CELEX: 62020CN0391
Language: en
Date: 2020-07-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-391/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 29 July 2020 — Boriss Cilevičs and Others v Latvijas Republikas Saeima

26.10.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 359/6
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 29 July 2020 — Boriss Cilevičs and Others v Latvijas Republikas Saeima
      (Case C-391/20)
      (2020/C 359/10)
      Language of the case: Latvian
      
         Referring court
      
      Satversmes tiesa
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Boriss Cilevičs, Valērijs Agešins, Vjačeslavs Dombrovskis, Vladimirs Nikonovs, Artūrs Rubiks, Ivans Ribakovs, Nikolajs Kabanovs, Igors Pimenovs, Vitālijs Orlovs, Edgars Kucins, Ivans Klementjevs, Inga Goldberga, Evija Papule, Jānis Krišāns, Jānis Urbanovičs, Ļubova Švecova, Sergejs Dolgopolovs, Andrejs Klementjevs, Regīna Ločmele-Luņova, Ivars Zariņš
      
         Institution whose act is contested: Latvijas Republikas Saeima
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Does legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings constitute a restriction on the freedom of establishment enshrined in Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or, in the alternative, on the freedom to provide services guaranteed in Article 56 [of that treaty], and on the freedom to conduct a business recognised in Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  What considerations should be taken into account when assessing whether the legislation in question is justified, suitable and proportionate with regard to its legitimate purpose of protecting the official language as a manifestation of national identity?