Judgment of Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia, March 14, 2011 (case Judgment de Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia Nr. 2010-51-01 de 14 de Marzo de 2011)

Linked as:

Summary

On Compliance of Article 10 (5) (6) of the Law on the Rights of Patients, insofar as It Fails to Establish the Right of the State Audit Office to Request Necessary Information regarding a Patient for the Performance of the Functions Specified by the Law with Article 1, Article 8, and Article 88 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

See the full content of this document

Extract

Judgment of Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia, March 14, 2011 (case Judgment de Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia Nr. 2010-51-01 de 14 de Marzo de 2011)

; JUDGMENT On Behalf of the Republic of Latvia Riga, 14 March 2011 Case No. ;2010-51-01 ; The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia composed of the Chairman of the Court session Gunārs Kūtris, and justices Kaspars Balodis, Aija Branta, Kristīne Krūma, Vineta Muiћniece and Viktors Skudra, having regard to an application of the Council of the State Audit Office, according to Article 85 of the Satversme (Constitution) of the Republic of Latvia and Article 16 (1), Article 17 (1) Indent 6, and Article 28.1 ;of the Constitutional Court Law, on 15 February 2011, in writing examined the case “On Compliance of Article 10 (5) (6) of the Law on the Rights of Patients, insofar as It Fails to Establish the Right of the State Audit Office to Request Necessary Information regarding a Patient for the Performance of the Functions Specified by the Law with Article 1, Article 8, and Article 88 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.” ; The Facts ; 1. ;Section 10 (5) (6) of the Law on the Rights of Patients (hereinafter – the Contested Norm) provides that upon a written request and receipt of a written permission of the head of the medical treatment institution, information regarding the patient shall be provided to the following persons and institutions not later than 10 working days after receipt of the request to the court, the Office of the Prosecutor, inspectors of the State protection of children’s rights, the Orphan’s Court, the State Probation Service, the Ombudsman, as well as the pre-trial investigation institution – for the performance of the functions specified by the Law.

; ; ; ; 2. ;The applicant, the Council of the State Audit Office (hereinafter – the Applicant) holds that Section 10 (5) (6) of the Law on the Rights of Patients fails to comply with Article 1, Article 87, and Article 88 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia (hereinafter – the Satversme). It has been indicated in the application that the State Audit Office is the supreme audit institution and its independency has been enshrined in the Satversme. The State Audit Office verifies actions with the State and local government financial resources and property and acts in the interests of the society. Acquisition of all kinds of information for performing audits is aimed only at reaching of the aim of the State Audit Office. However, the Contested Norm denies the State Audit Office the right to obtain full information on a patient. The Contested Norm establishes persons and institutions to which information on a patient is provided upon a written request and receipt of a written permission of the head of the medical treatment institution for the performance of the functions specif...

See the full content of this document