Legal prism — 2026-10-10

Paragraph 13 of the transitional provisions provides that the terms “Latvijas Radio” and “Latvijas Televīzija” after 1 January 2025 correspond to the term “Latvijas Sabiedriskais medijs” until the relevant amendments are made to other regulatory enactments; the SEPLP draft law is precisely such an amendment.

Core issue

If the amendments are adopted, the names “Latvijas Radio” and “Latvijas Televīzija” will remain within the LSM brand system as historical values, rather than being replaced by the unified LSM brand. This changes the current legislative direction, under which the amendments to the law that entered into force on 1 January 2025 effectively eliminated these terms as independent concepts. The direct legal issue concerns how Paragraph 13 of the transitional provisions of the Law on Public Electronic Mass Media and Their Management relates to the proposed new amendments. That paragraph provides that, “until the relevant amendments are made to other regulatory enactments,” the terms “Latvijas Radio” and “Latvijas Televīzija” after 1 January 2025 correspond to the term “Latvijas Sabiedriskais medijs.” The solution will be based on Section 1 of the law, which determines LSM’s legal status and governance principles, as well as Section 8, in which, by the law of 18 January 2024, the words “in the programmes of Latvijas Televīzija” were replaced, as of 1 January 2025, with “in the television programmes of Latvijas Sabiedriskais medijs.” The new amendments will supplement that replacement with an exception in the field of brand names.

Legal assessment

The legal framework currently operates as follows: Section 1 defines LSM as a state limited liability company, and Section 8 regulates the operation of its television and radio programmes using the new terminology. Paragraph 13 of the transitional provisions serves as a bridge: the old terms are read as “LSM” until the relevant amendments are made to other regulatory enactments. The essence of the SEPLP draft law is to define brand names as names used verbally, excluding historical logos, typefaces, and other elements of visual identity. This means that:

• the names of the linear programmes “LTV1,” “LTV7,” “Latvijas Radio 1,” “Latvijas Radio 2,” “Latvijas Radio 3 Klasika,” and “Latvijas Radio 5” remain unchanged;
• visual identity remains within LSM’s competence and the gradual implementation of a unified brand continues;
• at the corporate level, including announcements, notices, and social media accounts, the LSM brand architecture will continue. The use of names must also comply with the requirements of the Electronic Mass Media Law concerning programme names, including that they must not mislead the audience, and that a name or trademark registered abroad may not be used in a misleading manner in a name registered in Latvia. These requirements continue to apply after broadcasting permits are issued, meaning that preserving brand names in the law does not exclude the general restrictions on the use of names. Procedurally, the content of the amendments has been approved by the LSM Management Board, and SEPLP, as the supervisory authority prescribed by the law governing LSM’s management, is the author of the draft law.

Consequences

If the draft law is adopted, the LSM Management Board will have to align its brand strategy with the statutory preservation of the brand names. In practical terms, this means that “LSM Izklaide,” “LSM Ziņas,” and similar content spaces will develop alongside, rather than replacing, the names of the linear channels. The objections raised by employees regarding the replacement of historical brands, expressed in a letter signed by more than 200 signatories, will receive normative support through legislation. If the amendments are not adopted or are postponed, the existing framework remains in force: the terms “Latvijas Radio” and “Latvijas Televīzija” will continue to be read in the law as “Latvijas Sabiedriskais medijs,” and the brand issue will remain solely at the level of LSM’s internal strategy, without statutory guarantees. In practical terms, this is important:

• for the audience, because the names and recognisability of the linear programmes remain unchanged;
• for the LSM Management Board, because implementation of the brand strategy insofar as it concerns the names of the linear channels will have to be aligned with the statutory provision.

Paragraph 4.1 of Regulation No. 538 provides that border controls for Chapter 10 goods must also be carried out where they are not intended for distribution in the European Union, including where there are suspicions that the grain originates in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine.

Paragraph 2 of the regulations on agricultural and feed products prohibited from importation prohibits the importation into Latvia of products originating in Russia and Belarus, including goods classifiable under the commodity codes of Chapter 10 (cereals) of Section II.

Core issue

The Baltic States’ initiative to prohibit the transit of Russian grain means that restrictions already in force in Latvia with respect to agricultural products originating in Russia and Belarus may be expanded at EU level, although no transit ban has existed to date. The factual development reported, namely the three states’ letter to the EU, is only a political proposal; the current legal position for traders and carriers is not a prohibition, but a stricter control regime. The specific legal question is: in what cases is a grain consignment through Latvia permitted, what controls accompany it, and what happens where there are suspicions that it originates in occupied territories. This is governed by Cabinet Regulation No. 538 of 8 September 2026, “Requirements and border control procedure for food imported from third countries…”, the regulations on agricultural and feed products prohibited from importation into Latvia, and Article 61 of the Union Customs Code (Regulation (EU) No 952/2013).

