Quality of Democracy
#10Key Findings
With generally fair electoral procedures, Latvia scores well overall (rank 12) with regard to democracy quality. Its score on this measure has declined by 0.1 point relative to 2014.
Public funding for parties has been increased, with private donations strictly limited. Companies cannot contribute. Campaign spending is capped, with infringements subject to penalty. A new law allowing referenda at the local level has been approved but not implemented. A new governance system for the public media renders it less susceptible to political influence.
Civil rights and political liberties are generally protected, but some concerns over prison conditions have emerged. The parliament has not ratified the Istanbul Convention, hindering the state’s ability to address domestic violence. Views on same-sex partnerships are intensely polarized, and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is poorly regulated.
Courts are independent but overloaded, with access regulated through the imposition of fees and security deposits. International groups have highlighted the uncertainty of bureaucratic decisions as a problem. The state has successfully reduced the incidence of corruption and money laundering in recent years.
Public funding for parties has been increased, with private donations strictly limited. Companies cannot contribute. Campaign spending is capped, with infringements subject to penalty. A new law allowing referenda at the local level has been approved but not implemented. A new governance system for the public media renders it less susceptible to political influence.
Civil rights and political liberties are generally protected, but some concerns over prison conditions have emerged. The parliament has not ratified the Istanbul Convention, hindering the state’s ability to address domestic violence. Views on same-sex partnerships are intensely polarized, and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is poorly regulated.
Courts are independent but overloaded, with access regulated through the imposition of fees and security deposits. International groups have highlighted the uncertainty of bureaucratic decisions as a problem. The state has successfully reduced the incidence of corruption and money laundering in recent years.
Graph View
Graph View
How fair are procedures for registering candidates and parties?
10
9
9
Legal regulations provide for a fair registration procedure for all elections; candidates and parties are not discriminated against.
8
7
6
7
6
A few restrictions on election procedures discriminate against a small number of candidates and parties.
5
4
3
4
3
Some unreasonable restrictions on election procedures exist that discriminate against many candidates and parties.
2
1
1
Discriminating registration procedures for elections are widespread and prevent a large number of potential candidates or parties from participating.
Candidacy procedures provide everyone with an equal opportunity to be an election candidate. Some restrictions, related to Latvia’s Soviet past, are in place.
While political parties are the only organizations with the right to submit candidate lists for parliamentary elections, multiparty electoral coalitions have not been abolished and are indeed the rule. Registration as a political party is open to any group with at least 200 founding members. In 2016, a new threshold was set, which requires political parties to have at least 500 members before standing in national parliamentary elections.
The Central Election Commission (Centrālā Vēlēšanu Komisija, CVK) oversees the organization of elections. International observers have consistently recognized Latvia’s elections as being free and fair. For example, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) report on the 2018 general election expressed full confidence and trust in the professionalism and impartiality of election administration at all levels, but noted that consideration should be given to introducing special measures in the legal framework to promote female candidates. In addition, it was recommended that the blanket restriction on candidacy rights of citizens who have committed an intentional crime should be revised, and that the lifelong ban for those who have committed a crime in a state of mental disorder should be lifted.
From 2020, lists of candidates may no longer be submitted by associations of voters in municipal elections, but only by registered political parties, registered associations of registered political parties, or two or more registered political parties that have not joined a registered association of political parties. In the past, voter associations did not require such a large number of members of the legal structure of the party to run in municipal elections, which is now presenting a challenge to small regional parties.
Furthermore, the Constitutional Court is considering a constitutional complaint filed by a small regional party that has complained that the state funding for parties (which has increased by 2% in 2020 for the Saeima election) is unfair to small local parties that want to participate in a single local government election, and not only cannot compete with the recipients of funding at the national level, but are also forced by law to maintain the legal form of the party.
Citations:
1. The Saeima Election Law, Article 5 and 6, Available at: https://www.cvk.lv/pub/public/30870.html, Last accessed: 04.01.2022.
2. OSCE: Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (2019), Parliamentary Elections 6 October 2018:
ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Final Report, Available at: https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/latvia/409344?download=true, Last accessed: 04.01.2022.
4. Ivars Ijabs (2018), 2018 Parliamentary Elections in Latvia, Available at: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/baltikum/14739.pdf, Last accessed: 04.01.2022.
5. Official Gazette ‘Latvijas Vēstnesis’ (2021) Municipal councils will elect a smaller number of members, Available (in Latvian): https://lvportals.lv/skaidrojumi/323898-pasvaldibu-domes-turpmak-veles-mazaku-deputatu-skaitu-2021, Last accessed: 04.01.2022.
While political parties are the only organizations with the right to submit candidate lists for parliamentary elections, multiparty electoral coalitions have not been abolished and are indeed the rule. Registration as a political party is open to any group with at least 200 founding members. In 2016, a new threshold was set, which requires political parties to have at least 500 members before standing in national parliamentary elections.
The Central Election Commission (Centrālā Vēlēšanu Komisija, CVK) oversees the organization of elections. International observers have consistently recognized Latvia’s elections as being free and fair. For example, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) report on the 2018 general election expressed full confidence and trust in the professionalism and impartiality of election administration at all levels, but noted that consideration should be given to introducing special measures in the legal framework to promote female candidates. In addition, it was recommended that the blanket restriction on candidacy rights of citizens who have committed an intentional crime should be revised, and that the lifelong ban for those who have committed a crime in a state of mental disorder should be lifted.
From 2020, lists of candidates may no longer be submitted by associations of voters in municipal elections, but only by registered political parties, registered associations of registered political parties, or two or more registered political parties that have not joined a registered association of political parties. In the past, voter associations did not require such a large number of members of the legal structure of the party to run in municipal elections, which is now presenting a challenge to small regional parties.
Furthermore, the Constitutional Court is considering a constitutional complaint filed by a small regional party that has complained that the state funding for parties (which has increased by 2% in 2020 for the Saeima election) is unfair to small local parties that want to participate in a single local government election, and not only cannot compete with the recipients of funding at the national level, but are also forced by law to maintain the legal form of the party.
Citations:
1. The Saeima Election Law, Article 5 and 6, Available at: https://www.cvk.lv/pub/public/30870.html, Last accessed: 04.01.2022.
2. OSCE: Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (2019), Parliamentary Elections 6 October 2018:
ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Final Report, Available at: https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/latvia/409344?download=true, Last accessed: 04.01.2022.
4. Ivars Ijabs (2018), 2018 Parliamentary Elections in Latvia, Available at: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/baltikum/14739.pdf, Last accessed: 04.01.2022.
5. Official Gazette ‘Latvijas Vēstnesis’ (2021) Municipal councils will elect a smaller number of members, Available (in Latvian): https://lvportals.lv/skaidrojumi/323898-pasvaldibu-domes-turpmak-veles-mazaku-deputatu-skaitu-2021, Last accessed: 04.01.2022.
To what extent do candidates and parties have fair access to the media and other means of communication?
10
9
9
All candidates and parties have equal opportunities of access to the media and other means of communication. All major media outlets provide a fair and balanced coverage of the range of different political positions.
8
7
6
7
6
Candidates and parties have largely equal opportunities of access to the media and other means of communication. The major media outlets provide a fair and balanced coverage of different political positions.
5
4
3
4
3
Candidates and parties often do not have equal opportunities of access to the media and other means of communication. While the major media outlets represent a partisan political bias, the media system as a whole provides fair coverage of different political positions.
2
1
1
Candidates and parties lack equal opportunities of access to the media and other means of communications. The major media outlets are biased in favor of certain political groups or views and discriminate against others.
There are no laws or self-regulatory measures that provide access to airtime on private channels for political actors during election campaigns. Generally, the representation of different political groups is balanced.
Electoral candidates and every political party have equal access to the media. Publicly financed election broadcasts on public and private television are equally available to all, although debates between political party leaders before elections often feature only those parties polling around and above the 5% threshold in the polls.
In recent years, much of the pre-election debate in the private media, in particular on television, has been publicly funded, with this funding being distributed through a public procurement competition. For example, in 2021, the National Electronic Media Council (NEPLP) awarded public procurement funding of €75,000 for the production of pre-election content for municipal elections on commercial television.
The national media system as a whole provides fair and balanced coverage. Individually, however, media outlets do not consistently provide fair and balanced coverage of the range of different political positions. Local newspapers and electronic media in Latvia’s rural regions are often dependent on advertising and other support from the local authorities, sometimes leading to unbalanced coverage favoring incumbents. Local government-owned print media is pushing independent local media out of the market, leaving only local government-owned outlets to function as a public relations arm for incumbents. Meanwhile, the opaque ownership structures of media outlets mean that support for political actors is often implied rather than clearly stated as an editorial position. There are also marked imbalances in media coverage related to the different linguistic communities. For example, both Latvian and Russian-language media demonstrate a bias toward their linguistic audiences.
Citations:
1. Rožukalne, A. (2016) Monitoring Risks for Media Pluralism in the EU and Beyond: Latvia, Available at: https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/46802/Latvia_EN.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y, Last accessed: 04.01.2022.
2. Rožukalne, A. (2010), Research Paper on Hidden Advertising Issues in the Media, Available at (in Latvian): http://politika.lv/article_files/2117/original/slepta_reklama_mediju_prakse.pdf?1343212009, Last accessed: 04.01.2022.
3. OSCE: Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (2019), Parliamentary Elections 6 October 2018:
ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Final Report, Available at: https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/latvia/409344?download=true, Last accessed: 04.01.2022.
4. LSM (2021) NEPLP has allocated 75,000 euros for the production of pre-election content on commercial television, Available: https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/zinas/latvija/neplp-pieskirusi-75-000-eiro-prieksvelesanu-satura-veidosanai-komerctelevizijas.a403643/, Last accessed: 04.01.2022.
