9. Article

345 Tiesībsarga likums: pieņemts 06.04.2006. (spēkā no 01.01.2007.)// Latvijas Vēstnesis, 25.04.2006., Nr.64, 23.panta trešā daļa. 346 Fizisko personu datu aizsardzības likums: pieņemts 23.03.2000. (spēkā no 20.04.2000.)// Latvijas Vēstnesis, 06.04.2000., Nr.123/124. 347 Nacionālo bruņoto spēku 23.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.02-940, 1.-2.lpp. 348 Liepājas pilsētas domes 23.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.334907/2.1.9./334150, 1.lpp., Leitāns I., Roķis K. Regulējumu trauksmes cēlēju aizsardzībai apņemas izstrādāt līdz gada beigām. 20.01.2015. Pieejams: http://goo.gl/ilu4tF. 349 Daugavpils pilsētas domes 15.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.1.2.-4/1627; Ventspils pilsētas domes 22.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.1-08/2823; Salaspils novada domes 14.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.ADM/1-18/15/1685; Rēzeknes pilsētas domes 17.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.3.1.1.18/1127; Jūrmalas pilsētas domes 22.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.11-18/3068, 1.-2.lpp.; Rīgas domes 27.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.RD-15-1872-nd, 1.lpp. 350 Cēsu novada pašvaldības 28.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.4/2795; Rēzeknes pilsētas domes 17.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.3.1.1.18/1127, Rīgas domes 27.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.RD-15-1872-nd, 2.lpp. 351 VUGD 17.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.22-1.22/1121, 2.lpp. 352 Ogres novada pašvaldības 23.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.1-10.1/252, 1.lpp.; Rīgas domes 27.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.RD-15-1872-nd, 2.lpp. 353 Būvniecības biroja 22.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.1-3/504, 2.lpp. 354 Turpat, 3.lpp. 355 Biedrības "Sabiedrība par atklātību - Delna" direktora G.Jankova sniegtā informācija. Sk.: Komisijas 23.03.2015. sēdes protokols Nr.14, 10.lpp. 356 Talsu novada pašvaldības 03.08.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.12-31/3543; Jēkabpils pilsētas pašvaldības 16.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.2.7.29./149, 1.lpp. 357 Ķekavas novada domes 21.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.1-7/15/1737. 358 Rīgas domes 27.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.RD-15-1872-nd, 1.-2.lpp.; Limbažu novada domes 20.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr. 4-13.3/15/815; Salaspils novada domes 14.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.ADM/1-18/15/1685. 359 Pārresoru koordinācijas centra informatīvais ziņojums "Par Zolitūdes traģēdiju un tās seku novēršanu". 360 Biedrības "Zolitūde 21.11." 20.07.2015. vēstule "Par traģēdijā cietušo sociālo atbalstu". 361 Ministru kabineta mājaslapā pieejamā informācija. 362 Pārresoru koordinācijas centra informatīvais ziņojums "Par Zolitūdes traģēdiju un tās seku novēršanu". 363 Turpat. 364 Sociālo pakalpojumu un sociālās palīdzības likums: pieņemts 31.10.2001. (spēkā no 01.01.2003.)// Latvijas Vēstnesis, 19.11.2002., Nr.168 365 Valsts sociālo pabalstu likums: pieņemts 31.10.2002. (spēkā no 01.01.2003.)// Latvijas Vēstnesis, 19.11.2002., Nr.168 366 Ar Zolitūdes traģēdiju un tās seku novēršanu saistīto tiesību aktu vai to projektu saraksts, 12. Saeimas Sociālo un darba lietu komisijas priekšsēdētājas A. Barčas sniegtā informācija. Sk.: 18.05.2015. sēdes protokols Nr. 19, 4.lpp. Likumprojekts "Psihologu likums"., pieejams: http://goo.gl/vuhZVD 367 Valsts kancelejas sagatavotā informācija. 368 Biedrības "Zolitūde 21.11." pārstāves R.Ločmeles-Luņovas sniegtā informācija. Sk.: Komisijas 18.05.2015. sēdes protokols Nr.19, 4.-5.lpp. 369 Valsts kontroles 30.04.2015. revīzijas ziņojums "Par Veselības ministrijas 2014.gada pārskata sagatavošanas pareizību", Valsts kontroles 07.08.2015. atbildes vēstule 9.-3.5.4.1/343, 2.-3.lpp. 370 Sk.: http://goo.gl/JpCZOJ, http://goo.gl/ECH738, http://goo.gl/ZE84nW. 371 Biedrības "Zolitūde 21.11." pārstāves R.Ločmeles-Luņovas sniegtā informācija. Sk.: Komisijas 18.05.2015. sēdes protokols Nr.19, 4.-5.lpp. Vairāk par 2011.gada 22.jūlija teroraktu Norvēģijas galvaspilsētā Oslo un jauniešu nometnē Utejas salā, kur kopumā dzīvību zaudēja 77 personas, sk.: http://goo.gl/yKGImD. 