Legal assessment

The sources make it possible to distinguish precisely between two different regimes: a full import prohibition and a transit control regime:

• Paragraph 2 of the regulations on agricultural and feed products prohibited from importation prohibits the importation into Latvia of products from the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus, including products originating in those countries from other third countries, where they are classifiable under the codes of Chapter 10 (cereals) of Section II of Part Two of Annex I to the Combined Nomenclature and other chapters.
• Transit does not fall within that prohibition, and therefore the carriage of Russian grain through the EU currently remains possible. This is precisely what the Baltic States seek to change at European Council level.
• Paragraph 4.1 of Cabinet Regulation No. 538 provides that border controls must also be carried out for goods classifiable under Chapter 10 codes where they are not intended for distribution in the European Union, including transit, if there are suspicions that they originate in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine.
• Paragraph 5 of Regulation No. 538 defines a controllable consignment as a set of goods covered by a single invoice or commercial document, transported from one consignor to one consignee, by one road vehicle, in the wagons of one train, or in the containers of one vessel.
• The duties of the Food and Veterinary Service under paragraph 6 are as follows: it must always carry out the documentary check referred to in Article 3(41) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625; on a risk-compliance basis, the identity and physical checks referred to in Article 3(42) and (43); and, for the goods referred to in paragraph 4.1, a physical check according to the risk assessment, taking samples for laboratory examination.
• The purpose of the laboratory examination is to confirm or rule out suspicions that the cargo originates in the occupied territories of Ukraine, pursuant to subparagraph 6.2.3 of Regulation No. 538.
• If the declared origin gives rise to doubts, customs authorities may, under Article 61(1) and (2) of the Customs Code, require proof of origin and, where there are reasonable doubts, any additional evidence.
• In the field of VAT, export and import are defined in points 17 to 19 of Article 1 of the Value Added Tax Law and, as the official explanation states, that definition applies only for the purposes of tax legislation, not in the customs field; the obligation to perform customs controls is not determined by VAT status.

Consequences

In practical terms, this means that participants in grain transit must already take account of the risk of documentary, identity and physical checks, sampling, and possible detention of the cargo during laboratory examination if its origin gives rise to suspicion. For importers, Chapter 10 goods originating in Russia or Belarus are fully prohibited in Latvia, and their importation is impermissible irrespective of the origin stated in the customs declaration. If agreement is reached at the European Council meeting in Brussels, a new transit restriction could emerge at EU level, which would also reshape the scope of Latvia’s border controls; until then, the enhanced control regime under Cabinet Regulation No. 538 remains in force.

Correction. The article’s statement that “if the at-fault party does not have a valid MTPL policy, the injured party may apply to their own or any other MTPL insurer” is incomplete, because it omits the source of payment. More precisely, under the text of the Law, compensation in such cases is paid from the Guarantee Fund and is calculated by “the insurer or the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, if the insurance compensation is payable from the Guarantee Fund” (Section 38, paragraph one). In this context, the insurer acts as a payment channel, not as the party liable under its own policy. Secondly, the article does not make clear that direct settlement will apply only to MTPL contracts entering into force from 1 July 2027, while the expansion of the Guarantee Fund will apply from 1 January 2027; older contracts and accidents that occurred earlier remain subject to the previous regime. Thirdly, the article does not mention that the limit for property liability is EUR 1,300,000 (Section 20), meaning that the EUR 50,000 threshold covers only a small part of the potential range of property claims.

Core issue

Affected motorists are set to have two new options for receiving MTPL compensation more quickly and more simply, although these will enter into force no earlier than 2027. On 7 October 2026, the Saeima Budget and Finance (Taxation) Committee supported amendments to the Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Motor Vehicles (MTPL) Law, introducing direct claims settlement and expanding compensation for damage where the vehicle that caused the accident has not been identified. The legal issue is which insurer pays compensation and from which source; this is governed by the MTPL Law provisions on the insurer’s obligation to make a decision and pay compensation, as well as by the functions of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Latvia (LTAB) and the Guarantee Fund.

Legal assessment

After the amendments enter into force, the allocation will be as follows:

• if no persons are injured in the accident and the damage to the vehicle does not exceed EUR 50,000, the injured party will submit the claim to its own MTPL insurer rather than to the insurer of the liable party;
• if the liable party does not have a valid MTPL policy, the injured party will continue to be able to apply to its own insurer or to any other insurer;
• the direct settlement procedure is planned to apply from 1 July 2027 and only to MTPL contracts that enter into force from that date;
• compensation for damage where the vehicle that caused the accident has not been identified and no persons are injured is planned from 1 January 2027, and will be covered from the MTPL Guarantee Fund. The current law provides that compensation is not paid for losses caused by an unidentified vehicle, except for personal injury and certain property damage specifically listed in the law by way of exception. The amendments expand precisely this category of exceptions by providing compensation also in cases where, due to the damage, the vehicle’s authorisation to participate in road traffic is revoked. LTAB’s functions remain unchanged: it decides whether to pay or refuse compensation, handles disputes between an insurer and the Bureau regarding the obligation to pay, brings recourse claims in the cases provided by law, and issues binding instructions to insurers. Since, in cases involving an unidentified tortfeasor, the funds will come from the Guarantee Fund, the Bureau’s supervision and instruction mechanism will be important in order to prevent unfounded compensation claims.