Electoral candidates and every political party have equal access to the media. Publicly financed election broadcasts on public and private television are equally available to all, although debates between political party leaders before elections often feature only those parties polling around and above the 5% threshold in the polls.
In recent years, much of the pre-election debate in the private media, in particular on television, has been publicly funded, with this funding being distributed through a public procurement competition. For example, in 2021, the National Electronic Media Council (NEPLP) awarded public procurement funding of €75,000 for the production of pre-election content for municipal elections on commercial television.
The national media system as a whole provides fair and balanced coverage. Individually, however, media outlets do not consistently provide fair and balanced coverage of the range of different political positions. Local newspapers and electronic media in Latvia’s rural regions are often dependent on advertising and other support from the local authorities, sometimes leading to unbalanced coverage favoring incumbents. Local government-owned print media is pushing independent local media out of the market, leaving only local government-owned outlets to function as a public relations arm for incumbents. Meanwhile, the opaque ownership structures of media outlets mean that support for political actors is often implied rather than clearly stated as an editorial position. There are also marked imbalances in media coverage related to the different linguistic communities. For example, both Latvian and Russian-language media demonstrate a bias toward their linguistic audiences.
Citations:
1. Rožukalne, A. (2016) Monitoring Risks for Media Pluralism in the EU and Beyond: Latvia, Available at: https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/46802/Latvia_EN.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y, Last accessed: 04.01.2022.
2. Rožukalne, A. (2010), Research Paper on Hidden Advertising Issues in the Media, Available at (in Latvian): http://politika.lv/article_files/2117/original/slepta_reklama_mediju_prakse.pdf?1343212009, Last accessed: 04.01.2022.
3. OSCE: Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (2019), Parliamentary Elections 6 October 2018:
ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Final Report, Available at: https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/latvia/409344?download=true, Last accessed: 04.01.2022.
4. LSM (2021) NEPLP has allocated 75,000 euros for the production of pre-election content on commercial television, Available: https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/zinas/latvija/neplp-pieskirusi-75-000-eiro-prieksvelesanu-satura-veidosanai-komerctelevizijas.a403643/, Last accessed: 04.01.2022.
To what extent do all citizens have the opportunity to exercise their right of participation in national elections?
10
9
9
All adult citizens can participate in national elections. All eligible voters are registered if they wish to be. There are no discriminations observable in the exercise of the right to vote. There are no disincentives to voting.
8
7
6
7
6
The procedures for the registration of voters and voting are for the most part effective, impartial and nondiscriminatory. Citizens can appeal to courts if they feel being discriminated. Disincentives to voting generally do not constitute genuine obstacles.
5
4
3
4
3
While the procedures for the registration of voters and voting are de jure non-discriminatory, isolated cases of discrimination occur in practice. For some citizens, disincentives to voting constitute significant obstacles.
2
1
1
The procedures for the registration of voters or voting have systemic discriminatory effects. De facto, a substantial number of adult citizens are excluded from national elections.
All adult citizens over 18 years of age have voting rights in national elections. Resident EU citizens can vote in local and European elections, and all have access to an effective, impartial and non-discriminatory procedure for voting. Procedures are in place for ensuring that incarcerated persons are able to cast ballots. Non-resident citizens have voting access via polling stations in Latvian diplomatic entities and polling stations abroad as well as through an absentee-ballot postal procedure.
Latvia has a significant population of non-citizens (10.1% of the total population in 2021) who, while allowed to join political parties, cannot participate in any elections.
Voting procedures for non-resident citizens can in practice present obstacles. For example, the number of Latvian diplomatic representations is limited, which can mean that non-resident citizens have to travel long distances, at significant expense, to vote. Furthermore, to vote by post non-resident citizens are required to submit their passport, which can be held for three weeks.
Election observers in the 2018 parliamentary elections found no major faults with voting rights and access, but suggested that implementation of a permanent voter register be considered in order to promote universal suffrage.
At the local-government level, voting rights and procedures are similar. Voters may vote in local-government elections on the basis of their residence or according to property ownership. Voters have designated polling stations but can switch to a more convenient polling station if desired. For individuals unable to be present at polling stations on election day, polling stations are open for early voting in the days prior to the election. Currently, no provision is made for non-resident citizen participation in local-government elections.
Citations:
1. OSCE: Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (2019), Parliamentary Elections 6 October 2018:
ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Final Report, Available at: https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/latvia/409344?download=true, Last assessed: 04.01.2022.
2. Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs (2021), Natural Persons Register: Statistics. Available at (in Latvian): https://www.pmlp.gov.lv/lv/fizisko-personu-registra-statistika-2021-gada?utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F, Last accessed 02.01.2022.
Latvia has a significant population of non-citizens (10.1% of the total population in 2021) who, while allowed to join political parties, cannot participate in any elections.
Voting procedures for non-resident citizens can in practice present obstacles. For example, the number of Latvian diplomatic representations is limited, which can mean that non-resident citizens have to travel long distances, at significant expense, to vote. Furthermore, to vote by post non-resident citizens are required to submit their passport, which can be held for three weeks.
Election observers in the 2018 parliamentary elections found no major faults with voting rights and access, but suggested that implementation of a permanent voter register be considered in order to promote universal suffrage.
At the local-government level, voting rights and procedures are similar. Voters may vote in local-government elections on the basis of their residence or according to property ownership. Voters have designated polling stations but can switch to a more convenient polling station if desired. For individuals unable to be present at polling stations on election day, polling stations are open for early voting in the days prior to the election. Currently, no provision is made for non-resident citizen participation in local-government elections.
Citations:
1. OSCE: Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (2019), Parliamentary Elections 6 October 2018:
ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Final Report, Available at: https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/latvia/409344?download=true, Last assessed: 04.01.2022.
2. Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs (2021), Natural Persons Register: Statistics. Available at (in Latvian): https://www.pmlp.gov.lv/lv/fizisko-personu-registra-statistika-2021-gada?utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F, Last accessed 02.01.2022.
To what extent is private and public party financing and electoral campaign financing transparent, effectively monitored and in case of infringement of rules subject to proportionate and dissuasive sanction?
10
9
9
The state enforces that donations to political parties are made public and provides for independent monitoring to that respect. Effective measures to prevent evasion are effectively in place and infringements subject to effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions.
8
7
6
7
6
The state enforces that donations to political parties are made public and provides for independent monitoring. Although infringements are subject to proportionate sanctions, some, although few, loopholes and options for circumvention still exist.
5
4
3
4
3
The state provides that donations to political parties shall be published. Party financing is subject to some degree of independent monitoring but monitoring either proves regularly ineffective or proportionate sanctions in case of infringement do not follow.
2
1
1
The rules for party and campaign financing do not effectively enforce the obligation to make the donations public. Party and campaign financing is neither monitored independently nor, in case of infringements, subject to proportionate sanctions.
Political and campaign financing in Latvia is regulated by the Law on Financing Political Organizations, the Law on Pre-election Campaign, and the Law on Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau. In 2017, changes were made to the Law on Financing Political Organizations, which introduced an electronic data entry system, simplifying the submission of party and donor reports. In addition, it introduced a limit on donations by political party members or third parties.
The 2020 Amendments to the Party Financing Law specify that political parties that received votes from more than 2% of voters in the last Saeima elections will be allocated budget funding of €4.50 for each vote obtained. Parties will also receive €0.50 for each vote cast in the last local elections, and €0.50 for each vote cast in the last European elections. Previously, the rate was €0.71 per vote. If a party attracts more than 5% of the votes, €100,000 a year will be provided until the next elections. State support for a single party will not exceed €800,000 annually. This change is a welcome step in the right direction, although it has raised some concerns about the limitations it may set on political competition, keeping the new, smaller parties out.
The amendments also set a limit to donations, membership fees and party joining fees for parties receiving budget funding, which now cannot exceed five minimum salaries during a calendar year. If the parties receive state funding, and in the previous elections received more than 2% but less than 5% of the votes, the cap is 12 minimum monthly salaries during a calendar year. Previously, the maximum amount of donations and payments was 50 monthly salaries.
In addition to budget funding, fees and donations, parties can also be financed by income earned through parties’ economic activities in Latvia, according to certain set limits. Legal entities (e.g., corporations), and anonymous and foreign donors are prohibited from financing political parties. Parties are also not allowed to take or issue loans. Candidates are permitted to donate to their own campaign, as long as they observe the limits established for donations from individual persons. All donations must be made through bank transfers, except for cash donations of less than €430.
Financing is transparent, with donations required to be publicly listed online within 15 days. Campaign spending is capped. As of 2012, paid television advertisements are also limited, with a ban on advertising for a 30-day period prior to an election.
Political party and campaign financing are effectively monitored by the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (Korupcijas novēršanas un apkarošanas birojs, KNAB), with local NGOs playing a complementary role in monitoring and ensuring transparency.
Infringements have been sanctioned, with political parties facing sizable financial penalties. The court system has been slow to deal with party-financing violations, enabling parties that have violated campaign-finance rules to participate in subsequent election cycles without penalty. Ultimately, however, those parties that have faced stiff penalties have been dissolved or voted out of office.
The ODIHR report on the 2018 parliamentary elections expressed confidence in the party and campaign finance rules, but recommended that electoral contestants open dedicated bank accounts for campaigning transactions to enhance the mechanisms.
Citations:
1. Ministry of Justice (2019) Initial Impact Assessment Report of Amendments to the Law on the Financing of Political Organizations (Parties) (Abstract), Available at:
http://tap.mk.gov.lv/doc/2019_10/TMAnot_081019_PFF[1].1802.docx, Last accessed: 12.01.2022
2. OSCE: Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (2019), Parliamentary Elections 6 October 2018: ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Final Report, Available at:
https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/latvia/409344?download=true, Last accessed: 12.01.2022.
