Constitutional Court Finds Permanent Prohibition on Practising as a Psychologist Unconstitutional

30 rugsėjo, 2026

Our client applied to the court seeking the issuance of a favourable administrative act whereby the client would be registered in the Register of Psychologists.

The application set out arguments that the prohibition laid down in Section 6, Clause 4 of the Psychologists Law is absolute. A similar prohibition had been contained in Section 72, Paragraph five, Clause 1 of the Protection of the Rights of the Child Law, which the Constitutional Court, in Case No. 2020-36-01, declared incompatible with the first sentence of Article 106 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 January 2022.

On the grounds that such inconsistency between legislative provisions is impermissible in a state governed by the rule of law, the court was requested to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court. The Administrative district court agreed with the position that Section 6, Clause 4 of the Psychologists Law, insofar as it prohibits a person who has been convicted of a criminal offence involving violence or the threat of violence from engaging in the professional activities of a psychologist, irrespective of whether the conviction has been expunged or set aside, is incompatible with Article 106 of the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court has ruled that a permanent prohibition on practising as a psychologist, imposed on a person previously convicted of an offence involving violence or the threat of violence, is incompatible with the first sentence of Article 106 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court recognised that the purpose of the restriction, protecting the rights of others and the well-being of society, is legitimate. At the same time, the Court emphasised that a permanent prohibition does not allow individual circumstances, or changes in a person’s behaviour, attitude and value system over time, to be taken into account.

Accordingly, a person’s suitability to practise as a psychologist must be assessed individually, taking into account, among other factors, the nature and circumstances of the offence, the person’s conduct following the offence, their attitude towards the offence, their age at the time of the offence, and the time that has elapsed since it was committed. The mere fact of a previous conviction does not necessarily demonstrate that a person is unsuitable to practise as a psychologist.

The Constitutional Court concluded that the permanent prohibition imposed by the contested provision disproportionately restricts a person’s right to freely choose and retain an occupation, as guaranteed by the first sentence of Article 106 of the Constitution. The contested provision will cease to have effect on 1 June 2027, allowing the legislator time to establish a new legal framework. For the applicant and other persons who have already initiated proceedings to protect their fundamental rights, the provision has been declared invalid as of the moment the relevant infringement of their fundamental rights occurred.

Our law firm is pleased to have assisted in a case addressing an important issue: the right to freely choose an occupation and the need to assess a person’s suitability for professional activities on an individual basis.