Legal prism — 2026-10-08

Category 1 secondary raw materials are not subject to use restrictions, whereas Category 2 material may be used only as fuel in a combustion plant holding a permit or Category C registration.

Paragraph 30.20 of Cabinet Regulation No. 143 requires testing of the fire safety and mechanical resistance characteristics of reusable construction products according to their intended place of use.

Core issue

For businesses that manufacture panels, doors, or furniture from old boards, beams, and squared timber, the legal route depends on whether the material is still waste or has already become a secondary raw material, and that is determined not by the market but by a formal end-of-waste procedure. The 2025 amendment by the Ministry of Economics to the rules on construction product market surveillance mentioned in the report facilitates specifically internal reuse on a construction site, but not industrial processing into other products. The legal basis is Section 6, Paragraph 1.¹ of the Waste Management Law and Cabinet Regulations “Procedure for ceasing to apply waste status to wood chips, shavings, and dust obtained from wooden packaging or certain types of wood construction waste”, as well as Paragraphs 30.19-30.21 of Cabinet Regulation No. 143 of 11 March 2025, “Procedure for Market Surveillance of Construction Products”. The key limitation is that these end-of-waste rules apply only to wood chips, shavings, and dust, not to whole boards or squared timber as such.

Legal assessment

The processing of wood waste into secondary raw materials is permitted only for a processor, namely a waste manager holding a Category A or B polluting activity permit, or a merchant that obtains such permit from the State Environmental Service before commencing processing. Until the processor can certify compliance with quality requirements, the material legally remains waste, and its use as a raw material is prohibited. Requirements for the processor:

• to implement and maintain a quality management system with traceability, an analysis plan, labelling, and procedures for cases where the raw material is not placed on the market in due time;
• to review the system at least once a year and after material technological changes;
• before placing each batch on the market, to complete a declaration of conformity against the criteria set out in Annex 1.

The quality categories determine the permissible scope of use: Category 1 secondary raw materials are not subject to restrictions, whereas Category 2 material may be used only as fuel in a combustion plant holding a permit or Category C registration. This explains the situation described in the report: contaminated or chemically treated old wood material is effectively excluded from the raw materials market for finishing products. Export to other countries is permissible only if the competent authority of the destination country recognises Latvia’s criteria; otherwise, Article 28(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006 applies. On the construction side, Paragraph 30.19 of Cabinet Regulation No. 143 gives the contractor the right to decide on the use in construction works of materials obtained on the construction site, by attaching a declaration of conformity against the characteristics specified in the construction design and making an entry in the construction works log. However, Paragraph 30.20 requires testing: fire safety characteristics for structures subject to fire safety requirements, and mechanical resistance and stability characteristics for load-bearing structures. Only the listed materials may be reused without testing, namely bricks, concrete elements, and finishing materials under Paragraph 30.21; for old boards incorporated into products marketed as construction products, attestation of conformity is mandatory. In addition, wood imported from abroad as raw material is subject to radiological control: the ¹³⁷Cs radioactivity in the consignment must not exceed 10 Bq/kg in dry wood, and a radiological inspection document must mandatorily accompany the consignment documents.

Consequences

In practical terms, this means that a company wishing to work with old wood has two alternatives: to purchase material from a licensed processor with a declaration of conformity, or to obtain its own Category A/B permit and establish a quality management system, which is disproportionately burdensome for a small niche producer. Material in which prohibited historical impregnation substances or residues of lead paint are detected will not meet the chemical limit values in Annex 1 and will remain waste, with its fate reduced to that of a low-grade energy resource. Procedurally, the initiatives of the Ministry of Economics and research institutes should be monitored, in particular whether a procedure will also be developed for ending the waste status of whole dismantled wooden structural elements, which is currently not regulated by the rules.

Section 16, Paragraph two, Clause 12 of the Apartment Property Law reserves decisions on rules for the use of the jointly owned part exclusively to the community of apartment owners; therefore, the manager cannot unilaterally introduce rules of use or restrict owners’ rights.

Section 17, Paragraph 7.1 of the Apartment Property Law, as referred to in the news item, requires two thirds of the votes of all apartment owners in the building for a decision on the procedure for use, which is a higher threshold than the ordinary majority quorum.