3. Amendments to the Criminal Law Regarding Illegal Party Financing (2011), Available at (in Latvian):
http://www.likumi.lv/doc.php?id=236272, Last accessed: 12.01.2022.
4. Law on the Financing of Political Organizations (Parties), Available at (in Latvian):
http://www.likumi.lv/doc.php?id=36189, Last accessed: 12.01.2022.
5. KNAB (2015) “Overview of Violations of Campaign Finance Regulations in the 2014 Saeima elections,” KNAB (published in Latvian). Available at:
https://www.knab.gov.lv/upload/free/parskati/12.saeimas_finansu_parbaudes_1.07.2015.pdf,
Last accessed: 12.01.2022.
6. The Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (2017), General report 2017, Available at:
https://www.knab.gov.lv/upload/2018/knab_01022018_zinojums_2017rezultati.docx,
Last accessed: 12.01.2022.
7. Amendments to the Party Financing Law ( 2019 and 2020), Available (in Latvian) at: https://likumi.lv/ta/id/36189-politisko-organizaciju-partiju-finansesanas-likums, Last accessed: 12.01.2022.
The 2020 Amendments to the Party Financing Law specify that political parties that received votes from more than 2% of voters in the last Saeima elections will be allocated budget funding of €4.50 for each vote obtained. Parties will also receive €0.50 for each vote cast in the last local elections, and €0.50 for each vote cast in the last European elections. Previously, the rate was €0.71 per vote. If a party attracts more than 5% of the votes, €100,000 a year will be provided until the next elections. State support for a single party will not exceed €800,000 annually. This change is a welcome step in the right direction, although it has raised some concerns about the limitations it may set on political competition, keeping the new, smaller parties out.
The amendments also set a limit to donations, membership fees and party joining fees for parties receiving budget funding, which now cannot exceed five minimum salaries during a calendar year. If the parties receive state funding, and in the previous elections received more than 2% but less than 5% of the votes, the cap is 12 minimum monthly salaries during a calendar year. Previously, the maximum amount of donations and payments was 50 monthly salaries.
In addition to budget funding, fees and donations, parties can also be financed by income earned through parties’ economic activities in Latvia, according to certain set limits. Legal entities (e.g., corporations), and anonymous and foreign donors are prohibited from financing political parties. Parties are also not allowed to take or issue loans. Candidates are permitted to donate to their own campaign, as long as they observe the limits established for donations from individual persons. All donations must be made through bank transfers, except for cash donations of less than €430.
Financing is transparent, with donations required to be publicly listed online within 15 days. Campaign spending is capped. As of 2012, paid television advertisements are also limited, with a ban on advertising for a 30-day period prior to an election.
Political party and campaign financing are effectively monitored by the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (Korupcijas novēršanas un apkarošanas birojs, KNAB), with local NGOs playing a complementary role in monitoring and ensuring transparency.
Infringements have been sanctioned, with political parties facing sizable financial penalties. The court system has been slow to deal with party-financing violations, enabling parties that have violated campaign-finance rules to participate in subsequent election cycles without penalty. Ultimately, however, those parties that have faced stiff penalties have been dissolved or voted out of office.
The ODIHR report on the 2018 parliamentary elections expressed confidence in the party and campaign finance rules, but recommended that electoral contestants open dedicated bank accounts for campaigning transactions to enhance the mechanisms.
Citations:
1. Ministry of Justice (2019) Initial Impact Assessment Report of Amendments to the Law on the Financing of Political Organizations (Parties) (Abstract), Available at:
http://tap.mk.gov.lv/doc/2019_10/TMAnot_081019_PFF[1].1802.docx, Last accessed: 12.01.2022
2. OSCE: Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (2019), Parliamentary Elections 6 October 2018: ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Final Report, Available at:
https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/latvia/409344?download=true, Last accessed: 12.01.2022.
3. Amendments to the Criminal Law Regarding Illegal Party Financing (2011), Available at (in Latvian):
http://www.likumi.lv/doc.php?id=236272, Last accessed: 12.01.2022.
4. Law on the Financing of Political Organizations (Parties), Available at (in Latvian):
http://www.likumi.lv/doc.php?id=36189, Last accessed: 12.01.2022.
5. KNAB (2015) “Overview of Violations of Campaign Finance Regulations in the 2014 Saeima elections,” KNAB (published in Latvian). Available at:
https://www.knab.gov.lv/upload/free/parskati/12.saeimas_finansu_parbaudes_1.07.2015.pdf,
Last accessed: 12.01.2022.
6. The Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (2017), General report 2017, Available at:
https://www.knab.gov.lv/upload/2018/knab_01022018_zinojums_2017rezultati.docx,
Last accessed: 12.01.2022.
7. Amendments to the Party Financing Law ( 2019 and 2020), Available (in Latvian) at: https://likumi.lv/ta/id/36189-politisko-organizaciju-partiju-finansesanas-likums, Last accessed: 12.01.2022.
Do citizens have the opportunity to take binding political decisions when they want to do so?
10
9
9
Citizens have the effective opportunity to actively propose and take binding decisions on issues of importance to them through popular initiatives and referendums. The set of eligible issues is extensive, and includes national, regional, and local issues.
8
7
6
7
6
Citizens have the effective opportunity to take binding decisions on issues of importance to them through either popular initiatives or referendums. The set of eligible issues covers at least two levels of government.
5
4
3
4
3
Citizens have the effective opportunity to vote on issues of importance to them through a legally binding measure. The set of eligible issues is limited to one level of government.
2
1
1
Citizens have no effective opportunity to vote on issues of importance to them through a legally binding measure.
Citizens have the legal right to propose and make binding decisions at the national level. The constitution includes provisions for both popular initiatives and referendums. No instruments of popular decision-making existed at the local level until recently; however, in 2021, Saeima approved the draft Law on Local Government Referenda which has yet to be implemented.
In addition to referendums, the parliament approved a new political decision-making instrument in 2010 that allows citizens to put items on the parliamentary agenda, though it does not afford citizens the right to make binding decisions. Thus, the parliamentary procedure allows for petitions that have gathered 10,000 signatures to move to the parliament for consideration. Under this instrument, 84 proposals have been forwarded to parliament and other institutions since 2011; 50 of these were successful in one way and another, and 12 have been turned into laws or regulations.
In 2011, following the president’s invocation of the constitutional procedure for dissolving the parliament, the decision was voted on in a referendum. Under this procedure, a parliament can be dissolved if the act receives voters’ approval, but the president must resign if the act does not receive voters’ approval. In 2011, voters approved the dissolution of parliament and extraordinary elections were held in October 2011. This constitutional procedure had never before been used. Since then, there have been a number of attempts to trigger the procedure, but not enough signatures were gathered.
In 2012, changes were made to the legislation regulating referendums that required petitions to receive 30,000 initial signatures before triggering a referendum, followed by CVK engagement to gather further signatures totaling one-tenth of the electorate. As of 1 January 2015, a one-step procedure took force that eliminated CVK engagement in the signature-gathering phase, placing the responsibility for gathering the signatures of one-tenth of the electorate with the referendum initiators.
Citations:
1. CVK (Central Voting Commission): Voters’ Initiatives and Collection of Signatures, Available at: https://www.cvk.lv/en/voters-initiatives/collection-of-signatures, Last accessed: 04.01.2022
2. Social Initiative Platform ManaBalss.lv, List of Signed Initiatives, Available at (in Latvian): https://manabalss.lv/page/progress, Last accessed: 04.01.2022
3. CVK (Central Voting Commission) (2011) Referendum on Dissolution of the 10th Saeima, https://www.cvk.lv/en/referendums/referendum-on-dissolution-of-the-10th-saeima-2011, Last assessed: Last accessed: 04.01.2022
4. Saeima (2021) Saeima supports the draft law on local government referendums in the second reading, Available (in Latvian): https://www.saeima.lv/lv/aktualitates/saeimas-zinas/25466-lems-par-mihaila-barisnikova-uznemsanu-latvijas-pilsoniba.rss.rss.rss.rss/30242-saeima-otraja-lasijuma-atbalsta-vietejo-pasvaldibu-referendumu-likuma-projektu, Last accessed: 04.01.2022
In addition to referendums, the parliament approved a new political decision-making instrument in 2010 that allows citizens to put items on the parliamentary agenda, though it does not afford citizens the right to make binding decisions. Thus, the parliamentary procedure allows for petitions that have gathered 10,000 signatures to move to the parliament for consideration. Under this instrument, 84 proposals have been forwarded to parliament and other institutions since 2011; 50 of these were successful in one way and another, and 12 have been turned into laws or regulations.
In 2011, following the president’s invocation of the constitutional procedure for dissolving the parliament, the decision was voted on in a referendum. Under this procedure, a parliament can be dissolved if the act receives voters’ approval, but the president must resign if the act does not receive voters’ approval. In 2011, voters approved the dissolution of parliament and extraordinary elections were held in October 2011. This constitutional procedure had never before been used. Since then, there have been a number of attempts to trigger the procedure, but not enough signatures were gathered.
In 2012, changes were made to the legislation regulating referendums that required petitions to receive 30,000 initial signatures before triggering a referendum, followed by CVK engagement to gather further signatures totaling one-tenth of the electorate. As of 1 January 2015, a one-step procedure took force that eliminated CVK engagement in the signature-gathering phase, placing the responsibility for gathering the signatures of one-tenth of the electorate with the referendum initiators.
