On Wednesday, the 28th of June, the Constitutional Court of Latvia found requirements for implementation of study programmes in Latvian language as non-compliant with the country’s Constitution.
The case regarding the requirements for study programmes in colleges and universities to be implemented in state language was initiated following a request from multiple Saeima deputies: alērijs Agešins, Edgars Kucins, Boriss Cilevičs, Ivans Klementjevs, Artūrs Rubiks, Jānis Tutins, Vladimirs Nikonovs, Igors Pimenovs, Ivars Zariņš, Regīna Ločmele, Inga Goldberga, Ivans Ribakovs, Vitālijs Orlovs, Jānis Krišāns, Andrejs Klementjevs, Jānis Urbanovičs, Sergejs Dolgopolovs and Nikolajs Kabanovs, Sovereign Power party representative Ļubova Švecova and For Each and Every party representative Karīna Sprūde.
They asked the court of law to evaluate the compliance of Section 56 of the Law on Higher Education Institutions to Sections 105, 112 and 113 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
The challenged section of the law presents a general prohibition to provide higher education services in a foreign language (with certain exceptions).
Part 3 of Section 56 of the Law on Higher Education Institutions states that “study programmes of higher education institutions and colleges shall be implemented in the official language.
In a study programme which is implemented in the official language, not more than one-fifth of the credit point amount of the study programme may be implemented in other official languages of the European Union, taking into account that final and State examinations as well as the writing of a qualification paper, bachelor or master’s thesis may not be included in this part.”
Section 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia states that ”everyone has the right to own property. Property shall not be used contrary to the interests of the public. Property rights may be restricted only in accordance with law. Expropriation of property for public purposes shall be allowed only in exceptional cases on the basis of a specific law and in return for fair compensation.”
Whereas Section 112 of the Constitution states “everyone has the right to education.
The state shall ensure that everyone may acquire primary and secondary education without charge. Primary education shall be compulsory.”
Section 113 makes it clear “the state shall recognise the freedom of scientific research, artistic and other creative activity, and shall protect copyright and patent rights”.
The case was reviewed in writing on the 7th of February. After composing the ruling, however, the court decided to restart the viewing of the case with participants present.
In a similar previous case the Constitutional Court ruled that restrictions on private universities to implement study programmes in the official languages of the European Union (EU) do not comply with the Constitution, but restrictions on other foreign languages – comply.
This means private universities may be allowed to implement study programmes in, say, English language, but not in Russian language, which is not an official European language.
The Constitutional Court told the media that in this case the court looked at legislative acts that were in force until the 30th of April 2021 and have since lost their power.
The case the review of which was restarted on the 16th of May concerned existing regulations.
Both cases concern regulations that govern in which language study programmes are implemented by universities. With amendments to the law, the Saeima has amended cases in which deviations from the requirement to provide study programmes in state language, i.e. in which cases it is allowed to teach people in foreign languages.
Also read: New law has made South Koreans younger