372 Fonda "Ziedot.lv" vadītājas R.Dimantas sniegtā informācija. Sk.: Komisijas 18.05.2015. sēdes stenogramma, 4.lpp. Vairāk par sabiedriskās izmeklēšanas komisijas izjukšanas iemesliem sk.: http://goo.gl/tkJY5g. 373 Delfi.lv. VUGD: Noslēgušās gadiem ilgās tiesvedības Talsu traģēdijas upuriem. 01.08.2013. Pieejams: http://goo.gl/r9pVBd. 374 Delfi.lv. Piešķir līdzekļus kompensācijas izmaksai Talsu traģēdijā cietušajam Ručevskim. 14.01.2014. Pieejams: http://goo.gl/MOU5Ro. 375 Rīgas psihiatrijas un narkoloģijas centra 19.05.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr. 01-09/8193, 2.lpp. 376 Valsts tiesu medicīnas ekspertīzes centra 12.05.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr. 409-2015/L8.-5, 2.lpp. 377 Valsts tiesu medicīnas ekspertīzes centra 12.05.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.409-2015/L8.-5. 378 Rīgas Stradiņa universitātes Psihosomatiskās medicīnas un Psihoterapijas klīnikas 19.05.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr. 06-4/2015. 379 Fonda "Ziedot.lv" 21.07.2015. vēstule Nr.6.4/15/89, 1.lpp. 380 Rīgas domes Labklājības departamenta direktores I.Kondrātes sniegtā informācija. Sk.: Komisijas 18.05.2015. sēdes protokols Nr.19, 4., 6.lpp. 381 Grozījumi likumā "Par iedzīvotāju ienākuma nodokli": pieņemts 28.11.2013. (stājas spēkā 30.11.2013.)// Latvijas Vēstnesis, 29.11.2013., Nr.234. 382 Rīgas Psihiatrijas un narkoloģijas centra 19.05.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.01-09/8193. 383 Komisijas 27.04.2015. vēstule Nr.233.9/18-80-12/15 Rīgas Stradiņa universitātes Psihosomatiskās medicīnas un psihoterapijas klīnikai. 384 Krīžu un konsultāciju centra "Skalbes" 07.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.44. 385 Sociālo pakalpojumu un sociālās palīdzības likuma 9.pants. 386 Rīgas Austrumu klīniskās universitātes slimnīcas pārskats (prezentācija) par gūto pieredzi Zolitūdes traģēdijā. Pieejams: http://zolitude.saeima.lv/raksti/522-27042015-sdes-prezentcijas 387 Ministru kabineta 13.12.2011. noteikumi Nr.948 "Katastrofu medicīnas sistēmas organizēšanas noteikumi" (spēkā no 17.12.2011.)// Latvijas Vēstnesis, 16.012.2011., Nr.198. 388 Delfi. Finansējuma trūkuma dēļ neveido portālu krīžu situācijām "112", 24.10.2014. Pieejams: http://goo.gl/rF2UJE. 389 Rīgas Tehniskās universitātes Darba un civilās aizsardzības institūta sniegtā informācija. 390 Rīgas Tehniskās universitātes Darba un civilās aizsardzības institūta sniegtā informācija. Pieejams: http://zolitude.saeima.lv/attachments/499_Jemeljanova_priek%C5%A1likums.pdf Separate opinion of the Committee member Ints Dālderis Ints Dālderis, Secretary of the Parliamentary Committee for Investigating the Actions Taken by the State of Latvia in Assessing the Causes of the Tragedy in Zolitūde on 21 November 2013, Improving the Legislative Framework and Practical Measures to be Taken by the Public Administration and Municipalities in Order to Prevent Recurrence of Similar Tragedies, as well as Mitigating the Consequences of the Tragedy (hereinafter - the Committee) Information for Dr. iur. Ringolds Balodis, Chairman of the Committee Dear Mr Balodis, Hereby I inform you that I am not prepared to sign the Final Report of the Committee in its final wording as adopted by the vote. Therefore I submit a separate opinion as per Section 13(3) of the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee Law Allow me to quote the Corresponding Member of the Latvian Academy of Sciences, former Chair of the Constitutional Law Department of the University of Latvia, professor and doctor of legal science Ringolds Balodis on the commentaries regarding the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia: "Presumption of innocence is an underlying principle of any democracy and a cornerstone of the rule of law. This means that everyone charged with an offence shall be presumed innocent […] until proven guilty according to law" (Official journal Latvijas Vēstnesis, 2011, p. 144-148). Furthermore, the draft report of the Committee also states that "the Inquiry Committee abides by this principle and none of the findings covered in the report are to be construed as presumption of anybody's guilt. Presumption of innocence is a binding and overriding principle of the Committee and all public officials who have been involved, are