Core issue

The fate of common-use premises in an apartment building — stairwells, basements, attics, laundry-drying rooms — is determined by a decision of the community of apartment owners adopted in accordance with the voting procedure prescribed by law. This means that anyone who has occupied such premises arbitrarily may receive a written warning, a deadline for vacating the premises, and thereafter removal of belongings documented by an act. The news item is a podcast in which a representative of the “Mājoklis” association explains how to develop such a procedure. The direct legal issue is twofold: by what procedure the community may establish rules for the use of jointly owned parts, and how to proceed against an owner who has occupied common-use premises without legal grounds. The solution is provided by the Apartment Property Law: Section 4 classifies common-use premises as part of the jointly owned property, Section 16 defines the community’s competence, Section 17 sets voting requirements, Sections 18 to 21 regulate the methods for adopting decisions, while Section 13 requires the consent of all owners and registration in the Land Register.

Legal assessment

Rules on the use of common-use premises are a matter that only the community of apartment owners may decide: Section 16, Paragraph two, Clause 12 of the Apartment Property Law includes decisions on “rules for the use of the jointly owned part” among matters that the community alone may adopt, and Section 16, Paragraph one prohibits owners from independently exercising rights whose exercise has been assigned to the community. The manager cannot unilaterally introduce rules of use or restrict owners’ rights; the manager’s role is to organize and supervise the implementation of rules adopted by the community. A decision on rules of use may be adopted in three ways:

• at a general meeting (Section 19);
• by way of a survey (Section 20);
• otherwise by mutual agreement (Section 21).

Section 17, Paragraph three provides that a community decision is deemed adopted if owners representing more than half of the apartment properties have voted “in favor”, and Section 17, Paragraph 7.1 requires two thirds of the votes of all apartment owners for a decision on the procedure for use. Each owner has as many votes as the number of apartment properties owned by that owner (Section 17, Paragraph one), and an owner who owns more than half of the apartments has 50 percent of the votes when voting (Section 17, Paragraph two). Decisions must be recorded in writing, enter into force on the day following notification in the Construction Information System (Section 18, Paragraphs five and 5.1), and the organizer must send the decision to the manager no later than within one month (Section 18, Paragraph six). If an owner wishes to obtain separate rights of use, the logic of Section 13 requires the consent of all apartment owners and registration of the rights in the Land Register. If an owner has occupied premises arbitrarily, the community or the manager must warn that owner in writing and set a deadline for vacating the premises; if the deadline is not complied with, an act is prepared before the belongings are removed. “I have used these premises for twenty years” does not create priority rights; Section 15, Paragraph three, Clause one allows the community also to lease the jointly owned part. As regards penalties, the news item expresses the position that arbitrarily imposed penalties should not be provided for; it is safer to include in the rules of use an obligation to remedy the breach committed and liability for losses caused. If the community cannot achieve a decision, Section 23 gives an individual owner a route to court: an action seeking recognition that a community decision has been adopted may be brought only if the owner has first organized the adoption of the decision and the community has not adopted it. If the claim is brought against the community and the community is not represented by the manager, the community is represented by all apartment owners, who are obliged to authorize a common representative in court.

Consequences

The most realistic further scenarios for a building without rules of use are:

• the community convenes a general meeting or organizes a survey on the rules of use, observing the two-thirds voting requirement, and the decision becomes binding on all owners after notification in the Construction Information System;
• if the quorum cannot be reached, an owner, after fulfilling the obligation to organize the decision-making process, brings an action before the court under Section 23 for recognition of the decision, and the judgment replaces the community decision;
• an arbitrary occupier of premises receives a written warning with a deadline, and after its expiry, an act is prepared and the belongings are removed;
• separate rights of use may be acquired only with the consent of all owners and an entry in the Land Register.

Section 17, Paragraph two, Clause 3 of the State Border Guard Law permits the use of a firearm where a real threat is posed to the life or health of a border guard or another person and that threat cannot be averted by other means.

Section 17, Paragraph six provides that, when using a firearm, the harm caused by it must be limited as far as possible and, where necessary, the provision of first aid must be ensured immediately.

