Judgment - Satversmes tiesa

objectives are not proportionate (see: Judgment of 23 December 2002 by the
Constitutional Court in the case No. 2002-15-01, Para 3 of the Findings).
When assessing whether the Contested Norm complies with the first sentence of
Article 91 of the Satversme, the Constitutional Court has to investigate the following:
1) whether and what persons (groups of person) enjoy equal and, according to certain
criteria, comparable conditions; 2) whether the Contested Norm provides for a different
attitude towards these persons; 3) whether this attitude has an objective and reasonable
grounds, namely, whether the principle of proportionality has been observed (see:
Judgment of 18 February 2011 by the Constitutional Court in the case No. 2010-29-01,
Para 12).
11. The right to satisfying of claims from the resources of the Guarantee Funds
pursuant to Section 3 of the Employees Protection Law is granted to person who have
been or are in an employment legal relationship with an employer, who has been declared
insolvent, if the referred to claims have been included in creditor’s meeting approved
recognized unsecured creditor claims list.
In fact, the legislator has not changed the employees’ protection system in case of
insolvency of the employer and the group of persons who have the right to satisfying of
the claim from the resources of the Guarantee Fund; it has only limited amount of
disbursements from the Guarantee Fund for the period from 10 July 2009 to
31 December 2011. Consequently, the Contested Regulatory Framework no doubt
determines two groups of persons having the right to satisfying of the claim from the
resources of the Guarantee Fund:
1) persons whose claims have been submitted to the Insolvency Agency before
9 July 2009;
2) persons whose claims have been submitted to the Insolvency Agency after
9 July 2009;