1. European Law in the Case- law of the Constitutional Court of Latvia Kristine Kruma

2. 89. The State shall recognise and protect fundamental human rights in accordance with this Constitution, laws and international agreements binding upon Latvia. Latvian Constitution

3. 68. All international agreements, which settle matters that may be decided by the legislative process, shall require ratification by the Saeima. Upon entering into international agreements, Latvia, with the purpose of strengthening democracy, may delegate a part of its State institution competencies to international institutions. The Saeima may ratify international agreements in which a part of State institution competencies are delegated to international institutions in sittings in which at least two-thirds of the members of the Saeima participate, and a two-thirds majority vote of the members present is necessary for ratification. Membership of Latvia in the European Union shall be decided by a national referendum, which is proposed by the Saeima. Substantial changes in the terms regarding the membership of Latvia in the European Union shall be decided by a national referendum if such referendum is requested by at least one-half of the members of the Saeima.

4. Article 2 of the Satversme provides not only for the right to “the final say” but also for an obligation to assess the membership conditions of an international organization as such. In this context, the right to “the initial say” seems even more important. This means the legitimate agreement on the exercise of sovereignty in a certain manner, namely, the aims, nature and structure of an organization that is implementing competencies and the ability of the State and its citizens to influence implementation processes. Already prior to World War II in international law analysis of the legal consequences that arise when a State undertakes international obligations, sovereignty was treated as the exercise of sovereign rights rather than a restriction thereof. Review of constitutionality of Lisbon Treaty (No. 2008-11-03)

5. The Constitutional Court recognizes that the State of Latvia is based on fundamental values such as human rights and fundamental freedoms, democracy, the sovereignty of the State and its people, the division of powers and the rule of law. The State is obliged to guarantee these values and they cannot be infringed by amending Satversme by law. Therefore, the delegation of competencies cannot violate the rule of law and the basis of an independent, sovereign and democratic republic. Likewise, the EU cannot affect the rights of citizens to decide upon the issues that are essential to a democratic State. Review of constitutionality of Lisbon Treaty (No. 2008-11-03)

6. EU law: source for interpretation (No. 2004-01-06) EU law is binding since accession, including Directive 2001/51/EC EU law is binding since accession, including Directive 2001/51/EC Conflicts between obligations under EU law and international law should be solved on basis of Article 351 TFEU Conflicts between obligations under EU law and international law should be solved on basis of Article 351 TFEU National courts are bound by CJEU case- law National courts are bound by CJEU case- law In relation to EU citizens EU law applies, while in relation to non-EU citizens international convention applies In relation to EU citizens EU law applies, while in relation to non-EU citizens international convention applies Latvia should undertake procedures to do away with conflicting obligations. Latvia should undertake procedures to do away with conflicting obligations.

7. ...Such interpretation of land use planning can also be derived from the European Union law, where it is established that in the field of particularly sensitive environmental protection, a sole reference to State economic welfare is insufficient to compensate the rights of others [individuals] (see; Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive (79/09/EEC), Article 9, the fourth part of Article 6 and Article 7 of the Directive (92/43/EEC), case C-44/94 „Regina v. Secretary of State for the Environment” [1996] ECR I-03805 and case C-3/96 „Commission v. the Netherlands” [1998] ECR I-3031). (para 15) EU law:source for interpretation (No. 2007-11-03)

8. “... Latvian law must be interpreted so as to avoid any conflicts with the obligations of Latvia towards the European Union, unless the fundamental principles incorporated in the Satversme are affected. Thus also regarding the Natura 2000 territories the requirements of the directives transposed by Latvia and interpretation of the directives established in the case law of the European Court of Justice should be observed.” (para 25.4)

9. EU law: source for interpretation (No. 2011-17-03) After having ratified the Treaty on Accession of Latvia to the EU, the EU law has become an integral part of the Latvian law. Consequently, legal acts of the EU and interpretation established in case-law of the CJEU should be taken into consideration when applying national normative acts in order to prevent possible contradictions between Latvian and the EU law.

10. Obligation to exhaust remedies of EU law (No. 2010-71-01) Obligation to exhaust available remedies for the protection of one’s rights, which are not directly linked with the protection of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, and are directed solely for the application of the EU law, are not precondition for a person to submit constitutional complaint.

11. Obligation to request preliminary rulings (2010-71-01) Judgments of CC are without appeal. Therefore, if the result of the case depends on interpretation of the directive, the Court should verify whether directive has been interpreted by the CJEU, its text is clear and precise and whether there is need to apply for preliminary ruling. Judgments of CC are without appeal. Therefore, if the result of the case depends on interpretation of the directive, the Court should verify whether directive has been interpreted by the CJEU, its text is clear and precise and whether there is need to apply for preliminary ruling. At the same time Latvian Constitution can provide for higher standard of human rights protection. In those cases directive is not decisive. At the same time Latvian Constitution can provide for higher standard of human rights protection. In those cases directive is not decisive.

12. EU remedies in Constitutional procedure In accordance with EU law national courts of general jurisdiction interpret and apply national legal norms in accordance with provisions of directives and they should ensure uniform application of EU law. In accordance with EU law national courts of general jurisdiction interpret and apply national legal norms in accordance with provisions of directives and they should ensure uniform application of EU law. They can apply EU norms by reference to direct effect or by using principle of harmonious interpretation (indirect effect). They can apply EU norms by reference to direct effect or by using principle of harmonious interpretation (indirect effect). In cases when answer is not clear they can ask preliminary ruling. In case if they refuse to do that the situation of State liability might arise. In cases when answer is not clear they can ask preliminary ruling. In case if they refuse to do that the situation of State liability might arise. EU Directives do not determine scope and contents of the Constitution, but laws. Therfore, CC can refer to Directives in order to determine the contents of the provisions of laws. EU Directives do not determine scope and contents of the Constitution, but laws. Therfore, CC can refer to Directives in order to determine the contents of the provisions of laws.