9. pants

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.