9. punkts

1345 Tiesībsarga likums: pieņemts 06.04.2006. (spēkā

2no 01.01.2007.)// Latvijas Vēstnesis, 25.04.2006., Nr.64,

323.panta trešā daļa.

4346 Fizisko personu datu aizsardzības likums:

5pieņemts 23.03.2000. (spēkā no 20.04.2000.)// Latvijas Vēstnesis,

606.04.2000., Nr.123/124.

7347 Nacionālo bruņoto spēku 23.07.2015. atbildes

8vēstule Nr.02-940, 1.-2.lpp.

9348 Liepājas pilsētas domes 23.07.2015. atbildes

10vēstule Nr.334907/2.1.9./334150, 1.lpp., Leitāns I., Roķis K.

11Regulējumu trauksmes cēlēju aizsardzībai apņemas izstrādāt līdz

12gada beigām. 20.01.2015. Pieejams: http://goo.gl/ilu4tF.

13349 Daugavpils pilsētas domes 15.07.2015. atbildes

14vēstule Nr.1.2.-4/1627; Ventspils pilsētas domes 22.07.2015.

15atbildes vēstule Nr.1-08/2823; Salaspils novada domes 14.07.2015.

16atbildes vēstule Nr.ADM/1-18/15/1685; Rēzeknes pilsētas domes

1717.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.3.1.1.18/1127; Jūrmalas pilsētas

18domes 22.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.11-18/3068, 1.-2.lpp.;

19Rīgas domes 27.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.RD-15-1872-nd,

201.lpp.

21350 Cēsu novada pašvaldības 28.07.2015. atbildes

22vēstule Nr.4/2795; Rēzeknes pilsētas domes 17.07.2015. atbildes

23vēstule Nr.3.1.1.18/1127, Rīgas domes 27.07.2015. atbildes

24vēstule Nr.RD-15-1872-nd, 2.lpp.

25351 VUGD 17.07.2015. atbildes vēstule

26Nr.22-1.22/1121, 2.lpp.

27352 Ogres novada pašvaldības 23.07.2015. atbildes

28vēstule Nr.1-10.1/252, 1.lpp.; Rīgas domes 27.07.2015. atbildes

29vēstule Nr.RD-15-1872-nd, 2.lpp.

30353 Būvniecības biroja 22.07.2015. atbildes vēstule

31Nr.1-3/504, 2.lpp.

32354 Turpat, 3.lpp.

33355 Biedrības "Sabiedrība par atklātību -

34Delna" direktora G.Jankova sniegtā informācija. Sk.:

35Komisijas 23.03.2015. sēdes protokols Nr.14, 10.lpp.

36356 Talsu novada pašvaldības 03.08.2015. atbildes

37vēstule Nr.12-31/3543; Jēkabpils pilsētas pašvaldības 16.07.2015.

38atbildes vēstule Nr.2.7.29./149, 1.lpp.

39357 Ķekavas novada domes 21.07.2015. atbildes

40vēstule Nr.1-7/15/1737.

41358 Rīgas domes 27.07.2015. atbildes vēstule

42Nr.RD-15-1872-nd, 1.-2.lpp.; Limbažu novada domes 20.07.2015.

43atbildes vēstule Nr. 4-13.3/15/815; Salaspils novada domes

4414.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.ADM/1-18/15/1685.

45359 Pārresoru koordinācijas centra informatīvais

46ziņojums "Par Zolitūdes traģēdiju un tās seku

47novēršanu".

48360 Biedrības "Zolitūde 21.11."

4920.07.2015. vēstule "Par traģēdijā cietušo sociālo

50atbalstu".

51361 Ministru kabineta mājaslapā pieejamā

52informācija.

53362 Pārresoru koordinācijas centra informatīvais

54ziņojums "Par Zolitūdes traģēdiju un tās seku

55novēršanu".

56363 Turpat.

57364 Sociālo pakalpojumu un sociālās palīdzības

58likums: pieņemts 31.10.2001. (spēkā no 01.01.2003.)// Latvijas

59Vēstnesis, 19.11.2002., Nr.168

60365 Valsts sociālo pabalstu likums: pieņemts

6131.10.2002. (spēkā no 01.01.2003.)// Latvijas Vēstnesis,

6219.11.2002., Nr.168

63366 Ar Zolitūdes traģēdiju un tās seku novēršanu

64saistīto tiesību aktu vai to projektu saraksts, 12. Saeimas

65Sociālo un darba lietu komisijas priekšsēdētājas A. Barčas

66sniegtā informācija. Sk.: 18.05.2015. sēdes protokols Nr. 19,

674.lpp. Likumprojekts "Psihologu likums"., pieejams:

68http://goo.gl/vuhZVD

69367 Valsts kancelejas sagatavotā informācija.

70368 Biedrības "Zolitūde 21.11." pārstāves

71R.Ločmeles-Luņovas sniegtā informācija. Sk.: Komisijas

7218.05.2015. sēdes protokols Nr.19, 4.-5.lpp.