involved or will be involved in examination of the […] tragedy." In the beginning of the Committee's work it was decided that the Committee will look into the regulatory framework and effectiveness of public administration rather than responsibility of specific officials. Hereby I would like to express my political conviction that the Committee failed to adhere to this principle by proclaiming specific politicians guilty without appropriate substantiation. In light of the tragic and far-reaching consequences of the Tragedy, I personally believe that these unsubstantiated accusations violate the ethical principles generally accepted in the Latvian society. For more than twenty years since the Rules of Procedure of the Saeima were reinstated, Article 163 clearly stipulates that the minutes of legislative committees and other standing committees shall be signed by the person chairing the meeting and the secretary. However, a parliamentary inquiry committee is not a standing committee of the Saeima. A report by a parliamentary inquiry committee is a type of document that is completely different from the minutes of a standing committee. According to Section 13(1) of the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee Law it must contain not only the established facts but also evaluation, conclusions and political proposals. The wording of Section 13(2) of the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee Law that was valid from 2003 to 30 September 2015 included a provision according to which final reports are to be signed by all members of the relevant committee, while the former wording of Section 13(3) stipulated that committee members who disagree with the final report have the right to supplement it with written separate opinions. However, the Saeima has established a practice of only adopting reports that are signed by all members of a parliamentary inquiry committee. At the same time it must be noted that the post of the secretary of a parliamentary inquiry committee had not been specifically mentioned in the law until 30 September 2015. The wording of Section 13(2) of the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee Law adopted as of 30 September 2015 substitutes signing of final reports with the absolute majority vote, which proves that it was in 2015 when the legislature legitimised the procedure of adopting a parliamentary inquiry committee's final report based on Section 13(1) of the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee Law. If previously final reports were validated by signatures of a specific group of members of the parliament, the same approach should be adopted with the current wording of the law, which would mean narrowing the scope of the signatories. I believe the work of the Committee has not followed the defined objectives, has been conducted in violation of the indirectly applicable provisions of the Rules of Procedure regarding convening of meetings without prior announcement, the Committee's conduct has been biased, and it is my political conviction that I cannot sign evaluation and conclusions that are contrary to facts and have been devised with the sole purpose of pursuing political vendetta against a specific person, who is no longer a state official but the Vice-president of the European Commission - Mr Valdis Dombrovskis. Besides, the findings of the Committee indicate that he cannot be legally responsible for the disaster, since the identified irregularities pertain to the work of completely different institutions and officials. The Parliamentary Inquiry Committee Law does not stipulate procedures for electing the secretary. If majority of committee members believe that the work of the secretary has suddenly become unsatisfactory, a committee may re-elect the secretary. However, according to Section 13(2) of the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee Law the chairperson of a parliamentary inquiry committee may not refer to Article 16(1) of the Rules of Procedure, which stipulates cases in which minutes of a meeting may be signed by another member of the committee thus substituting the secretary's signature, since a more recent and specifically developed provision exists regarding the work of parliamentary inquiry committees. I would like to apologise to the society and the