Overall assessment

AuthorKristīne Dupate
12 Overall assessment
The following transposition problems were mentioned in this report.
Definitions and concepts:
1. There is one major problem which relates to the definition and un derstanding of the
concept of non-discrimination. The principle of non-discrimination in the majority of
Latvian no rmative acts is formulated as ‘prohibit ion of differential treatment’ instead of
‘prohibition of discrimination’. This may result in an inadequate application of EU law, for
example, by excluding direct and indirect discrimination which arises due to the equal
treatment of persons in different situations, by excluding exceptions provided in the
framework of the principle of non-discrimination, for example, reasonable accommodation,
or in th e form of formally incorrect findings by national courts, such as finding that
discrimination is justified because the relevant persons were not in comparable
2. The set of laws pro vide inc omplete definitions by not stipulating that less favourable
treatment on the grounds of pregnancy and maternity is not only discrimination, but direct
3. There is a l ack of an explicit link between pregnancy/maternity protection and non-
discrimination provisions in the Labour Law which may ‘cause’ a problem, in particular, for
identifying that non-provision of specific rights during pregnancy and maternity leads to
direct sex discrimination. None of the laws explicitly provide that pregnancy and maternity
discrimination may occur in two cases: one is unfavourable treatm ent due t o pregnancy
and maternity ( Directive 2006/54/EC) and the second is unfavourable treatment due to
request or non-provision of the specific rights due to pregnancy a nd maternity (Directive
92/85/EEC in conjunction with Directive 2006/54/EC).
4. The definition of ‘sexual harassment’, w hich is ‘merged’ with the definition of
Material scope:
1. Special law s usually regulate legal relationships between private parties, while EU
gender equality and non-discrimination law entails horizontal and mainstreaming
obligations for state powers. There wa s a provision obliging the drafters of l egislative
documents and the delegated legislator the Cabinet of Ministers and subordinated
executive institutions to carry out impact assessment, but these explicit norms were
abolished.185 The State Chancellery h as explained this amendment by the need to assess
all legislative proposals from the perspective of all general pr inciples of law. 186 However,
as expected by the author of this report, this has led to a lack of appropriate assessment
of draft legislation.
2. The prohibition of discrimination with regard to employment (service) conditions has
not been implemented with regard to judges and public prosecutors. As a consequence,
judges187 and public prosecutors188 are still only protected against discrimination with
regard to access to a post.
184 Decision of Riga City Vidzemes District Court of 17 July 2006 in Case No. C 30-1667/9-2006.g. (not
185 The Instruction of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 19 ‘The procedure on the initial assessment of legislative
proposals’ (Tiesbu akta projekta skotnjs ietekmes izvrtšanas krtba), Official Gazette No. 205, 30
December 2009, respective amendments Official Gazette No. 91, 14 May 2013.
186 Telephone interview with the Head of Department of Development of State Administration of the State
Chancellery on 31 August 2015.
187 Article 51(2) of the Law on Judicial Power (Likums ‘Par tiesu varu’), Official Gazette No. 1, 14 January 1993.
188 Article 331(1) of the Prosecutors’ Office Law (Prokuratras likums), Official Gazette No. 65, 2 June 1994.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT