General legal framework

• Author: Kristīne Dupate
• Pages: 7-8

7

2General legal framework

2.1Constitution

2.1.1Constitutional ban on sex discrimination

The Constitution does not explicitly ban sex discrimination. Article 91 of the Constitution

addresses equal treatment and prohibition of discrimination in general. This article does

not list any discrimination grounds. It is interpreted by the authorities (regarding the

content of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, types and grounds)

according to the international human rights agreements on the basis of Article 89 of the

Constitution, which makes it mandatory to interpret fundamental rights provisions of the

Constitution in conformity with binding international agreements.

2.1.2Other constitutional protection of equality between men and women

The Constitution does not explicitly provide any specific or additional protection of equality

between men and women.

2.2Equal treatment legislation

Latvian law does not have specific equal treatment legislation. Latvia has chosen to

implement EU gender equality law in special laws regulating each particular field of life

rather than having one special law devoted to such implementation. For example, gender

equality in the field of employment was implemented by amendments to the Labour Law,

while in the field of social insurance it was done by respective amendments to the Law on

Social Security. Non-discrimination on the grounds of sex, with regard to the access to

and supply of goodsand services, was implemented by the Law on the Protection of

Consumer Rights and by the Law on Insurance Companies and their Supervision. As a

result of such approach, Latvia has faced some problems.

Firstly, problems arise because the structure of Latvian special laws does not always

coincide with the material and personal scope of the EU gender equality and non-

discrimination law, which leads to the situation that implementing measures do not

completely cover the scope required under relevant EU directives and sometimes the

legislator ‘has forgotten’ some laws where implementation is necessary.

In particular, relating to employment, the prohibition of discrimination with regard to

employment (service) conditions has not been implemented with regard to judges and

public prosecutors. As a consequence, judges27 and public prosecutors28are still only

protected against discrimination with regard to access to a post.

Implementation is incomplete for the prohibition of discrimination principle with regard to

the access to occupational social security schemes in the public sector. The laws on public-

sector long-term service pensions29 do not explicitly stipulate this principle.30

27 Article 51(2) of the Law on Judicial Power (Likums ‘Par tiesu varu’), Official Gazette No. 1, 14 January 1993.

28 Article 331(1) of the Prosecutors’ Office Law (Prokuratras likums), Official Gazette No. 65, 2 June 1994.

29 Law on Pensions for the Military (Militrpersonu izdienas pensiju likums) Official Gazette No. 86, 1 April

1998;Law on Pensions for Employees of the System of the Ministry of Interior Affairs with Special Ranks

(Par izdienas pensijm Iekšlietu ministrijas sistmas darbiniekiem ar specilajm dienesta pakpm),

Official Gazette No. 100/101, 16 April 1998; Law on Pensions for Prosecutors (Prokuroru izdienas pensiju

likums) Official Gazette No. 181, 3 June 1999;Law on Long-Term Service Pensions for Judges(Tiesnešu

izdienas pensiju likums) Official Gazette No. 7 July 2006;Law on Pensions for Artists of State and Municipal

Orchestras, Choirs, Concert Organisations, Theatres, and Circuses (Valsts un pašvaldbu profesionlo

orestru, koru, koncetrorganizciju, tetru un cirka mkslinieku izdienas pensiju likums), Official Gazette

No. 106, 7 July 2004.

30 Although this kind of pension is fully paid from the state budget, it still complies with all three criteria

established by the CJEU in Niemi (Case C-351/00 Pirkko Niemi [2002] ECR I-07007) thus falling within the

scope of Article 157 TFEU.