relatives of the victims of the Tragedy for the stance of Artuss Kaimiņš and certain other members of the parliamentary committee, whose selfish and politically motivated conduct insults the suffering of the injured and the memory of the deceased. Yours truly, Ints Dālderis 28 October 2015 Separate opinion of the Committee member Zenta Tretjaka A separate opinion The Parliamentary Committee for Investigating the Actions Taken by the State of Latvia in Assessing the Causes of the Tragedy in Zolitūde on 21 November 2013, Improving the Legislative Framework and Practical Measures to be Taken by the Public Administration and Municipalities in Order to Prevent Recurrence of Similar Tragedies, as well as Mitigating the Consequences of the Tragedy (hereinafter - the Committee) adopted its Final Report on 27 October 2015. As a member of the Committee I support the Final Report in general terms; however, I cannot agree with the following paragraphs of the Final Report: 6.5.1., 6.5.2., 6.5.3., 6.6., 7.4. and 7.7., which is why I abstained from voting for the adoption of the Final Report and, pursuant to Section 13(3) of the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee Law, I supplement the Final Report with this separate opinion. I believe that the Committee has not duly examined the analysis of Ints Dālderis, member of the Committee, which served as a basis for the Committee's proposal to supplement the Final Report with the aforementioned Paragraphs. In Paragraph 6.5.1. and 6.5.2. the Committee identifies an irregularity, i.e. that the Riga City Construction Board is concurrently subordinated to two entities - the Riga City Council Development Department (hereinafter the Department) and the Mayor of the City. According to the State Administration Structure Law subordination may take two forms - institutional (hierarchical relations between public institutions) and functional (hierarchical relations between public institutions in performing public administration functions). Furthermore, subordination is implemented in the form of control or supervision. Control means the rights of higher institutions or officials to issue orders to lower institutions or officials, as well as to revoke decisions of lower institutions or officials. Supervision means the rights of higher institutions or officials to examine the lawfulness of decisions taken by lower institutions or officials and to revoke unlawful decisions, as well as to issue an order to take a decision in case of unlawful failure to act. According to the by-laws of the Riga City Council the Riga City Construction Board is functionally subordinated to the Department and institutionally to the Mayor of the City. The Department exercises subordination in the form of supervision, while the Mayor - in the form of control. Although in most cases institutional and functional subordination coincide, it is not always the case.1 For instance, according to Article 15 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 962 On the By-laws of the State Environmental Service2 of 23 November 2004 the State Environmental Service is an institution of direct administration under the supervision of the minister of environmental protection and regional development, while the administrative acts issued and actions taken by the officials of the State Environmental Service may be appealed to the State Environmental Bureau, with the exception of cases referred to in Article 16 and 16.1 of the Regulation. This means that the State Environmental as the Riga City Construction Board, is institutionally and functionally subordinated to two different entities. The fact that the two forms of subordination do not coincide cannot on its own be used to determine the ineffectiveness of the Riga City Council's construction supervision system. I can only partly agree with the conclusion made in Paragraph 6.5.2., namely, that there is no higher institution that would control the Riga City Construction Board. According to the by-laws of the Riga City Council the administrative acts and actions of the Riga City Construction Board may be appealed by natural persons to the Department, and the Department's decisions may be appealed at a court, which means there is a functioning judicial control over the administrative acts and actions of the Riga