[SEKAS] Practical implications for injured parties and insurers:

• from 1 January 2027, in such cases, subject to the condition that the authorisation to participate in road traffic has been revoked, compensation will be paid from the Guarantee Fund;
• from 1 July 2027, injured parties under new contracts will initiate claims settlement with their own insurer, with inter-insurer settlements taking place thereafter;
• insurers and LTAB will need to adapt their information systems and data exchange processes;
• for injured parties, the compensation process will become simpler, but in the event of refusal, dispute resolution will remain within the competence of the Bureau and, where applicable, the courts.

Section 11, Paragraph three of the State Civil Service Law provides that the Director of the State Chancellery is appointed to office by the Prime Minister for five years, and one person may hold the office of head of an institution for no more than two consecutive terms.

Section 14, Paragraph five of the State Civil Service Law requires the official’s decision on appointing the applicant to be published on the vacancy portal of the State Employment Agency within five days of adoption of the decision.

Core issue

Kaspars Gorkšs, if approved at the government meeting on 13 October, will become Director of the State Chancellery — the highest-ranking civil servant in the state, appointed by the Prime Minister for a five-year term within the meaning of Section 11, Paragraph three of the State Civil Service Law. The material legal issue here is not the candidate’s competence, but the sequence of the procedure: the result of the competition is not yet an appointment, and several mandatory steps stand between the commission’s recommendation and appointment to office. Section 26 of the State Administration Structure Law provides that the State Chancellery is directly subordinate to the Prime Minister and that its administrative head is the Director of the State Chancellery; accordingly, the appointment decision and the possibility of removal are concentrated in the hands of the Prime Minister. The practical conclusion for the reader is that an appointed director may be removed only by the Prime Minister and, where civil service relations are to be terminated otherwise than in the case of liquidation or on the civil servant’s own initiative, a Cabinet decision required by Section 15 of the State Civil Service Law is necessary.

Legal assessment

The course of the competition corresponds to the centralised selection model: Section 14, Paragraph five of the State Civil Service Law provides that the evaluation commission selects applicants and, giving reasons for its choice, recommends them to the Prime Minister specifically for appointment to the office of Director of the State Chancellery. Formally, the decision is taken by the official: Section 14, Paragraph four grants the Prime Minister the right to assess the commission’s recommendation and decide on appointment, meaning that the recommendation is not binding. The selected candidate does not enter into a contract establishing civil service relations: Section 11, Paragraph one provides for appointment by order for an indefinite period, but, in the status of head of an institution, for five years; six months before the expiry of the term, the Prime Minister decides on extension or transfer to another position in the interests of the state. One person may head an institution for no more than two consecutive terms. Before appointment, the mandatory requirements set out in Section 7, Paragraph one must be assessed: Latvian citizenship, proficiency in the Latvian language, higher education, not having exceeded retirement age, and no conviction for intentional criminal offences. Gorkšs’ stated bachelor’s degree in law and master’s degree in political science satisfy the education requirement. Following appointment, the duties of the office are determined by the job description: Section 20, Paragraph two provides that the duties in the job description of the Director of the State Chancellery are determined by the Prime Minister, and the civil servant signs it. However, in connection with the stated intention to “advocate for greater efficiency in public administration”, the procedure laid down in Section 26, Paragraph four of the State Administration Structure Law must be observed: the director may issue an order to a state secretary, but in the event of a conflict, the minister’s order prevails, which limits the director’s ability to drive changes in areas falling within ministerial competence.

Consequences

If a positive decision is adopted at the government meeting on 13 October, the Prime Minister will issue an appointment order, and the requirement in Section 14, Paragraph five imposes an obligation to publish the decision on the vacancy portal of the State Employment Agency within five days of its adoption. The following steps will then be of practical importance:

• the Prime Minister approves the job description of the Director of the State Chancellery, and the civil servant signs it upon commencing the performance of duties;
• the appointment is made for five years, with the possibility of a decision on extension six months before the expiry of the term;
• removal from office before the end of the term will be possible only by decision of the Prime Minister, on the basis of a Cabinet decision, except in cases of termination where a Cabinet decision is not required. The next procedural point is the Cabinet meeting of 13 October, at which a decision on approving Gorkšs for the office is expected; if the government does not approve the candidate, the continuation of the commission’s recommendation will depend on the Prime Minister’s choice between the other applicants who reached the third round or on a repeated selection procedure.