MEPRD Minister Plešs: Constitutional Court never doubted the usefulness or legality of the reform

The Constitutional Court has acknowledged that within the framework of the administrative-territorial reform two more municipalities have been united in a manner that conflicts with the basic law of the state. Ilūkste municipality was added to Augšdaugava municipality and Ozolnieki to Jelgava municipality in violation of the Constitution. However, Artūrs Toms Plešs, the head of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development responsible for the reform, is convinced that this decision of the Constitutional Court only confirms that the reform was really necessary.

The Constitutional Court - already after the municipal elections - has pointed out two more municipalities that were united against the Constitution. What to do with the results of the elections?

On June 21, 2021, the Constitutional Court passed a judgment in the joined case no. 2020-46-0106, recognizing that the administrative-territorial reform of Jaunjelgava, Carnikava, Rugāji, Iecava, Rundāle, Auce, Salas, Salacgrīva, Aloja, Babīte, Kandava and Mazsalaca districts complies with the Constitution, while the addition of Ilūkste municipality to Augšdaugava municipality and the addition of Ozolnieki municipality to Jelgava municipality does not comply with the Constitution.

As municipal elections have already taken place and the current municipalities continue their work until the first sitting of the newly elected councils on July 1, the Constitutional Court concluded that recognizing the contested norms as invalid from the moment of their adoption or the day of entry into force of the judgment of the Constitutional Court could lead to a significant violation of the interests of other persons. Therefore, the Constitutional Court decided to declare the respective contested norms invalid as of January 1, 2022.

The Constitutional Court also pointed out that the Saeima is given an opportunity, in compliance with the principles of a democratic state governed by the rule of law and the conclusions in this judgment, to determine a new administrative-territorial division in accordance with the Constitution concerning Ilūkste municipality and Ozolnieki municipality.

This judgment of the Constitutional Court means that the ATR has not been constitutional in four municipalities. Given that opponents of the reform used to point out: the reform was designed to benefit your political partners (For Latvia's Development, Latvijas attīstībai), what would you say to defend the reform?

As Sanita Osipova, the Chairperson of the Constitutional Court, has pointed out in the media, “moving through the corridors of the Saeima, the administrative-territorial reform underwent great changes”. I could add to Ms Osipova that, without a firm position and the adoption of certain compromises, this reform might still be moving through the same corridors. I would like to remind you that the reform has passed the control of the Constitutional Court in all essential aspects. The decisions of the Court generally confirm the adherence to the Constitution and the European Charter of Local Self-Government of the municipality reform led by the Cabinet of Ministers, the process of its preparation, consultation and adoption. The Ministry has emphasized that it is implementing a data-based reform and the judgments of the Constitutional Court largely confirm this fact. For the people of Latvia and the development of the country, this is a fundamentally important decision, as it gives the final accordance to the marked turning point of the reform for faster and at the same time more balanced development of the country and well-being of the population.

As in both previous cases of administrative-territorial reform, the Constitutional Court concluded that the contested norms: do not affect the principle of subsidiarity; the contested norms were reviewed and adopted in the Saeima in accordance with legal norms; the consultation with the relevant municipalities during the development and examination of the contested norms took place in accordance with legal norms.

In essence, the Constitutional Court urges to correct the situation that has developed now, when there are municipalities without their own development centers around the cities of Liepāja, Ventspils, Jelgava, Daugavpils and Rēzekne. According to the Constitutional Court, the administrative-territorial reform was based on the criterion that the municipality has a development center of regional or national significance. This vision is also in line with the original intention of the Ministry. Therefore, we will work on proposals to resolve the current situation.

Does this decision of the Constitutional Court not endanger the ATR as a whole, and who is responsible for it?

No, the reform is not threatened by this judgment of the Constitutional Court. As I have already indicated, the reform has passed the review of the Constitutional Court in all essential aspects. The court has also pointed out that the goal of the reform corresponds to the common interests of the entire Latvian society, the criteria are aimed at achieving the goal and consultations with municipalities have taken place in accordance with legal norms. In the case of Ilūkste and Ozolnieki, the Constitutional Court has granted a transitional period for the execution of the judgment until January 1. The judgment is voluminous (on 127 pages), in the beginning, we will carefully get acquainted with the argumentation provided by the Constitutional Court and then we will decide on further action.

How would you explain all the shortcomings in the process of implementation of this reform, which are pointed out by the Constitutional Court? Haste, selfish calculation, disregard for the wishes of the population or the inability of the population to see the big picture?

The Constitutional Court never doubted the usefulness or legality of the reform itself. The Constitutional Court has rejected the applicants' allegations that the municipality reform might have been carried out in a hurry without listening to the opinion of the population, as well as confirmed that the initial territorial division developed by the Ministry is based on objective and rational considerations.

Deviation from the aim and criteria of the reform in certain municipalities, which is indicated by the Constitutional Court in its decisions, is the result of political debates and compromises of the legislator. At the same time, I would like to emphasize that administrative-territorial reform in Latvia has been taking place since 1992, when the Supreme Council established the first committee for the preparation of territorial reform. It had to be finished. In its declaration, the government committed itself to implementing the reform and did so in time for the 2021 local elections.

We have looked at Latvia's growth opportunities realistically, including thinking specifically about the population and their well-being, and about reducing regional inequality. I will give just a few examples. In terms of productivity, Latvia lags far behind not only the old European Union (EU) member states but also its neighbors in the Baltics. In their recommendations, the experts of the World Bank, the OECD and the European Commission reiterate that the economic backwardness cannot be eliminated without significant reforms - in education, health care, municipality, etc. areas. This municipality reform will be a platform for others.

People in Latvia need to live better. For example, EU structural funding in municipalities is very limited in investing in business-critical infrastructure and attracting private investment that would create new jobs. Currently, only 14 out of 119 municipalities have jobs for at least half of their population, of which 13 are municipalities with development centers, while after the reform, 30 out of 43 municipalities will have a job for at least 40% of their population.

Larger municipalities will be more efficient, rational and provide citizens with higher quality and comparable services at a reasonable cost, regardless of where they live.

*****

Be the first to read interesting news from Latvia and the world by joining our Telegram and Signal channels.