Citations:
1. CVK (Central Voting Commission): Voters’ Initiatives and Collection of Signatures, Available at: https://www.cvk.lv/en/voters-initiatives/collection-of-signatures, Last accessed: 04.01.2022
2. Social Initiative Platform ManaBalss.lv, List of Signed Initiatives, Available at (in Latvian): https://manabalss.lv/page/progress, Last accessed: 04.01.2022
3. CVK (Central Voting Commission) (2011) Referendum on Dissolution of the 10th Saeima, https://www.cvk.lv/en/referendums/referendum-on-dissolution-of-the-10th-saeima-2011, Last assessed: Last accessed: 04.01.2022
4. Saeima (2021) Saeima supports the draft law on local government referendums in the second reading, Available (in Latvian): https://www.saeima.lv/lv/aktualitates/saeimas-zinas/25466-lems-par-mihaila-barisnikova-uznemsanu-latvijas-pilsoniba.rss.rss.rss.rss/30242-saeima-otraja-lasijuma-atbalsta-vietejo-pasvaldibu-referendumu-likuma-projektu, Last accessed: 04.01.2022
Graph View
To what extent are the media independent from government?
10
9
9
Public and private media are independent from government influence; their independence is institutionally protected and fully respected by the incumbent government.
8
7
6
7
6
The incumbent government largely respects the independence of media. However, there are occasional attempts to exert influence.
5
4
3
4
3
The incumbent government seeks to ensure its political objectives indirectly by influencing the personnel policies, organizational framework or financial resources of public media, and/or the licensing regime/market access for private media.
2
1
1
Major media outlets are frequently influenced by the incumbent government promoting its partisan political objectives. To ensure pro-government media reporting, governmental actors exert direct political pressure and violate existing rules of media regulation or change them to benefit their interests.
Private media are generally free from direct government influence. Licensing and regulatory regimes are politically neutral and generally do not create a risk of inappropriate political interference. However, in the past, private media ownership structure and the media working environment have enabled actors associated with the government to influence editorial decisions.
In 2017, leaked transcripts of conversations between Latvia’s three “oligarchs” revealed the presence of political influence in Diena, the major daily newspaper, and in public television. These figures holding these conversations observed that public radio remains impervious to outside political influence.
The National Broadcasting Council (Nacionālā elektronisko plašsaziņas līdzekļu padome, NEPLP) has previously been criticized for violating the independence of public broadcasting after making swift, poorly substantiated changes in the leadership ranks of the public radio and television services. In 2019, the chairwoman of the National Electronic Mass Media Council resigned as a result. The council has similarly been criticized for being subject to political influence and susceptible to conflicts of interest, as there was no separation between the specific task of overseeing the public media services, and that of regulating the media industry as a whole.
After four years of draft law development, a new Law on Public Electronic Media was adopted in 2020, intended to address these and other challenges regarding the media environment in Latvia.
The law provides for the establishment of a new council – the Public Electronic Media Council (Sabiedrisko elektronisko plašsaziņas līdzekļu padome, SEPLP) – which is intended to function as an independent autonomous body representing the public interest in the public electronic media sector. SEPLP will lead public procurement efforts and control their execution, but will not have the right to interfere in the specific editorial choices of the public service media.
The new law also creates a Media Ombudsman to monitor the public electronic media services’ compliance with their statutory purpose and operating principles, codes of ethics, and editorial guidelines. The Ombudsman will also have the right to initiate the dismissal of an SEPLP member or the council as a whole if the council member’s actions or omissions pose a threat to the editorial independence of the public media.
Overall, these developments are welcome and timely, and should be viewed as improvements in the quality of public media in Latvia, as they draw a clearer distinction between political influence and media oversight. The new law eliminates the conflicts of interest that have existed for years in the NEPLP, separating the supervision of public media from the functions of the regulator of the entire industry.
Citations:
1. Law on Public Electronic Mass Media and Administration Thereof (2021) Available at: https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/319096, Last accessed: 10.01.2022.
2. Rožukalne, A. (2016) Monitoring Risks for Media Pluralism in the EU and Beyond: Latvia, Available at:
https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/46802/Latvia_EN.pdf?sequence=1&isAll owed=y, Last assessed: Last accessed: 10.01.2022.
3. Official Gazette ‘Latvijas Vestnesis’ (2020) New Law on Public Media Management, Available (in Latvian): https://lvportals.lv/skaidrojumi/322417-jauns-likums-sabiedrisko-mediju-parvaldibai-2020, Last accessed: 10.01.2022.
In 2017, leaked transcripts of conversations between Latvia’s three “oligarchs” revealed the presence of political influence in Diena, the major daily newspaper, and in public television. These figures holding these conversations observed that public radio remains impervious to outside political influence.
The National Broadcasting Council (Nacionālā elektronisko plašsaziņas līdzekļu padome, NEPLP) has previously been criticized for violating the independence of public broadcasting after making swift, poorly substantiated changes in the leadership ranks of the public radio and television services. In 2019, the chairwoman of the National Electronic Mass Media Council resigned as a result. The council has similarly been criticized for being subject to political influence and susceptible to conflicts of interest, as there was no separation between the specific task of overseeing the public media services, and that of regulating the media industry as a whole.
After four years of draft law development, a new Law on Public Electronic Media was adopted in 2020, intended to address these and other challenges regarding the media environment in Latvia.
The law provides for the establishment of a new council – the Public Electronic Media Council (Sabiedrisko elektronisko plašsaziņas līdzekļu padome, SEPLP) – which is intended to function as an independent autonomous body representing the public interest in the public electronic media sector. SEPLP will lead public procurement efforts and control their execution, but will not have the right to interfere in the specific editorial choices of the public service media.
The new law also creates a Media Ombudsman to monitor the public electronic media services’ compliance with their statutory purpose and operating principles, codes of ethics, and editorial guidelines. The Ombudsman will also have the right to initiate the dismissal of an SEPLP member or the council as a whole if the council member’s actions or omissions pose a threat to the editorial independence of the public media.
Overall, these developments are welcome and timely, and should be viewed as improvements in the quality of public media in Latvia, as they draw a clearer distinction between political influence and media oversight. The new law eliminates the conflicts of interest that have existed for years in the NEPLP, separating the supervision of public media from the functions of the regulator of the entire industry.
Citations:
1. Law on Public Electronic Mass Media and Administration Thereof (2021) Available at: https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/319096, Last accessed: 10.01.2022.
2. Rožukalne, A. (2016) Monitoring Risks for Media Pluralism in the EU and Beyond: Latvia, Available at:
https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/46802/Latvia_EN.pdf?sequence=1&isAll owed=y, Last assessed: Last accessed: 10.01.2022.
3. Official Gazette ‘Latvijas Vestnesis’ (2020) New Law on Public Media Management, Available (in Latvian): https://lvportals.lv/skaidrojumi/322417-jauns-likums-sabiedrisko-mediju-parvaldibai-2020, Last accessed: 10.01.2022.
To what extent are the media characterized by an ownership structure that ensures a pluralism of opinions?
10
9
9
Diversified ownership structures characterize both the electronic and print media market, providing a well-balanced pluralism of opinions. Effective anti-monopoly policies and impartial, open public media guarantee a pluralism of opinions.
8
7
6
7
6
Diversified ownership structures prevail in the electronic and print media market. Public media compensate for deficiencies or biases in private media reporting by representing a wider range of opinions.
5
4
3
4
3
Oligopolistic ownership structures characterize either the electronic or the print media market. Important opinions are represented but there are no or only weak institutional guarantees against the predominance of certain opinions.
2
1
1
Oligopolistic ownership structures characterize both the electronic and the print media market. Few companies dominate the media, most programs are biased, and there is evidence that certain opinions are not published or are marginalized.
Media ownership is diverse in Latvia. Print media is privately owned, while broadcast media has a mix of public and private ownership. In the last decade, market pressures have created some consolidation in the market, leading to concerns about pluralism. Newspapers and magazines provide a diverse range of views, but ownership structures are in some cases opaque. Internet news portals (Delfi, TVNet, and Public Broadcasting of Latvia platform) have replaced print newspapers as the primary source of news.
According to the NPLP and the Media Pluralism Report (2021), media consumption in Latvia is largely determined by ethnic group and/or geographical factors – that is, Latvian speakers generally trust and use Latvian media, whereas Russian speakers choose Russian-language media, often preferring TV channels controlled by the Russian government.
Even though the regulation of Latvia’s media is liberal and has allowed a diverse media system to develop, Latvia was evaluated as showing a medium to high risk to media pluralism in many of the categories addressed by the Media Pluralism Monitor in 2021. In particular, a high level of risk is observed with regard to market plurality (75%) due to increasing news media and online platform concentration, with the highest increase in concentration coming in the digital news field. The area of social inclusiveness indicates a medium overall risk of 47% due to difficulties in accessing media in some regional communities, comparatively more limited access for women, and a high level of risk with regard to the development of media literacy.
Citations:
1. Rozukalne A. (2021) Monitoring Media Pluralism in the Digital Era: Latvia Country Report, Available at: https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/71952/_atvia_results_mpm_2021_cmpf.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y, Last accessed: 10.01.2022.
2. Rožukalne, A.(2017) Country report: Latvia, European University Institute, Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom, Available at: http://cmpf.eui.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2018/11/Latvia_MPM2017_country-report.pdf, Last accessed: 10.01.2022.
According to the NPLP and the Media Pluralism Report (2021), media consumption in Latvia is largely determined by ethnic group and/or geographical factors – that is, Latvian speakers generally trust and use Latvian media, whereas Russian speakers choose Russian-language media, often preferring TV channels controlled by the Russian government.