Core issue

The Minister of the Interior’s proposal to clarify the law on the use of weapons by border guards means that a review of the regulatory framework applicable to border guards and National Armed Forces soldiers at the Belarusian border is expected, rather than an immediate expansion of their legal powers. The factual event reported — threats by armed persons against soldiers and damage to border surveillance equipment — is already covered by the existing legal framework; accordingly, the legal substance of the legislative initiative is clarification, not the creation of new rights. The specific legal issue that arises is the clarity of interpretation of the grounds for a border guard’s use of a firearm: Section 17, Paragraph two, Clause 1 of the State Border Guard Law permits the use of a firearm to repel an armed or military incursion into the territory of Latvia, while Clause 3 permits it to repel an attack where a real threat is posed to the life or health of a border guard or another person and the threat cannot be averted by other means. This issue will be addressed by applying the State Border Guard Law (Sections 16, 17 and 17.1) and, where a border guard is included in the composition of the National Armed Forces, also the Military Service Law and rules of international law (Section 17, Paragraph eight).

Legal assessment

The existing framework already provides a border guard with a broad set of tools, and its application is governed by the following rules:

• Section 17, Paragraph two: a firearm may be used to repel an armed or military incursion, prevent unlawful crossing of the border where there is no other option, repel an attack or end resistance, or prevent an attempt to violently seize a weapon.
• Section 17, Paragraph three: there is an obligation to issue a warning before using a firearm; a firearm may be used without warning if, during an attack or resistance, an object is used that may endanger life or health, or if the attack is sudden, as well as where a vehicle is used (Section 17, Paragraph four, Clauses 1 and 2).
• Section 17, Paragraph five: it is prohibited to use a firearm against a woman, a person with visible signs of disability, or a child, except where such persons endanger life or health, offer armed resistance, or carry out an armed attack.
• Section 17, Paragraph six: when using a firearm, the harm caused must be limited as far as possible and, where necessary, first aid must be provided immediately.
• Section 17.1 (as amended by the law of 16.04.2026, entering into force on 19.05.2026): explosives and explosive devices may be used in cases of extreme necessity to repel an armed or military incursion or a group or armed attack involving a weapon, military equipment, or a vehicle, and this may be done without warning.
• Section 16: physical force and special means may also be used to prevent a person’s unlawful entry into the country at a place and time not intended for that purpose (Section 16, Paragraph one, Clause 1.1), subject to the duty to warn and the principle of proportionality (Section 16, Paragraph four). The Minister’s argument regarding fears of subsequent criminal liability concerns the limits of interpretation of the statutory provisions: the grounds set out in the law are exhaustive, and a border guard’s conduct is assessed by reference to proportionality and the existence of real threats. The situation described in the report — armed persons threatening soldiers and damaging surveillance equipment while attempting to bring in a group of migrants — corresponds, according to the sources, to several concurrent grounds for the use of a firearm: repelling an armed incursion (Section 17, Paragraph two, Clause 1), repelling an attack (Clause 3), and, in relation to the equipment, also the destruction of remote-control or autonomous-control devices where they interfere with the performance of Border Guard duties (Section 17, Paragraph two, Clause 8). Soldiers who are not border guards are subject to a different body of rules — the Military Service Law and rules of international law — which is precisely the dividing line that the Minister proposes to clarify.

Consequences

The practical developments that this initiative may trigger are as follows:

• A draft amendment to the State Border Guard Law will be submitted to the Saeima, clarifying the grounds under Section 17 or their interpretation.
• Until the amendments are adopted, border guards will act under the existing legal framework: the duty to warn, proportionality, and the prohibitory clauses (Section 17, Paragraphs three, five and six) remain mandatory, and any breach of them creates a risk of liability for the border guard personally.
• On 19.05.2026, the amendments adopted by the law of 16.04.2026, which expanded Section 17.1 on the use of explosives, will enter into force.
• Monitoring point: it remains to be seen whether the Ministry of the Interior will submit a specific draft amendment to the Saeima and what the text will be at first reading.

Correction. The sentence in the article stating that “the candidate who receives the highest evaluation will be recommended to the Prime Minister for submission for approval by the Cabinet of Ministers” is inaccurate in two respects. First, Section 11, paragraph three of the State Civil Service Law provides that the Director of the State Chancellery is appointed by the Prime Minister, and the Law does not appear to require Cabinet approval for this post; approval by the government is a political practice, not a statutory procedural step. Secondly, under Section 9, the commission’s recommendation is merely a basis to be assessed, so the wording “will be recommended” does not automatically entail appointment. A more precise formulation would be: the commission recommends a candidate to the Prime Minister, who assesses the recommendation and decides on the appointment by issuing an order.

