Judgment - Satversmes tiesa

ights of the applicants, though the restriction has a legitimate aim, i.e. to assure
satisfaction of all employees’ claims at least at a reduced amount.
According to the LBAS, the restriction established to the right of employees is not
proportional with the benefit gained by the society in general from the restriction. The
only possibility of employees to receive their wage in case of insolvency of the employer
is to request it from the Guarantee Fund. The information gathered by the Ministry of
Justice shows that other solutions for receiving the above mentioned remuneration are
non-effective.
By referring to the letter of the Ministry of Justice prepared when drafting the
Amendments, the LBAS indicates that, since 2006, incomes from payment of the State
entrepreneurial risk fee have not been transferred to the Guarantee Fund. According to
the LBAS, an alternative solution is to deal with the issue regarding forming funds of the
Guarantee Fund rather than to adopt the Contested Norms and reduce expenses of the
Guarantee Fund.
By referring to the opinion of the Saeima Legal Office on the draft Amendments,
the LBAS indicates that the regulatory framework is not the most lenient solution for
assuring long-term social stability by satisfying employees’ claims at the amount of
resources available.
Consequently, the LBAS holds that the Contested Norms do not comply with the
principle of legitimate expectations because “the established infringement of legitimate
expectations is unjustifiable”.
8. The summoned person, the Employers’ Confederation of Latvia [Latvijas
Darba devēju konfederācija] indicates that the restrictions established in the Employees
Protection Law have objective and reasonable grounds taking into account circumstances
of economic recession.