Legal prism — 2026-10-09

“The cashback exemption will apply only where the refund is not connected with economic activity; refunds by gambling and lottery organisers will remain outside the exemption.”

“The annual limit for reimbursements to volunteers and personnel of religious organisations will increase from EUR 1,000 to EUR 3,000 per year.”

Core issue

Individuals and businesses that currently pay tax on cashback, gifts from relatives’ spouses, or volunteer reimbursements exceeding EUR 1,000 are approaching relief, but only after the Saeima adopts the amendments in all three readings. The legal issue to be resolved is which types of income fall within the list of non-taxable income set out in Section 9 of the Law “On Personal Income Tax” and how that list should be expanded. At present, non-taxable income is a closed list in Section 9, while taxable income is determined under Section 6 of the Law by deducting the non-taxable income referred to in Section 9, the eligible expenses specified in Section 10, the non-taxable minimum, and the reliefs specified in Section 13. Accordingly, cashback that does not currently fall under any paragraph of Section 9 is formally taxable income, and the purpose of the amendments is to remove it from the tax base.

Legal assessment

• The gift exemption will be extended to a spouse’s first-degree relatives and to spouses of first-degree relatives; this continues the logic of the gift rules in Section 9, which already exempt, for example, donations to budgetary institutions and political parties where the recipient has no reciprocal obligation (Section 9, Paragraph 1.1 of the Law).
• For persons carrying out notified economic activity, utility and similar payments collected on behalf of third parties will no longer be included in revenue if they do not increase the value of the property.
• The annual limit for reimbursements to volunteers and personnel of religious organisations will increase from EUR 1,000 to EUR 3,000; by comparison, assistance from trade union or religious organisation funds is already non-taxable up to EUR 3,000 per year under Section 9, Paragraph 28, with declaration code 4023, so the reimbursement limit is being aligned with the existing assistance threshold.
• A special exemption is envisaged for clergy to compensate expenses necessary for the performance of their duties; this will be a new paragraph of Section 9, rather than an extension of the existing assistance provision.
• Declaring eligible expenses for children’s interest-related education will become simpler, as service providers will submit information electronically to the State Revenue Service; parents will remain obliged to file an annual income declaration, but the evidentiary burden will shift to the provider.
• The criteria for dependent-person relief under Section 13 will be clarified where the dependent lives abroad; this intersects with the existing rules on insurance indemnities and tax withheld abroad, which the SRS methodological material explains as boundary points for applying non-taxable income treatment.
• The administrative basis for supporting documents and declaration procedures will continue to be determined by Cabinet regulations, as provided in Section 16 of the Law; therefore, some details, such as the data-exchange format for interest-related education, will depend on the adoption of secondary legislation.

Consequences

For individuals: after the amendments enter into force, cashback and gifts within a broader family relationship will no longer need to be declared, while the deduction of interest-related education expenses will become formally simpler for parents.

• For volunteers and personnel of religious organisations: reimbursements up to EUR 3,000 per year will become non-taxable, and organisations will need to prepare reporting under the new rules.
• For persons carrying out notified economic activity: revenue accounting should be reviewed by excluding utility payments collected on behalf of third parties.
• Risk: until the amendments are adopted, the existing rules remain in force; therefore, during the 2026 declaration campaign, taxpayers must follow the current text of Section 9, not the concept approved by the Saeima.

Section 116 of the Criminal Law, concerning murder, provides for imprisonment from five to 20 years or life imprisonment, and in aggravating circumstances, from 10 to 20 years or life imprisonment.

This year, for the 14 persons convicted under Chapter X of the Criminal Law, the average term of imprisonment imposed was 4.15 years, whereas for murder it was 16.35 years.

Core issue

Persons tried in Latvia for offences against the State in practice face, on average, approximately four years’ imprisonment, whereas persons convicted of murder have this year received, on average, 16 years. Accordingly, the public assertion of “seven versus twenty years” corresponds neither to the statutory penalties nor to the sentences imposed in judicial practice. The factual point is straightforward: a video with more than 240,000 views disseminated a false comparison, which Re:Check rebutted using data from the Court Administration. Section 116 of the Criminal Law, concerning murder, provides for imprisonment from five to 20 years or life imprisonment; in aggravating circumstances (where the victim is a minor, the killing involves particular cruelty, is committed for gain, or by a group), it provides for imprisonment from 10 to 20 years or life imprisonment. In Chapter X, penalties for offences against the State are differentiated: activity directed against the Republic of Latvia is punishable by up to eight years; a public call directed against Latvia by up to five years; assistance to a foreign state by one to 10 years; organising espionage by eight to 20 years; and leading a criminal organisation by 10 to 20 years or life imprisonment. The assertion of “twenty years” therefore applies only to the narrowest and most serious offence, not to treason or offences against the State as a whole.

