21 June, 2007
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, considering that the opinion expressed in the statement of the State Audit “On the correctness of compiling the financial report of the Supreme Court for 2006” regarding the violations of the law standards infringes his lawful interests, yesterday filed an application with the Department of Administrative Cases of the Senate. He requested to revoke in full both the decision dated May 2, 2007, of the State Audit Council and the articles of the decision dated April 18, 2007, of the Second Audit Department of the State Audit, regarding him.
Gulans considers that the published and partially interpreted opinions infringe the reputation of the Supreme Court and other similar institutions, however, he does not offer a specific solution. Besides, the State Audit gave a positive statement regarding the financial report of the Supreme Court for 2006 without any remarks, indicating that “the financial report of the Supreme Court in all the significant aspects offer a true and clear picture regarding the financial situation and the results of activities of the institution, and has been compiled in compliance with the requirements of the effective regulative documents of the Republic of Latvia”.
The statement of the State Audit contained an indication to possible violations of the law standards only as supplementary information, and the opinion of the auditors was expressed that the Deputy Chief Justices of the Supreme Court by signing instructions regarding awarding bonuses to the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice not being in absence, have exceeded their powers, and the Chief Justice by allowing his Deputies to adopt decisions on his bonuses, has created a situation that his Deputies may have a conflict of interests. The State Audit Council concluded that the decision does not affect directly the units under audit or the rights of lawful interests of the persons, i.e., does not cause legal consequences to them.
Regarding this statement the Supreme Court already on April 20 filed a motivated complaint, but the State Audit left it without reviewing. In this situation, the answers have to be found in a legal way, not only by public debating, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court considers.
Information prepared by Anita Kehre, the Head of the Supreme court Administration
E-mail: email@example.com, telephone: 7020395, 29287367