On Thursday, April 27, the Constitutional Court (ST) began reviewing the norm that determines the grounds for excluding a sworn attorney from the number of sworn attorneys, ST informs.
On Thursday, April 27, the Constitutional Court (ST) began reviewing the norm that determines the grounds for excluding a sworn attorney from the number of sworn attorneys, ST informs.
A criminal proceeding was initiated against the applicant, but it was later terminated on a non-rehabilitative basis by the decision of the prosecutor. The applicant is a sworn lawyer, and the contested norm determines one of the conditions, if fulfilled, a sworn lawyer can be excluded from the number of sworn lawyers.
The applicant states that the contested norm does not provide the Latvian Council of Sworn Advocates with discretion in making a decision to exclude a person from the number of sworn advocates, and thus this norm will cause her a violation of the fundamental right contained in the first sentence of Article 106 of the Constitution, namely the right to freely choose an occupation.
According to the applicant, the absolute prohibition contained in the contested norm is too broad and not proportionate.
ST will consider the case in a written process. The decision must be taken no later than 30 days after the ST meeting.
