Latvia’s Constitutional Court (ST) has decided not to initiate proceedings following a request from Daugavpils City Council, with which the institution challenged the duty to remove objects glorifying totalitarian regimes.
The court explains that the city council argues the legislator has used contradicting regulations to interfere with autonomous functions as listed in the Law on Local Governments – responsibility to organise territory development.
The request from the city council cited insights and opinions expressed in legal science regarding the principle of municipalities and their autonomous functions. It also mentioned a general opinion that decisions regarding removal of Soviet and Nazi regime glorifying objects located within territories of municipalities is their autonomous function.
ST, however, mentioned that
the request did not mention how the issue of removal of Soviet and Nazi regime glorifying objects affects autonomous function of the municipal government to supervise and organise development of its territories.
The request also mentioned the opinion that the challenged norms prohibit the city council from making decisions in regards to the use of its own financial resources. When presenting new functions to municipal administrations, the legislator should provide appropriate funding to perform said functions. This was not done in this case, which is why Daugavpils City Council considers it a breach of municipal administration principle.
According to the Law on Prohibition of Display of Objects Praising the Soviet and Nazi Regimes and their Dismantling in the Territory of the Republic of Latvia, removal of objects is to be financed in equal parts by the state and municipality.
Municipalities’ duty to allocate finances for the removal of objects covered by the law is listed in Section 4 of the law, which states removal of objects glorifying totalitarian regimes are to be primarily financed from donations from private and legal persons if there are any, the court explains.
According to the Constitutional Court, the legislator has thereby provided that all funding for the removal of monuments glorifying Nazi and Soviet regimes is to come from donations from private and legal persons. If donations are not enough, funding of removal of objects is to come from the state and municipal budgets.
The request mentions that Daugavpils will not be able to attract sufficient funding to afford removal of monuments, plaques and memorials within the city’s territory the government has marked for removal.
However, request does not include a justification for such a claim, nor are there any arguments to imply the local government in Daugavpils has even tried to collect donations, the court mentions. Daugavpils City Council also made no mention how Section 8 interferes with the city council’s rights.
Considering the aforementioned, the request does not meet the requirements of the Constitutional Court Law, the court concluded.
The verdict of the Constitutional Court is not subject to appeal.
More on this topic: Latvian Russians Union turns to UN Human Rights Committee to save Soviet monuments