73369 Valsts kontroles 30.04.2015. revīzijas ziņojums

74"Par Veselības ministrijas 2014.gada pārskata sagatavošanas

75pareizību", Valsts kontroles 07.08.2015. atbildes vēstule

769.-3.5.4.1/343, 2.-3.lpp.

77370 Sk.: http://goo.gl/JpCZOJ,

78http://goo.gl/ECH738, http://goo.gl/ZE84nW.

79371 Biedrības "Zolitūde 21.11." pārstāves

80R.Ločmeles-Luņovas sniegtā informācija. Sk.: Komisijas

8118.05.2015. sēdes protokols Nr.19, 4.-5.lpp. Vairāk par 2011.gada

8222.jūlija teroraktu Norvēģijas galvaspilsētā Oslo un jauniešu

83nometnē Utejas salā, kur kopumā dzīvību zaudēja 77 personas, sk.:

84http://goo.gl/yKGImD.

85372 Fonda "Ziedot.lv" vadītājas

86R.Dimantas sniegtā informācija. Sk.: Komisijas 18.05.2015. sēdes

87stenogramma, 4.lpp.

88Vairāk par sabiedriskās izmeklēšanas komisijas izjukšanas

89iemesliem sk.: http://goo.gl/tkJY5g.

90373 Delfi.lv. VUGD: Noslēgušās gadiem ilgās

91tiesvedības Talsu traģēdijas upuriem. 01.08.2013. Pieejams:

92http://goo.gl/r9pVBd.

93374 Delfi.lv. Piešķir līdzekļus kompensācijas

94izmaksai Talsu traģēdijā cietušajam Ručevskim. 14.01.2014.

95Pieejams: http://goo.gl/MOU5Ro.

96375 Rīgas psihiatrijas un narkoloģijas centra

9719.05.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr. 01-09/8193, 2.lpp.

98376 Valsts tiesu medicīnas ekspertīzes centra

9912.05.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr. 409-2015/L8.-5, 2.lpp.

100377 Valsts tiesu medicīnas ekspertīzes centra

10112.05.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.409-2015/L8.-5.

102378 Rīgas Stradiņa universitātes Psihosomatiskās

103medicīnas un Psihoterapijas klīnikas 19.05.2015. atbildes vēstule

104Nr. 06-4/2015.

105379 Fonda "Ziedot.lv" 21.07.2015. vēstule

106Nr.6.4/15/89, 1.lpp.

107380 Rīgas domes Labklājības departamenta direktores

108I.Kondrātes sniegtā informācija. Sk.: Komisijas 18.05.2015. sēdes

109protokols Nr.19, 4., 6.lpp.

110381 Grozījumi likumā "Par iedzīvotāju ienākuma

111nodokli": pieņemts 28.11.2013. (stājas spēkā 30.11.2013.)//

112Latvijas Vēstnesis, 29.11.2013., Nr.234.

113382 Rīgas Psihiatrijas un narkoloģijas centra

11419.05.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.01-09/8193.

115383 Komisijas 27.04.2015. vēstule

116Nr.233.9/18-80-12/15 Rīgas Stradiņa universitātes Psihosomatiskās

117medicīnas un psihoterapijas klīnikai.

118384 Krīžu un konsultāciju centra

119"Skalbes" 07.07.2015. atbildes vēstule Nr.44.

120385 Sociālo pakalpojumu un sociālās palīdzības

121likuma 9.pants.

122386 Rīgas Austrumu klīniskās universitātes

123slimnīcas pārskats (prezentācija) par gūto pieredzi Zolitūdes

124traģēdijā. Pieejams:

125http://zolitude.saeima.lv/raksti/522-27042015-sdes-prezentcijas

126387 Ministru kabineta 13.12.2011. noteikumi Nr.948

127"Katastrofu medicīnas sistēmas organizēšanas noteikumi"

128(spēkā no 17.12.2011.)// Latvijas Vēstnesis, 16.012.2011.,

129Nr.198.

