6 November, 2012
On issues discussed in session of the Board of Justice on November 5
The Board of Justice recommends keeping title of the Supreme Court
The Board of Justice expresses opinion that title of the Supreme Court should be kept also after structural reforms of court system, when the Supreme Court will operate as a cassation instance only.
Romans Apsitis and Sanita Osipova, experts in field of history of law and constitutional law, told to Judicial Policy Subcommittee of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Saeima that the Supreme Court as a cassation instance should be named the Senate after reform would be implemented, as it was in interwar Latvia. In his turn, Linards Mucins expressed an opinion that title of the Supreme Court should not be changed. Believing that this issue should be discussed by judiciary first of all, the Saeima’s Subcommittee asked the Board of Justice to propose of further title that should be given to the Supreme Court and if its change is linked with amendments to the Constitution, as at present the Supreme Court is mentioned in the Constitution as the highest court instance.
In session on the 5th of November, having listened to different opinions, the Board agreed that title of the Supreme Court should be kept for cassation instance also after implementation of structural reform, as historical title of the Senate in present Latvia and international society might be unfamiliar and incomprehensible. Moreover, Constitution should not be amended due such reason. The title of the Senate might be kept as title of structural unit of the Supreme Court.
The Board of Justice supports replacement of extras for qualification classes with extras for time of operation in post of a judge
The Board of Justice supports laws and regulations included in draft law “Amendments to the Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Municipal Institutions” providing replacement of extras for qualification classes with extras for time of operation in post of a judge, if a judge receives positive statement in regular evaluation of professional operation of a judge.
The Board of Justice had conceptually supported such proposal prepared by the Ministry of Justice in its session on 18th of June already, but Budget and Finance (Taxation) Committee of the Saeima asked opinion of the Board about concrete legal regulations influencing remuneration of judges.
At the same time, the Board of Justice draws attention to the fact that, by adopting amendments to the Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Municipal Institutions, balance between remuneration of lawyers of state institutions and judges should be provided and unequal attitude towards different officials, when stating other issues related to remuneration, should be eliminated.