Legal assessment

The actual sentence is determined under Section 46 of the Criminal Law: the sentence is imposed within the limits of the sanction provided for the relevant provision, taking into account the nature of the criminal offence, the harm caused, the personality of the offender, and mitigating (Section 47) and aggravating (Section 48) circumstances. A sentence may also be reduced below the statutory minimum under Section 49 if there are several mitigating circumstances; for a serious crime, imprisonment may not be imposed at less than half of the minimum penalty provided by the sanction, and for an especially serious crime, at less than two thirds. The decision of the Criminal Cases Department in case No. SKK-18/2024 confirms that the prerequisite for imposing a sentence lighter than that prescribed by law is precisely the existence of several mitigating circumstances. This explains why sentences imposed in practice may differ significantly from the statutory maximums. The statistics confirm that maximum sanctions and actual sentences are not the same thing:

Consequences

The practical significance of this information for the public sphere is that false information about the sentencing system may affect public trust in the judiciary. However, the dissemination of the video itself, in this case, cannot be classified as a criminal offence without additional circumstances; the sources contain no indication of criminal prosecution against the bloggers or Rosļikovs. For persons who are actually tried under Chapter X, the following sentencing aspects are practically important: - the court imposes the sentence within the limits of the statutory sanction, but may mitigate it under Section 49 if there are several mitigating circumstances and this is reasoned in the judgment;

• for an especially serious crime, the mitigated sentence may not be lower than two thirds of the minimum penalty provided by the sanction;
• the prosecutor may conclude an agreement on sentence under Section 480 of the Criminal Procedure Law, specifying the sentence for each criminal offence and the final sentence;
• additional penalties (confiscation of property, expulsion from Latvia, probation supervision) are applicable in accordance with Section 36 of the Criminal Law. In Rosļikovs’ case, the procedural situation remains open: the sources contain no information that criminal proceedings have been initiated or completed in relation to his flight to Belarus.

Under Article 32, Paragraph One of the Education Law, the national education standard determines the mandatory content of education, and compliance with it is mandatory for every person who develops and implements the relevant education programme.

Neither the government’s informative report nor the ministry’s intention creates binding obligations for schools; such obligations will arise only through a new or amended national education standard approved by the Cabinet of Ministers.

Core issue

The persons involved in this matter — teachers’ associations, healthcare associations, and school management — are awaiting not a ready-made school subject, but a process of legislative amendment and a multi-year cycle of content development, in which their ability to influence the outcome is, for now, only consultative. The factual point is straightforward: on 6 October, the government, in the form of an informative report, endorsed the introduction of content on family values and health literacy, with full implementation planned from September 2028. The legal issue that arises is one of competence: by what legal act, and through what procedure, can such content become mandatory for schools at all. The answer lies in Article 32 of the Education Law, under which the national education standard determines the mandatory content of education, and the standard is approved by the Cabinet of Ministers, whose competence in education follows from Article 14 of the Education Law. Accordingly, neither the government’s informative report nor the ministry’s intention, in itself, creates any binding obligations for schools; such obligations will arise only through a new or amended national education standard and the corresponding model programmes.

Legal assessment

The regulatory chain here has three stages. First, Article 32, Paragraph One of the Education Law provides that the national education standard establishes the mandatory content of education and the principles of assessment, while Paragraph Two provides that compliance with the standard is mandatory for every person who develops and implements the relevant programme. Second, Article 33 requires an education programme, as the regulatory document of an educational institution, to define content in accordance with the national standard, and the programme is developed in coordination with the founder. Third, at the basic education level, Cabinet regulations on the national basic education standard and model basic education programmes apply; these already specify the mandatory content and learning areas, including the requirement to include the values and virtues defined in the Constitution and in the educational upbringing guidelines. In practical terms, this means that the real point of influence for the objecting associations and the teachers’ association is not the government meeting on the informative report, but the public consultation on the draft standard and, if the content is adopted, the stage of coordinating educational institutions’ programmes. The ministry’s competence also includes the development of teaching materials and methodological support (Article 14 of the Education Law, as well as the ministry’s duty to organise the development of electronic learning resources), so the teachers’ demand for methodological support is not merely a preference in legal terms, but corresponds to the ministry’s statutory duties. Article 13.1 of the Education Law provides that education development guidelines for a seven-year period are prepared by the Ministry of Education and Science and forwarded through the Saeima Education, Culture and Science Committee to the Cabinet of Ministers; this is the point in the legislative process at which the strategic decision to review content may be politically scrutinised. No case law on this issue is available in the sources provided, so no specific precedent can be cited.