Even though the regulation of Latvia’s media is liberal and has allowed a diverse media system to develop, Latvia was evaluated as showing a medium to high risk to media pluralism in many of the categories addressed by the Media Pluralism Monitor in 2021. In particular, a high level of risk is observed with regard to market plurality (75%) due to increasing news media and online platform concentration, with the highest increase in concentration coming in the digital news field. The area of social inclusiveness indicates a medium overall risk of 47% due to difficulties in accessing media in some regional communities, comparatively more limited access for women, and a high level of risk with regard to the development of media literacy.
Citations:
1. Rozukalne A. (2021) Monitoring Media Pluralism in the Digital Era: Latvia Country Report, Available at: https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/71952/_atvia_results_mpm_2021_cmpf.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y, Last accessed: 10.01.2022.
2. Rožukalne, A.(2017) Country report: Latvia, European University Institute, Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom, Available at: http://cmpf.eui.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2018/11/Latvia_MPM2017_country-report.pdf, Last accessed: 10.01.2022.
To what extent can citizens obtain official information?
10
9
9
Legal regulations guarantee free and easy access to official information, contain few, reasonable restrictions, and there are effective mechanisms of appeal and oversight enabling citizens to access information.
8
7
6
7
6
Access to official information is regulated by law. Most restrictions are justified, but access is sometimes complicated by bureaucratic procedures. Existing appeal and oversight mechanisms permit citizens to enforce their right of access.
5
4
3
4
3
Access to official information is partially regulated by law, but complicated by bureaucratic procedures and some poorly justified restrictions. Existing appeal and oversight mechanisms are often ineffective.
2
1
1
Access to official information is not regulated by law; there are many restrictions of access, bureaucratic procedures and no or ineffective mechanisms of enforcement.
The constitution provides individuals with the right to address the government and receive a materially substantive reply. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), in place since 1998, creates the right to request information and receive a response within 15 days. No reason needs to be given for the request. Information is classified as generally accessible or restricted. Any restrictions on the provision of information must be substantively reasoned in accordance with specific legal guidelines. The FOIA is actively used by the press, NGOs, and the academic community. Appeal procedures are in place, including both an administrative and court review. Government decisions to classify information as restricted have been challenged in the courts, with the courts generally upholding a broad standard of access to information.
Latvia has a number of regulations promoting transparency in the decision-making process, requiring the government to make documents available to the public proactively. Documents regarding draft policies and legislation are freely available online, and cabinet meetings are open to journalists and other observers. Regulations require that many documents be published online for accountability purposes. This includes political-party donations, public officials’ annual income- and financial-disclosure statements, national-budget expenditures, conflict-of-interest statements, and data on public officials disciplined for conflict-of-interest violations.
In addition, the parliament approved a new Law on Whistleblowing in 2018 (in effect from 2019). The law enables whistleblowers to expose offenses that concern the public interest or the interests of certain social groups.
Citations:
1. Freedom of Information Act, Available at (in Latvian): http://www.likumi.lv/doc.php?id=50601, Last accessed: 04.01.2022.
2. Cabinet of Ministers (2019), Whistleblowers, Available at (in Latvian):
https://www.mk.gov.lv/lv/content/trauksmes-celeji, Last accessed: 04.01.2022.
Latvia has a number of regulations promoting transparency in the decision-making process, requiring the government to make documents available to the public proactively. Documents regarding draft policies and legislation are freely available online, and cabinet meetings are open to journalists and other observers. Regulations require that many documents be published online for accountability purposes. This includes political-party donations, public officials’ annual income- and financial-disclosure statements, national-budget expenditures, conflict-of-interest statements, and data on public officials disciplined for conflict-of-interest violations.
In addition, the parliament approved a new Law on Whistleblowing in 2018 (in effect from 2019). The law enables whistleblowers to expose offenses that concern the public interest or the interests of certain social groups.
Citations:
1. Freedom of Information Act, Available at (in Latvian): http://www.likumi.lv/doc.php?id=50601, Last accessed: 04.01.2022.
2. Cabinet of Ministers (2019), Whistleblowers, Available at (in Latvian):
https://www.mk.gov.lv/lv/content/trauksmes-celeji, Last accessed: 04.01.2022.
Graph View
To what extent does the state respect and protect civil rights and how effectively are citizens protected by courts against infringements of their rights?
10
9
9
All state institutions respect and effectively protect civil rights. Citizens are effectively protected by courts against infringements of their rights. Infringements present an extreme exception.
8
7
6
7
6
The state respects and protects rights, with few infringements. Courts provide protection.
5
4
3
4
3
Despite formal protection, frequent infringements of civil rights occur and court protection often proves ineffective.
2
1
1
State institutions respect civil rights only formally, and civil rights are frequently violated. Court protection is not effective.
Civil rights are generally respected and protected. There is a provision for freedom of speech, although it criminalizes incitement to racial and ethnic hatred. It is forbidden to glorify or deny the Holocaust, crimes against humanity, or war crimes against the country perpetrated by the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. There are no government restrictions on academic freedom or cultural events, and freedom of religion is granted.
In cases of infringement, courts provide protection. Individuals have equal access to and are accorded equal treatment by the courts. However, a significant court overload creates difficulties in obtaining timely access to justice.
There are concerns over poor conditions in the country’s prisons and detention facilities, lengthy pretrial detention periods, and the general accessibility of the court system. The 2017 Ombudsman report rated the overall prison infrastructure as being antiquated and advanced plans for the construction of a modern prison in the city of Liepāja. This project has now started and is expected to conclude by the end of 2025.
In 2019, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of an inmate who had been prevented from attending his father’s funeral due to sexual discrimination, as men that have been found guilty of a serious crime are automatically placed in the highest security category, while women found guilty of a comparable crime are placed in less restrictive, only partially closed prisons.
Citations:
1. Freedom House (2021) Latvia: Civil Liberties, Available at: https://freedomhouse.org/country/latvia/freedom-world/2021, Last accessed: 05.01.2022.
2. Ombudsman of Latvia (2017), Annual Report, Available at:
http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/uploads/content/legacy/2017_annual_report_summary_1523624612.pdf, Last accessed: 05.01.2022
3. Ombudsman of Latvia (2016), Annual Report, Available at:
http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/uploads/content/lapas/tiesibsarga_2016_gada_zinojums_1 489647331.pdf, Last accessed: 05.01.2022.
4. European Court of Human Rights (2019) Prison sentence law which prevented male inmate from
attending father’s funeral led to sexual discrimination, Available at:
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf?library=ECHR&id=003-62935078211154&filename=Judgment%20Ecis%20v.%20Latvia%20-
%20male%20prisoner%20banned%20from%20attending%20funeral%20suffered%20discrimination.pdf,
Last accessed: 05.01.2022
5. Ministry of Justice (2021) Liepāja Prison, Available (in Latvian): https://www.tm.gov.lv/lv/liepajas-cietums?utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F, Last accessed: 10.01.2022.
In cases of infringement, courts provide protection. Individuals have equal access to and are accorded equal treatment by the courts. However, a significant court overload creates difficulties in obtaining timely access to justice.
There are concerns over poor conditions in the country’s prisons and detention facilities, lengthy pretrial detention periods, and the general accessibility of the court system. The 2017 Ombudsman report rated the overall prison infrastructure as being antiquated and advanced plans for the construction of a modern prison in the city of Liepāja. This project has now started and is expected to conclude by the end of 2025.
In 2019, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of an inmate who had been prevented from attending his father’s funeral due to sexual discrimination, as men that have been found guilty of a serious crime are automatically placed in the highest security category, while women found guilty of a comparable crime are placed in less restrictive, only partially closed prisons.
Citations:
1. Freedom House (2021) Latvia: Civil Liberties, Available at: https://freedomhouse.org/country/latvia/freedom-world/2021, Last accessed: 05.01.2022.
2. Ombudsman of Latvia (2017), Annual Report, Available at:
http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/uploads/content/legacy/2017_annual_report_summary_1523624612.pdf, Last accessed: 05.01.2022
3. Ombudsman of Latvia (2016), Annual Report, Available at:
http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/uploads/content/lapas/tiesibsarga_2016_gada_zinojums_1 489647331.pdf, Last accessed: 05.01.2022.
4. European Court of Human Rights (2019) Prison sentence law which prevented male inmate from
attending father’s funeral led to sexual discrimination, Available at:
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf?library=ECHR&id=003-62935078211154&filename=Judgment%20Ecis%20v.%20Latvia%20-
%20male%20prisoner%20banned%20from%20attending%20funeral%20suffered%20discrimination.pdf,
Last accessed: 05.01.2022
5. Ministry of Justice (2021) Liepāja Prison, Available (in Latvian): https://www.tm.gov.lv/lv/liepajas-cietums?utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F, Last accessed: 10.01.2022.
To what extent does the state concede and protect political liberties?
10
9
9
All state institutions concede and effectively protect political liberties.
8
7
6
7
6
All state institutions for the most part concede and protect political liberties. There are only few infringements.
5
4
3
4
3
State institutions concede political liberties but infringements occur regularly in practice.
2
1
1
Political liberties are unsatisfactory codified and frequently violated.
Political liberties are effectively protected and upheld. The right to speak, think, assemble, organize, worship, and petition without government interference or restraint is recognized and protected. However, new challenges to the freedoms of speech, assembly and organization are emerging. For example, freedom of assembly is regularly tested by organizations applying to the Riga city council for permits. In most instances, permits are granted without fail. Sensitive political issues, however, have led the city council to deny permits. There is a right of appeal to the courts and a rapid consideration schedule to ensure timely decisions.
Citations:
Freedom House (2021) Freedom in the World: Latvia, Available at: https://freedomhouse.org/country/latvia/freedom-world/2021, Last accessed: 10.01.2022.