130388 Delfi. Finansējuma trūkuma dēļ neveido portālu

131krīžu situācijām "112", 24.10.2014. Pieejams:

132http://goo.gl/rF2UJE.

133389 Rīgas Tehniskās universitātes Darba un civilās

134aizsardzības institūta sniegtā informācija.

135390 Rīgas Tehniskās universitātes Darba un civilās

136aizsardzības institūta sniegtā informācija.

137Pieejams:

138http://zolitude.saeima.lv/attachments/499_Jemeljanova_priek%C5%A1likums.pdf

139Separate opinion of the Committee

140member Ints Dālderis

141Ints Dālderis, Secretary of the Parliamentary Committee for

142Investigating the Actions Taken by the State of Latvia in

143Assessing the Causes of the Tragedy in Zolitūde on 21 November

1442013, Improving the Legislative Framework and Practical Measures

145to be Taken by the Public Administration and Municipalities in

146Order to Prevent Recurrence of Similar Tragedies, as well as

147Mitigating the Consequences of the Tragedy (hereinafter - the

148Committee)

149Information for Dr. iur. Ringolds Balodis, Chairman of the

150Committee

151Dear Mr Balodis,

152Hereby I inform you that I am not prepared to sign the

153Final Report of the Committee in its final wording as adopted

154by the vote. Therefore I submit a separate opinion as per Section

15513(3) of the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee Law

156Allow me to quote the Corresponding Member of the Latvian

157Academy of Sciences, former Chair of the Constitutional Law

158Department of the University of Latvia, professor and doctor of

159legal science Ringolds Balodis on the commentaries regarding the

160Constitution of the Republic of Latvia: "Presumption of

161innocence is an underlying principle of any democracy and a

162cornerstone of the rule of law. This means that everyone charged

163with an offence shall be presumed innocent […] until proven

164guilty according to law" (Official journal Latvijas

165Vēstnesis, 2011, p. 144-148).

166Furthermore, the draft report of the Committee also states

167that "the Inquiry Committee abides by this principle and

168none of the findings covered in the report are to be construed as

169presumption of anybody's guilt. Presumption of innocence is a

170binding and overriding principle of the Committee and all public

171officials who have been involved, are involved or will be

172involved in examination of the […] tragedy." In the

173beginning of the Committee's work it was decided that the

174Committee will look into the regulatory framework and

175effectiveness of public administration rather than responsibility

176of specific officials.

177Hereby I would like to express my political conviction that

178the Committee failed to adhere to this principle by proclaiming

179specific politicians guilty without appropriate substantiation.

180In light of the tragic and far-reaching consequences of the

181Tragedy, I personally believe that these unsubstantiated

182accusations violate the ethical principles generally accepted in

183the Latvian society.

184For more than twenty years since the Rules of Procedure of the

185Saeima were reinstated, Article 163 clearly stipulates that the

186minutes of legislative committees and other standing committees

187shall be signed by the person chairing the meeting and the

188secretary. However, a parliamentary inquiry committee is not a

189standing committee of the Saeima.

190A report by a parliamentary inquiry committee is a type of

191document that is completely different from the minutes of a

192standing committee. According to Section 13(1) of the

193Parliamentary Inquiry Committee Law it must contain not only the

194established facts but also evaluation, conclusions and political

195proposals. The wording of Section 13(2) of the Parliamentary

196Inquiry Committee Law that was valid from 2003 to 30 September

1972015 included a provision according to which final reports are to

198be signed by all members of the relevant committee, while the

199former wording of Section 13(3) stipulated that committee members

200who disagree with the final report have the right to supplement

201it with written separate opinions. However, the Saeima has

202established a practice of only adopting reports that are signed

203by all members of a parliamentary inquiry committee. At the same

204time it must be noted that the post of the secretary of a

205parliamentary inquiry committee had not been specifically

206mentioned in the law until 30 September 2015.

207The wording of Section 13(2) of the Parliamentary Inquiry

208Committee Law adopted as of 30 September 2015 substitutes signing

209of final reports with the absolute majority vote, which proves

210that it was in 2015 when the legislature legitimised the

211procedure of adopting a parliamentary inquiry committee's final

212report based on Section 13(1) of the Parliamentary Inquiry

213Committee Law. If previously final reports were validated by

214signatures of a specific group of members of the parliament, the

215same approach should be adopted with the current wording of the

216law, which would mean narrowing the scope of the signatories.