Consequences

The near-term developments are clearly traceable from the structure of the report and sources:

• The next documentary step is the preparation and approval by the Cabinet of Ministers of a new or amended draft national education standard; without this, the module remains an informative intention.
• After approval of the standard, educational institutions will have to coordinate the amended education programmes with their founder in accordance with Article 33, Paragraph Two.
• The ministry plans gradual implementation with methodological support; this corresponds to its statutory duty to organise the development of teaching materials and the improvement of teachers’ professional competence.
• For the objecting organisations, the most important practical step is to participate in consultations on the draft standard and submit objections before approval by the Cabinet of Ministers; once the standard enters into force, it becomes mandatory for institutions and teachers.
• Full implementation of the content is planned from September 2028, with the start from the next academic year; therefore, during the transitional period, the existing basic education standard remains the applicable regulatory framework.

If the collective redundancy procedure has not been complied with, this may become a ground for challenging each individual notice of termination.

Section 107, Paragraph two permits the NVA, in exceptional cases, to extend the period to 60 days by notifying the employer and employees’ representatives in writing two weeks before expiry of the initial period.

Core issue

The expected legal development in this matter is the decision to be taken by the State Employment Agency (NVA) by 15 October 2026: whether “airBaltic” may commence collective redundancies 30 days after submitting the notification, or whether that period will be extended to 60 days. The reported fact is that the Latvian Aviation Trade Union (LAA) has applied to the NVA requesting application of the exceptional procedure under Section 107, Paragraph one of the Labour Law and an extension of the period, alleging that the information and consultation obligations have not been substantively fulfilled. The immediate legal issue is twofold: first, whether the employer has complied with the information and consultation obligations under Section 106; and second, whether those deficiencies justify an extension by the NVA of the period to 60 days pursuant to Section 107, Paragraph two. The situation also involves several separate obligations whose fulfilment is disputed:

• Section 106, Paragraph two: the employer must notify in writing the reasons for the redundancies, the number, occupations and qualifications of the employees to be made redundant, the number of employees normally employed, the relevant period, and the method for calculating severance benefits.
• Section 106, Paragraph four: written notification must be given to the NVA and the municipality no later than 30 days in advance, and a copy of the notification must also be sent to the employees’ representatives.
• Section 106, Paragraph five of the Labour Law (source [5]): the notification must contain information on consultations with employees’ representatives. In LAA’s argument, two facts are legally significant: a copy of the notification was sent to the trade union only on 7 October, more than a week after the submission of 29 September, although the trade union had expressly requested it earlier; and part of the written information required by law, namely the methodology for the number and categories of employees to be dismissed and the selection criteria, reached LAA only together with that copy. If these allegations are confirmed, the employer’s conduct constitutes a deficiency that Section 106, Paragraph three does not recognise as an exculpatory ground: the obligation must be fulfilled regardless of whether the decision is taken by the employer or by the controlling undertaking.

Legal assessment

The application of the legal provisions to this situation depends on how the NVA assesses the deficiencies identified by LAA, and this must be examined in stages.

• Qualification as collective redundancy: with approximately 3,000 employees and 500-700 dismissals, the “airBaltic” case falls within Section 105, Paragraph one, Clause 4, at least 30 employees where 300 or more are employed, and therefore the collective redundancy procedure applies in full.
• Content of information: Section 106, Paragraph two requires written information on the number, occupations, qualifications and period; LAA’s allegation that this information was available only from 7 October would mean that consultations, which began on 3 September, proceeded without the full statutory basis required by law.
• Substance of consultation: Section 106, Paragraphs one and two, as reflected in the sources, require agreement on the number, procedure and social guarantees, considering all possibilities to prevent or reduce redundancies. The alternative solutions identified by LAA, including part-time work, unpaid leave, voluntary departures and guarantees of re-employment, directly correspond to this obligation.
• Procedural timing: Section 107, Paragraph one permits redundancies to commence no earlier than 30 days after submission of the notification to the NVA.