Citations:
Freedom House (2021) Freedom in the World: Latvia, Available at: https://freedomhouse.org/country/latvia/freedom-world/2021, Last accessed: 10.01.2022.
How effectively does the state protect against different forms of discrimination?
10
9
9
State institutions effectively protect against and actively prevent discrimination. Cases of discrimination are extremely rare.
8
7
6
7
6
State anti-discrimination protections are moderately successful. Few cases of discrimination are observed.
5
4
3
4
3
State anti-discrimination efforts show limited success. Many cases of discrimination can be observed.
2
1
1
The state does not offer effective protection against discrimination. Discrimination is widespread in the public sector and in society.
Latvia adheres to EU anti-discrimination directives. Anti-discrimination legal provisions are scattered among more than 30 pieces of legislation, with policy responsibilities dispersed among a significant number of state institutions. No single entity takes the lead in designing and implementing anti-discrimination policy, but individuals complaining of discrimination typically approach the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has focused on labor market discrimination on the basis of age, sex, and sexual preference, cases of hate speech, and on issues of equal access to education and health services.
Due to Latvia’s ethnic makeup, discrimination based on ethnic origin is often cited in the media. The legal framework has been deemed non-discriminatory and official complaints are rare. However, public rhetoric on issues of citizenship, loyalty, language of instruction in education and use of language in public life can be inflammatory and be perceived as discriminatory.
Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is poorly regulated. It is only mentioned in the context of labor law. The Ombudsman’s efforts to draw public attention to the issue of same-sex partnerships have been fraught with controversy due to intense polarization of views on the issue within Latvian society. In 2020, the Saeima rejected an initiative signed by more than 10,000 Latvian residents regarding the registration of same-sex partnerships.
A new law was introduced in 2017 that restricts a person’s right to cover their face. The law was developed by the Ministry of Justice.
Although Latvia signed the Istanbul Convention in 2016 and has implemented most of its recommendations, the parliament has still not ratified it. This hinders the state’s ability to address the issue of domestic violence in Latvia, as Latvia lacks an integrated approach to eradicating it. None of the NGOs that provide services to women who have suffered from violence receive financial assistance from the state. According to the Central Statistical Bureau, 38.6% of women have suffered from physical or sexual violence since the age of 15 in Latvia, while 6.3% have done so during the past 12 months. Among this population, 32.1% have never told anyone about the violence, which is more than twice the comparable average in the EU.
According to the European network of legal experts on gender equality and non-discrimination, gender equality laws in Latvia generally do not significantly exceed the European Union’s minimum requirements – no positive measures have been taken to date. Receiving 60.8 out of 100 points (7.1. points lower than the EU average), Latvia ranks 17th in the EU on the Gender Equality Index.
Citations:
1. OECD (2019) Social Institutions and Gender Index, Available at: https://www.genderindex.org/wpcontent/uploads/files/datasheets/2019/LV.pdf, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
2. European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination (2018), Country Report:
Non-discrimination 2018, Available at: https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/4754-latvia-country-reportnon-discrimination-2018-pdf-2-05-mb, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
3. UN (2018) Global Database on Violence Against Women, Available at: http://evaw-globaldatabase.unwomen.org/fr/countries/europe/latvia#1, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
4. Ombudsman of Latvia (2017), Annual Report, Available at:
http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/uploads/content/legacy/2017_annual_report_summary_1523 624612.pdf, Last assessed: 15.01.2022.
8. University of Latvia, Social and Political Research Institute (2014). How Democratic is Latvia:
Democracy Audit 2005 – 2014. Available at:
https://www.szf.lu.lv/fileadmin/user_upload/szf_faili/Petnieciba/sppi/demokratija/ENG_Audit_of_Democracy_2015.pdf, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
9. European Institute for Gender Equality (2020) Gender Equality Index 2020: Latvia, Available at: https://eige.europa.eu/publications/gender-equality-index-2020-latvia, Last accessed: 10.01.2022
10. LSM (2020) Latvian Saeima rejects initiative for registration of same-sex partnerships, Available at: https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/society/latvian-saeima-rejects-initiative-for-registration-of-same-sex-partnerships.a379780/, Last accessed: 05.01.2022
11. CSB (2019) Gender-based violence, Available at: https://www.csb.gov.lv/en/gender-equality-indicators/Crime_Violence, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
Due to Latvia’s ethnic makeup, discrimination based on ethnic origin is often cited in the media. The legal framework has been deemed non-discriminatory and official complaints are rare. However, public rhetoric on issues of citizenship, loyalty, language of instruction in education and use of language in public life can be inflammatory and be perceived as discriminatory.
Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is poorly regulated. It is only mentioned in the context of labor law. The Ombudsman’s efforts to draw public attention to the issue of same-sex partnerships have been fraught with controversy due to intense polarization of views on the issue within Latvian society. In 2020, the Saeima rejected an initiative signed by more than 10,000 Latvian residents regarding the registration of same-sex partnerships.
A new law was introduced in 2017 that restricts a person’s right to cover their face. The law was developed by the Ministry of Justice.
Although Latvia signed the Istanbul Convention in 2016 and has implemented most of its recommendations, the parliament has still not ratified it. This hinders the state’s ability to address the issue of domestic violence in Latvia, as Latvia lacks an integrated approach to eradicating it. None of the NGOs that provide services to women who have suffered from violence receive financial assistance from the state. According to the Central Statistical Bureau, 38.6% of women have suffered from physical or sexual violence since the age of 15 in Latvia, while 6.3% have done so during the past 12 months. Among this population, 32.1% have never told anyone about the violence, which is more than twice the comparable average in the EU.
According to the European network of legal experts on gender equality and non-discrimination, gender equality laws in Latvia generally do not significantly exceed the European Union’s minimum requirements – no positive measures have been taken to date. Receiving 60.8 out of 100 points (7.1. points lower than the EU average), Latvia ranks 17th in the EU on the Gender Equality Index.
Citations:
1. OECD (2019) Social Institutions and Gender Index, Available at: https://www.genderindex.org/wpcontent/uploads/files/datasheets/2019/LV.pdf, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
2. European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination (2018), Country Report:
Non-discrimination 2018, Available at: https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/4754-latvia-country-reportnon-discrimination-2018-pdf-2-05-mb, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
3. UN (2018) Global Database on Violence Against Women, Available at: http://evaw-globaldatabase.unwomen.org/fr/countries/europe/latvia#1, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
4. Ombudsman of Latvia (2017), Annual Report, Available at:
http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/uploads/content/legacy/2017_annual_report_summary_1523 624612.pdf, Last assessed: 15.01.2022.
8. University of Latvia, Social and Political Research Institute (2014). How Democratic is Latvia:
Democracy Audit 2005 – 2014. Available at:
https://www.szf.lu.lv/fileadmin/user_upload/szf_faili/Petnieciba/sppi/demokratija/ENG_Audit_of_Democracy_2015.pdf, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
9. European Institute for Gender Equality (2020) Gender Equality Index 2020: Latvia, Available at: https://eige.europa.eu/publications/gender-equality-index-2020-latvia, Last accessed: 10.01.2022
10. LSM (2020) Latvian Saeima rejects initiative for registration of same-sex partnerships, Available at: https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/society/latvian-saeima-rejects-initiative-for-registration-of-same-sex-partnerships.a379780/, Last accessed: 05.01.2022
11. CSB (2019) Gender-based violence, Available at: https://www.csb.gov.lv/en/gender-equality-indicators/Crime_Violence, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
Graph View
To what extent do government and administration act on the basis of and in accordance with legal provisions to provide legal certainty?
10
9
9
Government and administration act predictably, on the basis of and in accordance with legal provisions. Legal regulations are consistent and transparent, ensuring legal certainty.
8
7
6
7
6
Government and administration rarely make unpredictable decisions. Legal regulations are consistent, but leave a large scope of discretion to the government or administration.
5
4
3
4
3
Government and administration sometimes make unpredictable decisions that go beyond given legal bases or do not conform to existing legal regulations. Some legal regulations are inconsistent and contradictory.
2
1
1
Government and administration often make unpredictable decisions that lack a legal basis or ignore existing legal regulations. Legal regulations are inconsistent, full of loopholes and contradict each other.
Latvia’s government and administration generally act in a predictable manner. Government decisions have in some cases been challenged in court on the basis of a breach of the principle of legal certainty. For example, dissenting judges of the Constitutional Court published an opinion in 2014 indicating that the majority had erred in applying the principle of legal certainty during the financial crisis. They emphasized that legal certainty can be applied differently in different settings.
The Foreign Investors’ Council in their FICIL Sentiment Index 2015 noted two issues with legal certainty. First, the legal system delivers unpredictable results, which negatively affect the foreign investment climate in Latvia. Second, the legislative environment and tax regime have been inconsistent since the 2008 crisis, undermining investor confidence. In 2018, the FICIL Sentiment Index highlighted similar issues and emphasized issues of uncertainty in bureaucratic bodies, labeling it a “chronic problem” for the business environment. In 2021 however, the FICIL commended amendments to the Law on Residential Properties, which previously had prohibited the division of a residential house into residential properties if it shared the same land parcel with other residential houses, a provision that violated the principle of legal certainty.
Citations:
1. The Constitutional Court of Latvia (2012), On Termination of Proceedings, Rulings available at:
http://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/en/press-release/the-constitutional-court-terminated-proceedings-in-the-caseon-judge-and-public-prosecutors-remuneration-reform/, Last accessed: 09.01.2022.
2. FICIL Sentiment Index 2015 and 2018. Available at: https://www.sseriga.edu/centres/csb/sentimentindex, Last assessed: Last accessed: 09.01.2022.