217I believe the work of the Committee has not followed the

218defined objectives, has been conducted in violation of the

219indirectly applicable provisions of the Rules of Procedure

220regarding convening of meetings without prior announcement, the

221Committee's conduct has been biased, and it is my political

222conviction that I cannot sign evaluation and conclusions that are

223contrary to facts and have been devised with the sole purpose of

224pursuing political vendetta against a specific person, who is no

225longer a state official but the Vice-president of the European

226Commission - Mr Valdis Dombrovskis. Besides, the findings of the

227Committee indicate that he cannot be legally responsible for the

228disaster, since the identified irregularities pertain to the work

229of completely different institutions and officials.

230The Parliamentary Inquiry Committee Law does not stipulate

231procedures for electing the secretary. If majority of committee

232members believe that the work of the secretary has suddenly

233become unsatisfactory, a committee may re-elect the

234secretary. However, according to Section 13(2) of the

235Parliamentary Inquiry Committee Law the chairperson of a

236parliamentary inquiry committee may not refer to Article 16(1) of

237the Rules of Procedure, which stipulates cases in which minutes

238of a meeting may be signed by another member of the committee

239thus substituting the secretary's signature, since a more recent

240and specifically developed provision exists regarding the work of

241parliamentary inquiry committees.

242I would like to apologise to the society and the relatives of

243the victims of the Tragedy for the stance of Artuss Kaimiņš and

244certain other members of the parliamentary committee, whose

245selfish and politically motivated conduct insults the suffering

246of the injured and the memory of the deceased.

247Yours truly, Ints Dālderis

24828 October 2015

249Separate opinion of the Committee

250member Zenta Tretjaka

251A separate opinion

252The Parliamentary Committee for Investigating the Actions

253Taken by the State of Latvia in Assessing the Causes of the

254Tragedy in Zolitūde on 21 November 2013, Improving the

255Legislative Framework and Practical Measures to be Taken by the

256Public Administration and Municipalities in Order to Prevent

257Recurrence of Similar Tragedies, as well as Mitigating the

258Consequences of the Tragedy (hereinafter - the Committee) adopted

259its Final Report on 27 October 2015.

260As a member of the Committee I support the Final Report in

261general terms; however, I cannot agree with the following

262paragraphs of the Final Report: 6.5.1., 6.5.2., 6.5.3., 6.6.,

2637.4. and 7.7., which is why I abstained from voting for the

264adoption of the Final Report and, pursuant to Section 13(3) of

265the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee Law, I supplement the Final

266Report with this separate opinion.

267I believe that the Committee has not duly examined the

268analysis of Ints Dālderis, member of the Committee, which served

269as a basis for the Committee's proposal to supplement the Final

270Report with the aforementioned Paragraphs.

271In Paragraph 6.5.1. and 6.5.2. the Committee identifies an

272irregularity, i.e. that the Riga City Construction Board is

273concurrently subordinated to two entities - the Riga City Council

274Development Department (hereinafter the Department) and the Mayor

275of the City. According to the State Administration Structure Law

276subordination may take two forms - institutional (hierarchical

277relations between public institutions) and functional

278(hierarchical relations between public institutions in performing

279public administration functions). Furthermore, subordination is

280implemented in the form of control or supervision. Control means

281the rights of higher institutions or officials to issue orders to

282lower institutions or officials, as well as to revoke decisions

283of lower institutions or officials. Supervision means the rights

284of higher institutions or officials to examine the lawfulness of

285decisions taken by lower institutions or officials and to revoke

286unlawful decisions, as well as to issue an order to take a

287decision in case of unlawful failure to act. According to the

288by-laws of the Riga City Council the Riga City Construction Board

289is functionally subordinated to the Department and

290institutionally to the Mayor of the City. The Department

291exercises subordination in the form of supervision, while the

292Mayor - in the form of control. Although in most cases

293institutional and functional subordination coincide, it is not

294always the case.1 For instance, according to Article

29515 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 962 On the By-laws

296of the State Environmental Service2 of 23 November

2972004 the State Environmental Service is an institution of direct

298administration under the supervision of the minister of

299environmental protection and regional development, while the

300administrative acts issued and actions taken by the officials of

301the State Environmental Service may be appealed to the State

302Environmental Bureau, with the exception of cases referred to in

303Article 16 and 16.1 of the Regulation. This means that

304the State Environmental as the Riga City Construction Board, is

305institutionally and functionally subordinated to two different

306entities. The fact that the two forms of subordination do not

307coincide cannot on its own be used to determine the

308ineffectiveness of the Riga City Council's construction

309supervision system.

