2 December 2014
On decisions and issues reviewed by the Council for the Judiciary in the sitting of 1 December
Amendments to the Investigatory Operations Law are supported conceptually
Having got acquainted with draft law “Amendments to the Investigatory Operations Law” prepared by the Ministry of Interior and discussions regarding this issue, the Council for the Judiciary agreed to regulation planned that the court is a responsible institution which accepts obtaining of data to be stored from electronic communications merchants.
At the meeting of State Secretaries, when reviewing prepared draft law, the question whether the court or the prosecutor’s office should be responsible institution for accepting of obtaining of such data remained uncoordinated. Discussions on this issue arouse also in the sitting of the Council for the Judiciary.
When elaborating the draft law, it was established that processing of data to be stored stipulated in the Electronic Communications Law, which is performed by law enforcement bodies, may significantly injure individual’s right to respect for private life. Thus, proposal to amend Paragraph Three Section 7 and Paragraph Five Section 9 of the Investigatory Operations Law was included in the draft law to ensure prior prosecutor’s review regarding request of data to be stored, similarly as it is envisaged in Paragraph One Section 192 of the Criminal Procedure Law. However, the Prosecutor’s General Office objected against such amendments, pointing out that respective prior judicial review should be given to the competence of the court.
The Council for the Judiciary, having conceptually agreed with involvement of courts as independent institutions in this regulation, turned attention to the fact that with current number of judges and financing it is impossible to provide prior review within the Investigatory Operations Law operatively, not harming to execution of functions stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Law. Delegating of additional functions to courts may cause threat to ensuring of the right to termination of criminal proceedings in reasonable term, which is guaranteed to persons, and it would endanger reforms implemented previously, which were directed to efficiency of proceedings, in particular, in respect of civil cases.
Thus, determination of courts as responsible institutions to accept actions stipulated in the Investigatory Operations Law is supported with the condition that necessary additional financing should be provided in the state budget for this purpose.
Procedure for transfer of judges of Sigulda court and Riga city Centre district court to work to other court is approved
The Council for the Judiciary approved procedure, how the proposal on transfer of judges of Sigulda court and Riga city Centre district court to work to other court due to annexing of Riga city Centre district court and Sigulda courtto other court has been prepared by the Minister of Justice and reviewed in the sitting of the Council for the Judiciary.
In its previous sitting, the Council for the Judiciary adopted a decision on changes in distribution of number of judges in district (city) courts in accordance with amendments to the law “On Judicial Power”, by which changes in list of district (city) courts included in catchment area of Riga regional court are introduced, annexing Riga city Centre district court and Sigulda court to other courts as from 1 March 2015.
The Council for the Judiciary assesses the most appropriate court for continuation of judicial careers
To ensure further career of judges of the Chamber of Criminal Cases, who were not transferred to the Department of Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court, the Council for the Judiciary assessed the most appropriate court that would be of the most equal value to the court, where judges have worked until 31 December 2014, when in accordance with the court reform stipulated by the law “On Judicial Power” the Chamber of Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court ceases to exist.
Observing the fact that the Chamber of Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court as the appellate instance court conforms with Riga regional court as the appellate instance court and that specialization of cases reviewed in the Chamber of Criminal Cases conforms with specialization of cases reviewed in the Judicial Panel of Criminal Cases of Riga regional court, and that both courts are located in Riga, the Council for the Judiciary admitted that the most appropriate office for transfer of judges of the Chamber of Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court is the office of a judge in Riga regional court.
In accordance with the law “On Judicial Power” decision on transfer of a judge will be adopted by the Saeima (Parliament).
Information prepared by
Rasma Zvejniece, the Head of the Division of Communication of the Supreme Court
E-mail: , telephone: 67020396, 28652211