LAA also describes the substance of employees’ representatives’ rights: information is a process in which the employer provides information enabling it to be reviewed and examined, and consultation is an exchange of views aimed at reaching agreement, to be carried out in a timely and appropriate manner and scope (source [6]). If these qualitative requirements have not been properly met, an extension of the period would be a lawful response, allowing the deficiencies to be remedied before the redundancies commence.

Consequences

The practical course of events depends on the NVA’s decision.

• If the NVA extends the period to 60 days: “airBaltic” may commence collective redundancies only after 60 days from submission of the notification on 29 September.
• If the NVA does not extend the period: “airBaltic” could commence redundancies after 30 days, and the company’s subsequent conduct would be assessed by reference to whether it remedied the deficiencies in information and consultation before issuing individual notices of termination.
• The NVA also protects employees passively: the agency will provide employees with individual or group consultations, labour market information, career counselling and measures to improve competitiveness.
• If the parties are unable to reach agreement, a collective rights dispute is also theoretically possible under Section 10 of the Labour Disputes Law. Until the decision is available, both the employer and the trade union must take both possible scenarios into account, and “airBaltic’s” balance sheet, showing losses of EUR 44.337 million last year, indicates that the company has a genuine economic interest in avoiding delay; however, the law ties the process to substantive compliance with consultation obligations, not merely to formal notification.

Article 59 of the Electronic Mass Media Law provides that NEPLP members are elected for five years and may be re-elected no more than twice consecutively, while their mandate ends upon removal from office, expiry of the term, conviction for an intentional criminal offence, or death.

Article 56(3) of the Electronic Mass Media Law requires a candidate to have at least five years of professional experience, a good reputation and the right to receive a special permit for access to official secrets.

Core issue

Remberga’s appointment means that the NEPLP retains its full five-member composition and may continue to adopt binding decisions, including on licence revocations and prohibitions on programme distribution, while the objection letter to the Saeima does not in itself suspend the appointment. The legal core of the news is whether the Saeima’s approval complies with Article 56 of the Electronic Mass Media Law: the procedure for nominating a candidate, qualification criteria and restrictions. Paragraph 2 of that Article provides that candidates are nominated by the Saeima Human Rights and Public Affairs Committee, in consultation with associations and foundations active in the fields of mass media, education, culture, science and human rights. Paragraph 3 requires Latvian citizenship, a declared place of residence, higher education, at least five years of professional or academic experience in the relevant fields, a good reputation and eligibility to receive a special permit for access to official secrets.

Legal assessment

Remberga’s nine years of work at the council and her position since 2019 as Head of the Monitoring Department formally satisfy the five-year experience requirement under Article 56(3); the sources contain no information indicating a breach of the restrictions in paragraph 4, such as being a party official, an owner of media capital, or having a conviction for an intentional criminal offence. The objections of the foundation “Ilgtspējas fonds” are based on arguments concerning competence and the council’s independence, but Article 56 of the Electronic Mass Media Law does not provide the scope of competence as a separate ground for annulment; it requires only minimum experience and reputation. Procedurally, an objection letter to the Saeima, the committee and the President is not a form of objection provided for in a regulatory enactment that would suspend the effect of the approval; its practical significance is political and public, not legal. The member is subject to the restrictions under the Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials, as provided in Article 56(5), and may not receive remuneration from electronic mass media, either directly or through intermediaries. Remberga’s previous activity in representing the NEPLP’s interests in court does not in itself constitute a conflict of interest if she represented the institution rather than private interests. The term of office is governed by Article 59 of the Electronic Mass Media Law: a member is elected for five years, may be re-elected no more than twice consecutively, and the mandate ends upon removal from office, expiry of the term, conviction for an intentional criminal offence, or death. The council’s independence is reinforced by Article 60(5) of the Electronic Mass Media Law: in performing its tasks, the council neither requests nor receives instructions from any other institution. The sources contain no case law on challenging appointments of NEPLP members, and therefore no specific precedent can be applied.

Consequences

Remberga began work on the day of her appointment, and legally her mandate will last five years unless one of the grounds for termination set out in Article 59(2) arises.

• The Saeima and the President must decide whether to address the objection letter through a formal procedure; the sources disclose no such procedure, and therefore no mechanism for annulling the appointment follows from the sources.
• The council will continue the litigation with the television channel “Dozhd” concerning the revocation of its licence; Remberga’s position indicates that the council will not discontinue that litigation.
• Remberga will oversee the field of monitoring the information space and cooperation with social media platforms, including measures against the dissemination of illegal content and piracy.
• If conflict-of-interest issues become relevant, the applicable framework is the Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials, not the Electronic Mass Media Law.