3. FICIL (2021) FICIL welcomes the amendments to the Law on Residential Properties, Available at: https://www.ficil.lv/2021/07/14/ficil-welcomes-the-amendments-to-the-law-on-residential-properties/, Last accessed: 09.01.2022.
The Foreign Investors’ Council in their FICIL Sentiment Index 2015 noted two issues with legal certainty. First, the legal system delivers unpredictable results, which negatively affect the foreign investment climate in Latvia. Second, the legislative environment and tax regime have been inconsistent since the 2008 crisis, undermining investor confidence. In 2018, the FICIL Sentiment Index highlighted similar issues and emphasized issues of uncertainty in bureaucratic bodies, labeling it a “chronic problem” for the business environment. In 2021 however, the FICIL commended amendments to the Law on Residential Properties, which previously had prohibited the division of a residential house into residential properties if it shared the same land parcel with other residential houses, a provision that violated the principle of legal certainty.
Citations:
1. The Constitutional Court of Latvia (2012), On Termination of Proceedings, Rulings available at:
http://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/en/press-release/the-constitutional-court-terminated-proceedings-in-the-caseon-judge-and-public-prosecutors-remuneration-reform/, Last accessed: 09.01.2022.
2. FICIL Sentiment Index 2015 and 2018. Available at: https://www.sseriga.edu/centres/csb/sentimentindex, Last assessed: Last accessed: 09.01.2022.
3. FICIL (2021) FICIL welcomes the amendments to the Law on Residential Properties, Available at: https://www.ficil.lv/2021/07/14/ficil-welcomes-the-amendments-to-the-law-on-residential-properties/, Last accessed: 09.01.2022.
To what extent do independent courts control whether government and administration act in conformity with the law?
10
9
9
Independent courts effectively review executive action and ensure that the government and administration act in conformity with the law.
8
7
6
7
6
Independent courts usually manage to control whether the government and administration act in conformity with the law.
5
4
3
4
3
Courts are independent, but often fail to ensure legal compliance.
2
1
1
Courts are biased for or against the incumbent government and lack effective control.
Judicial oversight is provided by the administrative court and the Constitutional Court. The administrative court, created in 2004, reviews cases brought by individuals. The court is considered to be impartial; it pursues its own reasoning free from inappropriate influences.
The court system suffers from a case overload, leading to delays in proceedings. According to the court administration’s statistical overviews, 88.19% of cases in 2020 concluded within 12 months’ time (18.7% take between six and 12 months), while 11.81% took longer than that.
The Constitutional Court reviews the constitutionality of laws and occasionally that of government or local government regulations. In 2019, the court received 728 petitions, 258 of which were forwarded for consideration. The court initiated 70 cases, dealing with a wide range of issues, including human dignity, non-discrimination, the right to social security, and the right of minorities to use their mother tongue in early education.
Citations:
1. Court Statistics (2020) Available at: https://dati.ta.gov.lv/MicroStrategy/asp/Main.aspx?src=Main.aspx.2048001&evt=2048001&documentID=BF8E206E48039A9F66E436BB511763C6¤tViewMedia=1&visMode=0&Server=10.219.1.47&Port=0&Project=TA+Dati&, Last accessed: 10.01.2022
2. Constitutional Court (2020). Overview of the work of the Constitutional Court 2020. Available at:
https://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/WEB_pa_lapam_2020_Satversmes-tiesas-gada-gramata.pdf, Last accessed 10.01.2022.
The court system suffers from a case overload, leading to delays in proceedings. According to the court administration’s statistical overviews, 88.19% of cases in 2020 concluded within 12 months’ time (18.7% take between six and 12 months), while 11.81% took longer than that.
The Constitutional Court reviews the constitutionality of laws and occasionally that of government or local government regulations. In 2019, the court received 728 petitions, 258 of which were forwarded for consideration. The court initiated 70 cases, dealing with a wide range of issues, including human dignity, non-discrimination, the right to social security, and the right of minorities to use their mother tongue in early education.
Citations:
1. Court Statistics (2020) Available at: https://dati.ta.gov.lv/MicroStrategy/asp/Main.aspx?src=Main.aspx.2048001&evt=2048001&documentID=BF8E206E48039A9F66E436BB511763C6¤tViewMedia=1&visMode=0&Server=10.219.1.47&Port=0&Project=TA+Dati&, Last accessed: 10.01.2022
2. Constitutional Court (2020). Overview of the work of the Constitutional Court 2020. Available at:
https://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/WEB_pa_lapam_2020_Satversmes-tiesas-gada-gramata.pdf, Last accessed 10.01.2022.
To what extent does the process of appointing (supreme or constitutional court) justices guarantee the independence of the judiciary?
10
9
9
Justices are appointed in a cooperative appointment process with special majority requirements.
8
7
6
7
6
Justices are exclusively appointed by different bodies with special majority requirements or in a cooperative selection process without special majority requirements.
5
4
3
4
3
Justices are exclusively appointed by different bodies without special majority requirements.
2
1
1
All judges are appointed exclusively by a single body irrespective of other institutions.
Judges are appointed in a cooperative manner. While the parliament approves appointments, candidates are nominated by the minister of justice or the president of the Supreme Court based on advice from the Judicial Qualification Board. Initial appointments at the district court level are for a period of three years, followed either by an additional two years or a lifetime appointment upon parliamentary approval. Regional and supreme court judges are appointed for life (with a compulsory retirement age of 70). The promotion of a judge from one level to another requires parliamentary approval. Parliamentarians vote on the appointment of every judge, and are not required to justify refusing an appointment. Judges are barred from engaging in political activity.
A new system for evaluating judges has been in place since January 2013, with the aim of strengthening judicial independence. While the government can comment, it does not have the power to make decisions. A judges’ panel is responsible for evaluations, with the court administration providing administrative support in collecting data. The panel can evaluate a judge favorably or unfavorably and, as a consequence of this simple rating system, has tended to avoid rendering unfavorable assessments.
In 2018, amendments to the Law on Judicial Power reduced the influence of executive power on the organization of court work and extended the competence of the Council for the Judiciary in appointing chairs of the courts.
Nevertheless, a European Networks of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) survey of judges (2020) found that Latvia scored relatively poorly in terms of Latvian judges’ evaluation of judicial independence (scoring between 6.5 and 7 on a 10-point scale). A total of 19% of Latvian judges reported being subjected to inappropriate pressure, and 11% reported that corruption occurs regularly. Some 43% of judges in Latvia felt that the media has a large impact on their decisions.
Citations:
1. Supreme Court Senate (2018), The competence of the Council for the Judiciary in appointing chairs of courts and in transfer of judges shall be expanded, Available at: http://www.at.gov.lv/en/jaunumi/partieslietu-padomi/the-competence-of-the-council-for-the-judiciary-in-appointing-chairs-of-courts-and-intransfer-of-judges-shall-be-expanded-9374?year=2018&, Last accessed: 11.01.2022
2. On Courts (1993) Available (in Latvian): https://likumi.lv/ta/id/62847-par-tiesu-varu, Last accessed: 11.01.2022.
3. ENCJ (2019) Independence and Accountability of the Judiciary: Survey on the independence of Judges, Available at: https://pgwrk-websitemedia.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/production/pwk-web-encj2017-p/Reports/Data%20ENCJ%202019%20Survey%20on%20the%20Independence%20of%20judges.pdf, Last accessed: 10.01.2022.
A new system for evaluating judges has been in place since January 2013, with the aim of strengthening judicial independence. While the government can comment, it does not have the power to make decisions. A judges’ panel is responsible for evaluations, with the court administration providing administrative support in collecting data. The panel can evaluate a judge favorably or unfavorably and, as a consequence of this simple rating system, has tended to avoid rendering unfavorable assessments.
In 2018, amendments to the Law on Judicial Power reduced the influence of executive power on the organization of court work and extended the competence of the Council for the Judiciary in appointing chairs of the courts.
Nevertheless, a European Networks of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) survey of judges (2020) found that Latvia scored relatively poorly in terms of Latvian judges’ evaluation of judicial independence (scoring between 6.5 and 7 on a 10-point scale). A total of 19% of Latvian judges reported being subjected to inappropriate pressure, and 11% reported that corruption occurs regularly. Some 43% of judges in Latvia felt that the media has a large impact on their decisions.
Citations:
1. Supreme Court Senate (2018), The competence of the Council for the Judiciary in appointing chairs of courts and in transfer of judges shall be expanded, Available at: http://www.at.gov.lv/en/jaunumi/partieslietu-padomi/the-competence-of-the-council-for-the-judiciary-in-appointing-chairs-of-courts-and-intransfer-of-judges-shall-be-expanded-9374?year=2018&, Last accessed: 11.01.2022
2. On Courts (1993) Available (in Latvian): https://likumi.lv/ta/id/62847-par-tiesu-varu, Last accessed: 11.01.2022.
3. ENCJ (2019) Independence and Accountability of the Judiciary: Survey on the independence of Judges, Available at: https://pgwrk-websitemedia.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/production/pwk-web-encj2017-p/Reports/Data%20ENCJ%202019%20Survey%20on%20the%20Independence%20of%20judges.pdf, Last accessed: 10.01.2022.
To what extent are public officeholders prevented from abusing their position for private interests?
10
9
9
Legal, political and public integrity mechanisms effectively prevent public officeholders from abusing their positions.
8
7
6
7
6
Most integrity mechanisms function effectively and provide disincentives for public officeholders willing to abuse their positions.
5
4
3
4
3
Some integrity mechanisms function, but do not effectively prevent public officeholders from abusing their positions.
2
1
1
Public officeholders can exploit their offices for private gain as they see fit without fear of legal consequences or adverse publicity.