Section 11, subsection four, of the State Civil Service Law provides that the Director of the State Chancellery is appointed by the relevant official after approval by the Cabinet of Ministers.

Section 9, subsection five, gives the official the right to assess the commission’s recommendation and decide on appointment, meaning that the Prime Minister is not bound to appoint the specific candidate.

Core issue

Kaspars Gorkšs is awaiting not an appointment, but a further approval stage: even following the commission’s recommendation, the appointment of the Director of the State Chancellery takes place only after the candidacy has been approved by the Cabinet of Ministers. The specific legal issue, namely the procedure for appointing the Director of the State Chancellery and the authority competent to do so, is governed by Section 11, subsections three and four, of the State Civil Service Law, as well as Section 26 of the State Administration Structure Law. The news fact is a single one: the competition has not yet been completed in the legal sense, because the commission’s recommendation is merely a prerequisite for appointment.

Legal assessment

Under Section 11, subsection three, of the State Civil Service Law, the Director of the State Chancellery is appointed to office by the Prime Minister for a term of five years, and the same person may hold that office for no more than two consecutive terms. Section 11, subsection four, provides that the Director of the State Chancellery is appointed by the relevant official after approval by the Cabinet of Ministers. The procedural roles are clearly divided:

• Section 11, subsection three, of the State Civil Service Law: the Prime Minister appoints the Director for a five-year term;
• Section 11, subsection four: appointment takes place only after approval by the Cabinet of Ministers;
• Section 11, subsection five: the official may set a probationary period, which may not exceed six months;
• Section 9, subsection three, of the State Civil Service Law: the commission selects the applicants who best meet the requirements of the office and, giving reasons for its choice, recommends them to the Prime Minister. The commission’s recommendation is not merely formal: Section 9, subsection four, gives the official the right to assess the commission’s recommendation and decide on appointment, meaning that the Prime Minister is not bound to appoint the specific candidate. The mandatory requirements applicable to an applicant, including citizenship, proficiency in the Latvian language, higher education, not having reached retirement age, and absence of a criminal conviction, are laid down in Section 7 of the State Civil Service Law. The removal procedure is symmetrical with the appointment procedure: Section 37 of the State Civil Service Law provides that the decision to remove the Director of the State Chancellery is taken by the Prime Minister on the basis of a decision of the Cabinet of Ministers. Compared with other selection schemes for senior officials, for example where the commission nominates a candidate for head of the Financial Intelligence Unit for approval by the Saeima, while the Director of the Data State Inspectorate is submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers, the route for the Director of the State Chancellery is intermediate: government approval, but no parliamentary vote.

Consequences

The next procedural step is nomination by the Prime Minister and a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers at which the approval decision must be taken; only thereafter does appointment by order for a five-year term follow. The practically significant consequences for the participants are as follows:

• for Gorkšs: if the government approves the candidacy, he obtains civil servant status and a five-year term; a probationary period of up to six months is also possible;
• for Jaunzeme and Kalviņa: non-approval of the candidacy means the conclusion of the competition without appointment, if the Prime Minister selects one candidate;
• for the State Chancellery: after the appointment decision, it publishes the decision referred to in Section 9, subsection five, on the vacancy portal of the State Employment Agency;
• for the institution itself: Section 26, subsection three, of the State Administration Structure Law makes the Director the administrative head of the State Chancellery, with the right to issue orders also to the State Secretary. The second failure scenario has already occurred in practice: in the first competition, no suitable candidate was identified, and a new competition was announced in early August. An analogous outcome remains possible now if approval does not take place. Monitoring point: the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers on approval of Gorkšs’s candidacy must be awaited, followed by the Prime Minister’s appointment order.

Correction. The statement in the report that the rest day “is due on the following day” is inaccurate: the Labour Law does not prescribe any specific “following day” time limit. The day may be granted at another time if the parties agree, but no later than within one year. A more precise formulation would be: after donation, the employee acquires the right to one rest day, the timing of which is determined by agreement with the employer, subject to a one-year time limit. The phrase “up to five such days” is also incomplete: the five-day payment limit applies to rest days granted specifically for the donation of blood or blood components under Section 74(6) and (7), and payment is made in the amount of the remuneration specified in Section 74(3), rather than as a free entitlement unconnected to a legal basis.

Pursuant to Section 165 of the Labour Law, after donating blood the donor is entitled to a paid rest day on the following day, while the employer pays for up to five such days per year unless an agreement or collective agreement provides for more.