City Construction Board. According to Paragraph 6.5.3. the Department, the Riga City Architect's Office and the Construction Board are institutions whose functions belong to the same line of work, and should be aligned into one hierarchical system or a rational system with levels and subsidiarity. I disagree with this position of the Committee, since the Department only performs the obligation of a local government as per Section 7(1) 1) b) of the Construction Law,3 which may be delegated to another official or structural unit (other than construction board) of a local government pursuant to the Construction Law, the Administrative Procedure Law and the State Administration Structure Law. According to Section 7(1) 3) cities are tasked with employing an architect who monitors the conformity with the principle of architectonic quality. Each local government may at its own discretion decide on the architect's form of employment (hiring of an individual or setting up of a specialised institution). According to Article 4.7. of the Riga City Architect's Office by-laws, the Riga City Architect's Office is tasked with developing requirements and drafting opinions on architectural projects within their scope of competence and jurisdiction. Furthermore, the requirements are mostly applied to various municipal institutions and structural units of the Riga City Council rather than natural persons. Upon making decisions in various stages of construction process, the Riga City Construction Board takes into account the opinion of the Riga City Architect's Office regarding conformity with the principle of architectonic quality,4 however, the Riga City Architect's Office does not perform the duties of a construction board as stipulated in the Construction Law. This illustrates that each institution has its own scope of competence and their functions do not overlap. Taking into account the aforementioned considerations, I believe that the conclusion made in Paragraph 6.6. of the Final Report, namely, that the construction supervision system of the Riga City administration, which existed at the time of the Tragedy, is inefficient and needlessly fragmented, which led to the Tragedy, is incorrect and made without duly considering the analysis by Ints Dālderis. Taking into account the principle of division of power as per Section 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia,5 parliamentary inquiry committees are not authorised to perform the tasks of the executive power and the judicial power. As pointed out in paragraph 1.4.1., the Committee adheres to the basic principles of parliamentary inquiry, primarily focusing on establishing parliamentary control over the actions of the executive branch, leaving the burden of proof regarding guilt and violations to the competent law enforcement agencies. The Committee has not discovered any violations on the part of specific individuals that would require reporting to the relevant law enforcement agencies. Likewise, representatives of the KNAB and the Prosecutor General's Office who participated in the Committee's meetings have not identified such violations. Taking into account these considerations and without prejudice to the Committee's conclusions regarding the dissolution of the State Construction Inspection Office, I believe it is unacceptable that Paragraphs 6.6. and 7.7. of the Committee's Final Report lists individuals to be held responsible for the Zolitūde tragedy. Responsibility shall be decided only by court. Member of the Committee Zenta Tretjaka October 2015, Riga 1 Administratīvā procesa likuma komentāri, A un B daļa. Autoru kolektīvs Dr.iur. J.Briedes zinātniskajā redakcijā. Tiesu namu aģentūra, 2011, 21.-23.lpp. 2 Ministru kabineta 23.11.2004. noteikumi Nr.962 "Valsts vides dienesta nolikums" (spēkā no 01.01.2005.)// Latvijas Vēstnesis, 30.11.2004., Nr.189. 3 For enforcement of the Law the local government shall ensure the rule of law of the construction process by taking decisions on contested administrative acts, actual action and decisions of the building authority of the local government, to be contested in accordance with laws and regulations. 4 Rīgas pilsētas būvvaldes 09.09.2015. vēstule Nr.BV-15-12576-nd Par deputāta I.Dāldera priekšlikumiem, 4.-5.lpp. 5 Latvijas Republikas Satversmes komentāri. Ievads.