Latvia’s main integrity mechanism is the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (Korupcijas novēršanas un apkarošanas birojs, KNAB), which the Group of States Against Corruption has recognized as an effective institution. The Conflict of Interest Law is the principal legislation regarding officeholder integrity.
In recent years, KNAB has experienced several controversial leadership changes and has been plagued by a persistent state of internal management disarray. Internal conflicts have spilled into the public sphere. For example, the previous KNAB director and deputy director were embroiled in a series of court cases over disciplinary measures in 2015 and 2016. These court cases ended with the director dismissing two deputy directors in the summer of 2016, both of whom then appealed their dismissal. These scandals have weakened public trust in the institution. A new, well-qualified and seemingly independent director, was appointed in 2017.
In 2018, a Whistleblowing Law was introduced that allows whistleblowers to expose offenses against the public interest. In the first year of the law’s operation, 119 out of 435 reports received were confirmed as whistleblowing cases. Tax evasion, violations by officials and waste of property were among the most common themes covered by the reports.
While Latvia does not currently have a lobbying law or regulation, the Open Lobbying working group in the Saeima’s Committee of Defense, Internal Affairs and Corruption Prevention is working on a new legislative proposal that is expected to be presented to the Saeima in 2022.
Overall, the Latvian government has successfully made an effort to fight corruption and money laundering in recent years, particularly following the U.S. FinCen report (which led to the liquidation of ABLV bank) and the Council of Europe’s 2018 MONEYVAL report.
Nevertheless, the Freedom House report of 2021 allocated Latvia just 4.5 out of seven points in their corruption evaluation, claiming that corruption has remained among the weakest spots in Latvian democracy. The report notes that corruption scandals on the national and municipal levels had remained a common topic covered by the national news, signaling that corruption remains one of the most topical concerns. Trials associated with corruption have typically been long, often stretching on for years, and have in a number of cases resulted in mild monetary penalties or even acquittals rather than imprisonment. However, high-profile cases are investigated and reported in the mass media, which indicates that corruption as such is recognized as problematic. For example, in 2018, the governor of the Latvian central bank was charged with bribery and money laundering. His trial started in early November 2019. He has not stepped down from his position, although his six-year tenure ended on 21 December 2019. More recent cases include the investigation of a former justice minister, Baiba Broka, and a former mayor of Riga, Nils Usakovs.
More recently, the trial of oligarch Aivars Lembergs reached the final stage in the court of first instance in 2020. In March, the prosecution concluded its yearlong (80 sittings) discussions, requesting that Lembergs be charged a fine of €64,500 and serve an eight-year prison sentence. Lembergs was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison, the confiscation of property and a fine of €20,000.
In June 2020, a new Criminal Law was passed, which may help to solve the issue of extremely long trial processes, such as the one involving Lembergs. For example, the new amendments to the law stipulate that the accused is required to speak the truth, with failure to do so being regarded as aggravating circumstances. The judge is now able to limit the time available for debate and the closing arguments of the defense (a strategy notoriously used by Lembergs’ defense). The law also prescribes greater transparency in trial processes by giving reporters greater freedom in criminal courts (at judges’ discretion).
Citations:
1. Corruption °C (2017), Updated Statistics on Convictions for Corruption Offences (2016 Data Added), Available at: http://providus.lv/article/jaunaka-statistika-par-korupcijas-lietu-iztiesasanu-latvija, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
2. Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO)(2012), Fifth Evaluation Round, Preventing corruption and promoting integrity in central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies, Evaluation Report, Available at: https://rm.coe.int/fifth-evaluation-round-preventing-corruption-and-promoting-integrity-i/16808cdc91, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
3. State Chancellery (2019) Whistleblowing and Protection of Whistleblowers: Annual Report, Available (in Latvian) at: https://www.trauksmescelejs.lv/sites/default/files/buttons-card-files/TC_GADA_PARSKATS_2019-1-29-compressed2.pdf, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
4. Freedom House (2021), Nations in Transit, Country Report, Available at: https://freedomhouse.org/country/latvia/nations-transit/2021?fbclid=IwAR1Z9BONWT_e88Ql7Ai-pY0oZ8YJwSM5F3PZZrTgSng-wrrWvH6UqXfsgQo#footnote8_l55a7mg, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
5. Saeima (2022) Information (in Latvian) on Open Lobbying working group’s activities and meeting agendas, Available (in Latvian) here: https://aizsardziba.saeima.lv/darba-grupa-lob%C4%93%C5%A1anas-atkl%C4%81t%C4%ABbas-likuma-izstr%C4%81dei, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
6. Amendments to the Criminal Law (2020) Available (in Latvian): https://likumi.lv/ta/id/315653-grozijumi-kriminallikuma, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
7. Euronews (2021) Aivars Lembergs: One of Latvia’s richest men is jailed for bribery and money laundering, Available at: https://www.euronews.com/2021/02/23/aivars-lembergs-one-of-latvia-s-richest-men-is-jailed-for-bribery-and-money-laundering, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
In recent years, KNAB has experienced several controversial leadership changes and has been plagued by a persistent state of internal management disarray. Internal conflicts have spilled into the public sphere. For example, the previous KNAB director and deputy director were embroiled in a series of court cases over disciplinary measures in 2015 and 2016. These court cases ended with the director dismissing two deputy directors in the summer of 2016, both of whom then appealed their dismissal. These scandals have weakened public trust in the institution. A new, well-qualified and seemingly independent director, was appointed in 2017.
In 2018, a Whistleblowing Law was introduced that allows whistleblowers to expose offenses against the public interest. In the first year of the law’s operation, 119 out of 435 reports received were confirmed as whistleblowing cases. Tax evasion, violations by officials and waste of property were among the most common themes covered by the reports.
While Latvia does not currently have a lobbying law or regulation, the Open Lobbying working group in the Saeima’s Committee of Defense, Internal Affairs and Corruption Prevention is working on a new legislative proposal that is expected to be presented to the Saeima in 2022.
Overall, the Latvian government has successfully made an effort to fight corruption and money laundering in recent years, particularly following the U.S. FinCen report (which led to the liquidation of ABLV bank) and the Council of Europe’s 2018 MONEYVAL report.
Nevertheless, the Freedom House report of 2021 allocated Latvia just 4.5 out of seven points in their corruption evaluation, claiming that corruption has remained among the weakest spots in Latvian democracy. The report notes that corruption scandals on the national and municipal levels had remained a common topic covered by the national news, signaling that corruption remains one of the most topical concerns. Trials associated with corruption have typically been long, often stretching on for years, and have in a number of cases resulted in mild monetary penalties or even acquittals rather than imprisonment. However, high-profile cases are investigated and reported in the mass media, which indicates that corruption as such is recognized as problematic. For example, in 2018, the governor of the Latvian central bank was charged with bribery and money laundering. His trial started in early November 2019. He has not stepped down from his position, although his six-year tenure ended on 21 December 2019. More recent cases include the investigation of a former justice minister, Baiba Broka, and a former mayor of Riga, Nils Usakovs.
More recently, the trial of oligarch Aivars Lembergs reached the final stage in the court of first instance in 2020. In March, the prosecution concluded its yearlong (80 sittings) discussions, requesting that Lembergs be charged a fine of €64,500 and serve an eight-year prison sentence. Lembergs was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison, the confiscation of property and a fine of €20,000.
In June 2020, a new Criminal Law was passed, which may help to solve the issue of extremely long trial processes, such as the one involving Lembergs. For example, the new amendments to the law stipulate that the accused is required to speak the truth, with failure to do so being regarded as aggravating circumstances. The judge is now able to limit the time available for debate and the closing arguments of the defense (a strategy notoriously used by Lembergs’ defense). The law also prescribes greater transparency in trial processes by giving reporters greater freedom in criminal courts (at judges’ discretion).
Citations:
1. Corruption °C (2017), Updated Statistics on Convictions for Corruption Offences (2016 Data Added), Available at: http://providus.lv/article/jaunaka-statistika-par-korupcijas-lietu-iztiesasanu-latvija, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
2. Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO)(2012), Fifth Evaluation Round, Preventing corruption and promoting integrity in central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies, Evaluation Report, Available at: https://rm.coe.int/fifth-evaluation-round-preventing-corruption-and-promoting-integrity-i/16808cdc91, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
3. State Chancellery (2019) Whistleblowing and Protection of Whistleblowers: Annual Report, Available (in Latvian) at: https://www.trauksmescelejs.lv/sites/default/files/buttons-card-files/TC_GADA_PARSKATS_2019-1-29-compressed2.pdf, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
4. Freedom House (2021), Nations in Transit, Country Report, Available at: https://freedomhouse.org/country/latvia/nations-transit/2021?fbclid=IwAR1Z9BONWT_e88Ql7Ai-pY0oZ8YJwSM5F3PZZrTgSng-wrrWvH6UqXfsgQo#footnote8_l55a7mg, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
5. Saeima (2022) Information (in Latvian) on Open Lobbying working group’s activities and meeting agendas, Available (in Latvian) here: https://aizsardziba.saeima.lv/darba-grupa-lob%C4%93%C5%A1anas-atkl%C4%81t%C4%ABbas-likuma-izstr%C4%81dei, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
6. Amendments to the Criminal Law (2020) Available (in Latvian): https://likumi.lv/ta/id/315653-grozijumi-kriminallikuma, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.
7. Euronews (2021) Aivars Lembergs: One of Latvia’s richest men is jailed for bribery and money laundering, Available at: https://www.euronews.com/2021/02/23/aivars-lembergs-one-of-latvia-s-richest-men-is-jailed-for-bribery-and-money-laundering, Last accessed: 15.01.2022.