310I can only partly agree with the conclusion made in Paragraph

3116.5.2., namely, that there is no higher institution that would

312control the Riga City Construction Board. According to the

313by-laws of the Riga City Council the administrative acts and

314actions of the Riga City Construction Board may be appealed by

315natural persons to the Department, and the Department's decisions

316may be appealed at a court, which means there is a functioning

317judicial control over the administrative acts and actions of the

318Riga City Construction Board.

319According to Paragraph 6.5.3. the Department, the Riga City

320Architect's Office and the Construction Board are

321institutions whose functions belong to the same line of work, and

322should be aligned into one hierarchical system or a rational

323system with levels and subsidiarity. I disagree with this

324position of the Committee, since the Department only performs the

325obligation of a local government as per Section 7(1) 1) b) of the

326Construction Law,3 which may be delegated to another

327official or structural unit (other than construction board) of a

328local government pursuant to the Construction Law, the

329Administrative Procedure Law and the State Administration

330Structure Law. According to Section 7(1) 3) cities are tasked

331with employing an architect who monitors the conformity with the

332principle of architectonic quality. Each local government may at

333its own discretion decide on the architect's form of employment

334(hiring of an individual or setting up of a specialised

335institution). According to Article 4.7. of the Riga City

336Architect's Office by-laws, the Riga City Architect's

337Office is tasked with developing requirements and drafting

338opinions on architectural projects within their scope of

339competence and jurisdiction. Furthermore, the requirements are

340mostly applied to various municipal institutions and structural

341units of the Riga City Council rather than natural persons. Upon

342making decisions in various stages of construction process, the

343Riga City Construction Board takes into account the opinion of

344the Riga City Architect's Office regarding conformity with

345the principle of architectonic quality,4 however, the

346Riga City Architect's Office does not perform the duties of a

347construction board as stipulated in the Construction Law. This

348illustrates that each institution has its own scope of competence

349and their functions do not overlap.

350Taking into account the aforementioned considerations, I

351believe that the conclusion made in Paragraph 6.6. of the Final

352Report, namely, that the construction supervision system of the

353Riga City administration, which existed at the time of the

354Tragedy, is inefficient and needlessly fragmented, which led to

355the Tragedy, is incorrect and made without duly considering the

356analysis by Ints Dālderis.

357Taking into account the principle of division of power as per

358Section 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of

359Latvia,5 parliamentary inquiry committees are not

360authorised to perform the tasks of the executive power and the

361judicial power. As pointed out in paragraph 1.4.1., the Committee

362adheres to the basic principles of parliamentary inquiry,

363primarily focusing on establishing parliamentary control over the

364actions of the executive branch, leaving the burden of proof

365regarding guilt and violations to the competent law enforcement

366agencies. The Committee has not discovered any violations on the

367part of specific individuals that would require reporting to the

368relevant law enforcement agencies. Likewise, representatives of

369the KNAB and the Prosecutor General's Office who participated in

370the Committee's meetings have not identified such violations.

371Taking into account these considerations and without prejudice to

372the Committee's conclusions regarding the dissolution of the

373State Construction Inspection Office, I believe it is

374unacceptable that Paragraphs 6.6. and 7.7. of the Committee's

375Final Report lists individuals to be held responsible for the

376Zolitūde tragedy. Responsibility shall be decided only by

377court.

378Member of the Committee Zenta

379Tretjaka

380October 2015, Riga

3811 Administratīvā procesa likuma komentāri, A un B

382daļa. Autoru kolektīvs Dr.iur. J.Briedes zinātniskajā redakcijā.

383Tiesu namu aģentūra, 2011, 21.-23.lpp.

3842 Ministru kabineta 23.11.2004. noteikumi Nr.962

385"Valsts vides dienesta nolikums" (spēkā no

38601.01.2005.)// Latvijas Vēstnesis, 30.11.2004., Nr.189.

3873 For enforcement of the Law the local government

388shall ensure the rule of law of the construction process by

389taking decisions on contested administrative acts, actual action

390and decisions of the building authority of the local government,

391to be contested in accordance with laws and regulations.

3924 Rīgas pilsētas būvvaldes 09.09.2015. vēstule

393Nr.BV-15-12576-nd Par deputāta I.Dāldera priekšlikumiem,

3944.-5.lpp.

3955 Latvijas Republikas Satversmes komentāri. Ievads.