Latvia

• Author: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (European Commission), European Centre of Expertise (ECE)
• Pages: 36-37

Flash Re por t 1 2/2018

Decem ber 20 18

36

Lat via

Sum m ary

(I) Th e sho rta ge o f m edica l st aff and fin ancia l re sour ces h as dec ided th e leg islat or to

retain p rov ision s on overtim e wor k for medical staff, w hich exceeds the stand ar d

am ount of overt ime w ork per mit ted by law.

(I I) Th e Sup rem e Cou rt del iver ed a decisi on b ased on the CJEU’s j ud gmen t in c ase C-

266/ 14, 10 Sept ember 20 15, ‘

Feder ación de Serv icios Privados del sin dicat o

Com ision es obrera s’.

(I II) The decisi on of t he CJEU in case C-38 5/ 17, 1 3 Decem ber 2 018, Hein

has no

im plication s on Latvian law .

_____ _______ _______ _______ ____ _______ _______ ____ _______ _______

1 Nation al Le gislat ion

1.1 Ov ert im e

On 20 Decem ber 201 8, Parl iament adop ted amendm ent s t o the Medic al Tr eatm ent Law

(‘rstniecbas likums’). The am endments assert t hat overtim e wor k f or medical staff

within a 7-day per iod m ay not exceed 16 hour s in t otal.

The am end men ts ent er ed int o f orc e on 0 1 Jan uar y 201 9. I nit iall y, t he Medica l Tr eat me nt

Law pr ovid ed for 60 hou rs o f a ‘re gula r e xte nsio n’ o f w ork ing ti me for me dical st aff. Th is

regulation was adopt ed a decade ag o, p rimarily in r esponse to the shortage of m edical

staff , t he economic crisis and insufficien t funding in the health car e sect or ( inability to

pay 20 0 per cent for overt ime work as is t he case f or all other em ployees in Latvia) .

Aft er a c onsi der able dec line in m edica l st af f ( m edica l d oct ors, nu rse s) in th e St at e he alt h

care sect or, because t hey left to work eit her abroad ( west ern Europe) or i n the pri vate

healt h care sector, an d following the decision of t he Const itutional Court, wh ich found

th at the non -payment of 200 per cent for overtim e work ( for working t ime ex ceeding

th e st an dard 40-hour week ) was unconstitut ional ( the Cou rt’s judgm ent is available

her e, see al so May 20 18 Flash Rep ort ), the legi slator took ini tiat ive t o rest rict ov ertim e

work in t h e St at e health care sector. I n 2017 , Par liam ent decided t o prohibit ‘regu lar

extensions’ of w or king t ime in th e Stat e health care sector by 2020 with a transitional

per iod – in 201 8, ‘r egular ex tensions’ of working tim e was not t o exceed 50 h ou rs per

week ; in 201 9, it was t o b e re duced to 4 5 hours p er w eek. How ever , it becam e evi dent

in 201 7 t hat there is a sign ifican t short age of m edical doctor s and especially of nu rses,

and that t he im plem ent ation of t he pr ev ious r eduction would not be possible. The

ado pted decision on a m axim um of 16 h ours of overtim e per week is a co mpr omise for

th e cur rent ly difficu lt sit uati on of the Stat e hea lth care system .

This m eans that exempt ions under Direct ive 200 3/ 88/ EC cont inue to apply t o Latvia’s

Stat e healt h care sector .

2 Cou rt Rulings

2.1 W orkin g tim e

On 12 D ecemb er 2 018, the Su prem e Cou rt ad opt ed a decision b ased o n CJEU case law

on t he concept of ‘working time’ ( t he r ulin g in case SKC-959/ 2018 is av ailable here) .

The case involv ed an em ploy ee w ho prov ided serv ices at client s’ prem ises bu t n ot at

th e premises of t he em ploy er ( at t h e office) . The d ispute was about the t ime the

em ploy ee sp ent travelling from h ome t o t he first client and t rav elling back home from

th e l ast clien t. The f irst an d sec ond inst ance cour t m isin ter pre ted the CJEU’s decision in