Appellate court to rehear disability pension recalculation case in December
The Administrative Regional Court will rehear a case on supplementing insurance record and recalculating a disability pension on 17 December in written proceedings. The Supreme Court sent the case back, finding the Cabinet of Ministers had exceeded its statutory authorisation.
The Administrative Regional Court in Latvia will rehear a case on 17 December, in written proceedings, in which a woman seeks a recalculation of her insurance record and her disability pension, according to the court calendar. The rehearing follows a Supreme Court ruling and may affect how Soviet-era work is assessed when it began before the age of 15.
Background
The woman had asked the State Social Insurance Agency (VSAA) to recalculate her insurance record and pension on the basis of a state archive certificate about her work on a Soviet farm. VSAA credited only part of the period stated in the certificate. For the rest, she had not yet reached the age of 15, which the then-valid Labour Code of the Latvian SSR set as the minimum age for establishing an employment relationship.
To have her request met in full, the woman turned to an administrative court with an application for a more favourable administrative act. The Administrative Regional Court rejected the application. It held that the Cabinet of Ministers had clearly chosen not to allow work performed on Soviet farms before the age set in the Labour Code to count toward the insurance record.
Supreme Court findings
The woman filed a cassation appeal. The Supreme Court found that when she first applied to the agency, the authorisation granted by the legislature did not allow the Cabinet of Ministers to set a minimum age or other additional restrictions for calculating insurance periods.
The Constitutional Court had already explained the purpose, content and scope of that authorisation at the time. It held that the Cabinet was only entitled to set the procedure for calculating, proving and recording these periods.
The Supreme Court therefore concluded that, in issuing the rules applicable to the woman's case, the Cabinet had exceeded the scope of its statutory authorisation. Under the Administrative Procedure Law, a court was not required to apply such a rule. The Supreme Court sent the case for a new hearing to the second-instance court.