Pursuant to paragraph 38.11 of the regulations, if tests detect a marker of HIV, HBV, HCV, or another agent transmissible by blood, the donor is prohibited from donating blood, and the collected blood unit is destroyed.

Core issue

The donor day taking place in Gulbene on 27 October creates a favorable legal position for donors: the right to donate blood, receive compensation, and receive a paid rest day, while the organizer, the State Blood Donor Centre, is under a duty to comply with strict quality and safety requirements because blood collection is carried out at a mobile site. The legal significance of the news item is not the campaign itself, but two layers of regulation: donors’ employment-law guarantees and blood-safety regulation. Organizing a donor day outside the premises of the blood establishment is expressly regulated: paragraph 8.1.5 of the regulations requires information on a temporary or movable site (mobile site) under the responsibility of the blood establishment. The immediate legal issue is twofold. First, what guarantees and obligations the Labour Law imposes on the donor and the employer after blood donation. Second, how Cabinet Regulation No. 665, “Regulations Regarding Quality and Safety Standards for the Collection, Testing, Processing, Storage and Distribution of Human Blood and Blood Components…” (paragraph 1 defines its scope as applying to blood intended for transfusion, use in medical devices, or as a raw material for medicinal products), regulates the donation procedure itself, donor examination, and donor information.

Legal assessment

In terms of employment relations, the position is described consistently with the substance of Section 165 of the Labour Law: after donating blood, the donor is entitled to a paid rest day on the following day, which, by agreement, may be granted at another time or added to annual leave; it may be used within one year after the donation date. The employer pays for up to five such days in a calendar year, unless an agreement or collective agreement provides for a larger number. The blood-safety framework grants the donor several rights and imposes corresponding obligations on the Centre:

• under paragraph 38.7 of the regulations, before the procedure begins the donor may refuse to donate blood, and may also discontinue donation during the process without difficulty or inconvenience;
• paragraph 38.13 protects the donor’s personal data: information concerning health status and test results may not be disclosed;
• paragraph 38.14 gives the donor the right to refuse compensation for expenses related to restoring the lost blood volume;
• paragraph 39 requires the Centre to obtain identifying data, a written medical history, and a confirmation signed by the donor and certified by a medical practitioner that the person has knowingly agreed to be a donor and has certified the truthfulness of the information provided (subparagraphs 39.3.4 and 39.3.6);
• paragraph 17.6 requires donor eligibility criteria to be ensured in accordance with Annex 5, including permanent and temporary deferral criteria (subparagraphs 17.6.1 and 17.6.2);
• paragraph 38.11 provides that, where a marker of HIV, HBV, HCV, or another microbiological agent transmissible by blood is detected, the donor is prohibited from donating blood and the collected unit is destroyed. As the blood establishment, the Centre must also comply with the procedural requirements in paragraph 17: testing in an accredited laboratory (17.2), examination in accordance with Annex 1 (17.1), and maintenance of the quality assurance system required by paragraph 15. Personnel must be appropriately qualified and trained (paragraph 12.3). The instructions in the news item concerning diet, alcohol, smoking, and medication are a practical expression of the eligibility criteria in Annex 5, compliance with which the Centre must assess before each donation.

Consequences

The practical consequences for the donor are positive and clearly measurable:

• one paid rest day after donation, usable within one year;
• the possibility of up to five such days per year paid by the employer, unless a collective agreement extends that entitlement;
• compensation for expenses related to restoring the lost blood volume, as determined by the Cabinet Regulations, which the donor may refuse;
• if testing reveals material abnormalities, the Centre must, within five working days, notify the donor or the family doctor, at the donor’s choice, and provide information in accordance with mutual agreement (paragraph 38.9). For the Centre as organizer, the principal risk is compliance with the requirements applicable to the mobile site: paragraph 8.1.5 of the regulations requires registration of a temporary or movable site, while paragraph 10 prohibits changes to operating conditions without the agency’s written approval. If an infectious marker were detected in a blood unit, the obligation would be not only to prohibit the donor from making further donations, but also to destroy the unit and conduct a retrospective investigation of the donor (paragraph 35, Annex 6). The employer, in turn, must grant the rest day on the day following 27 October, and that obligation will remain enforceable at any time within one year after the donation date if the parties agree otherwise.