the national-level judiciary?

35a: In law, members of the national-level judiciary are required to file an asset disclosure form.

Score:

YES

Comments: All members of the national-level judiciary are required to submit declarations of income and assets annually. Most of the information thus submitted is published.

References: Law "On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials". Chapter IV, Declarations of Public Officials. [ LINK ]

35b: In law, there are regulations governing gifts and hospitality offered to members of the national-level judiciary.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: Law "On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials". Sec. 13 and 14. [ LINK ]

35c: In law, there are requirements for the independent auditing of the asset disclosure forms of members of the national-level judiciary.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: Law "On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials". Chapter V, Review of Violations and Verification of Facts. [ LINK ]

35d: In law, there are restrictions for national-level judges entering the private sector after leaving the government.

Score:

YES

Comments: All public officials, including judges, are prohibited for two years after leaving their offices from taking employment or obtaining shares of companies in which the public officials have taken decisions on procurement for state or local government needs, allocated of state or local government resources and state or local government privatization fund resources or has performed supervision, control or punitive functions.

References: Law "On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials". Sec.10. [ LINK ]

35e: In practice, the regulations restricting post-government private sector employment for national-level judges are effective.

Score:

100

Comments: Official sources do not present any data on the violation of regulations restricting post-government private sector employment for judges. A related problem, which has been mentioned in the media and by the president of the Supreme Court, is a practice whereby judges who have been dismissed from office for serious violation are admitted to the bar.

References: Informativais zinojums "Par Korupcijas noversanas un apkarosanas biroja darbibu no 2006. gada 1. julija lidz 31.decembrim" (Informative report "On the Activities of the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau from July 1 until Dec. 31, 2006). [ LINK ]

Speech of the President of the Supreme Court. "Tiesnesu un advokatu profesionala etika, uzvediba un atbildiba." [The Professional Ethics, Conduct and Responsibility of Judges and Lawyers].08.06.2006. [ LINK ]

35f: In practice, the regulations governing gifts and hospitality offered to members of the national-level judiciary are effective.

Score:

100

Comments:

References: Kalnins, V. Korupcijas mazinasana [Restricting of Corruption]. Published in: Rozenvalds, J. (ed.) Cik demokratiska ir Latvija. Demokratijas monitorings 2005-2007. (How Democratic is Latvia. Monitoring of Democracy 2005-2007). Zinatne, 2007. P.63.

Vai amatpersonas drikst piedalities sikas dzimsanas dienas svinibas? [May Public Officials participate in a Posh Birthday Party?] LTV Panorama, 22.12.2005. [ LINK ]

35g: In practice, national-level judiciary asset disclosures are audited.

Score:

100

Comments: The State Revenue Service checks the submission and accuracy of public officials declarations. In cases of doubt about whether the expenditure of a public official is commensurate with their official income, the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau audits the case in cooperation with the State Revenue Service. Some 354 public officials were penalized for a failure to submit declarations in due time or because of false data in 2006 (all in all 67 461 public officials were registered as of 01.01.2007). Moreover, upon recommendation of the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau, the State Revenue Service carried out tax audits of 47 public officials.

No targeted audits of declarations of judges are carried out.

References: The State Revenue Service of the Republic of Latvia. Annual Report. 2006. P.42. [ LINK ]

Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau. Annual Report. 2006. Pp.14-15. [ LINK ]

Can citizens access the asset disclosure records of members of the national-level judiciary?

36a: In law, citizens can access the asset disclosure records of members of the national-level judiciary.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: Law "On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials". Sec.26. [ LINK ]

36b: In practice, citizens can access judicial asset disclosure records within a reasonable time period.

Score:

100

Comments: There are no reports or studies about access to asset disclosure records because this access is very obvious. Section 26 of the Law "On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" provides legal grounds for public access to the publicly accessible parts of declarations of public officials.

This Web site ([ LINK ]) allows any user to access the publicly accessible parts of declarations of public officials (not for officials of security agencies), including those of judges instantly.

References: The below are not studies but references to a law and official Web site.

Law "On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials", Sec.26. [ LINK ]

Website: [ LINK ]

36c: In practice, citizens can access judicial asset disclosure records at a reasonable cost.

Score:

100

This Web site ([ LINK ]) allows any user to access the publicly accessible parts of declarations of public officials (not for officials of security agencies), including those of judges. Access is free of charge.

References: The below are not studies but references to a law and official Web site.

Law "On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials", Sec.26. [ LINK ]

Website: [ LINK ]