If consent is chosen as the lawful basis, consent for a child under the age of 13 must be given by a parent or legal guardian. Section 33 of Latvia’s Personal Data Processing Law sets the age threshold at 13, using the derogation from the default age of 16 permitted by Article 8(1) GDPR.
If an institution publishes an identifiable photograph of a child without any lawful basis, the DVI may apply corrective measures under Article 58 GDPR, including an order to erase the photograph or restrict the processing.
An educational institution that publishes an identifiable photograph of a child on its website or social media acts as a data controller, and such processing must have a lawful basis. The essence of the notice is the DVI’s clarification: an identifiable image of a child constitutes personal data, whereas a non-identifiable image (from behind, from a distance, or in a group context) is not affected by the Data Regulation at all. The specific legal issue is twofold: whether personal data processing is taking place and, if so, which lawful basis under Article 6(1) GDPR covers it. Consent under Article 6(1)(a) is only one possible basis; the institution may also rely on public interest or legitimate interests. The material scope is defined in Article 2 GDPR: processing by automated means, meaning that photographs published on a website fall within the Regulation.
The institution’s obligations are sequential and mandatory:
Consent must be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous; written form is not mandatory, but the institution must be able to prove that consent was obtained and to which processing it relates. A parent may withdraw consent at any time. If the child has reached the age of 13 and the matter concerns the direct provision of information society services, consent is already a lawful basis without parental approval. The DVI’s competence derives from Article 57 GDPR, and its corrective powers are laid down in Article 58 GDPR, ranging from warnings and reprimands to orders for erasure or restriction of processing.
For a parent who finds a published photograph without their consent, that fact alone does not yet prove an infringement: the institution may have relied on another basis for the processing. The first step is therefore to ask the institution about the purpose and lawful basis. The parent may object to further publication or request erasure of what has already been published; the institution must assess such a request in accordance with the basis it has relied upon. As a practical matter for institutions, the method of obtaining consent should be one that can later be evidenced, and the obligation to inform parents exists in all cases. The next step that can be anticipated from the sources is a parental application or complaint to the DVI, which the Inspectorate examines under Article 57(1)(f) GDPR.
How does the national prohibition incorporated in paragraphs 31-34 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law on Agriculture and Rural Development extend the import ban on products originating in Russia and Belarus from agricultural goods and animal feed to food products, and how will this prohibition be applied where goods are imported through third countries?
Since no direct extract of the provisions is available in the database, I rely on the description of the regulation provided in the report as the source. The report states that the prohibition is included in paragraphs 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law on Agriculture and Rural Development and is in force until 1 July 2027. The prohibition has therefore been adopted at statutory level, rather than merely by Cabinet regulation.
The list of covered goods will continue to be determined by Cabinet Regulation No. 158 of 8 March 2024, which was already expanded on 8 August 2026 but, until now, covered only agricultural and animal-feed goods. The new statutory amendment closes that gap: food products, including caramels, marshmallows, biscuits, sauces, chocolate, spices, oils, processed vegetable products and others, are now prohibited by reference to country of origin, rather than by product type.
As regards third countries, the key point is that the basis of the prohibition is origin: the statutory text expressly provides that products originating in those countries and imported from other third countries are also prohibited where they are classifiable under Combined Nomenclature codes. The application of rules of origin, together with classification under the relevant CN code, therefore becomes a decisive element of customs control.
The statement in the report that the goods are “also prohibited if an attempt is made to import them through other third countries” is incomplete. It gives the impression that any import through a third country is prohibited, whereas the statutory text requires the prohibition to be applied by reference to ORIGIN: the prohibited goods are goods originating in Russia and Belarus that are imported from other third countries and classifiable under Combined Nomenclature codes. A more precise formulation would be that the prohibition does not cover goods of third-country origin, for example Asian-origin goods or goods merely repackaged in Russia, but rather goods of Russian or Belarusian origin irrespective of the country of importation.
The article also fails to mention that the prohibition is time-limited, until 1 July 2027, and that imports recorded after 8 March 2024 were mainly declared with recipient countries in other EU Member States. That is material, because the new statutory amendment would independently prohibit those EU supply scenarios in Latvia only where the goods enter the Latvian market.
In practice, this means that importers and customs representatives must review the allocation of Combined Nomenclature codes and proof of origin for all goods originating in Russia or Belarus. Products that were previously permitted, such as biscuits, confectionery, sauces, preserved vegetables and apple puree, become prohibited as of 10 October 2026, and their importation creates risks of confiscation and customs infringements. Points to monitor include further amendments to Cabinet Regulation No.
158, or new regulations specifying the list of food products by CN code, as well as the application practice of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Customs Board of the State Revenue Service before 1 July 2027. Any extension of the amendment’s period of application will have to be decided by the legislature.
Paragraph 6.2.3 of Cabinet Regulation No. 538: the Food and Veterinary Service carries out a physical inspection in accordance with a risk assessment, including taking samples for laboratory testing in order to confirm or exclude suspicions that the cargo originates from the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine.
Paragraph 2 of Cabinet Regulation “Regulations Regarding Agricultural and Feed Products Prohibited from Entry (Importation) into Latvia” prohibits the import of agricultural and feed products from the Russian Federation and Belarus, including goods classifiable under the commodity codes of Section II, Chapter 10 (cereals), even where they arrive from other third countries.
The Baltic States’ initiative to prohibit the transit of Russian grain, in the current legal environment, confronts the fact that Latvia already has a much stricter regime in place than the letter suggests: the import into Latvia of grain originating in Russia and Belarus is completely prohibited. This prohibition is set out in Paragraph 2 of Cabinet Regulation “Regulations Regarding Agricultural and Feed Products Prohibited from Entry (Importation) into Latvia”, which prohibits the import of products from the Russian Federation and Belarus, including goods classifiable under the commodity codes of Section II, Chapter 10 (cereals) of the Combined Nomenclature, even where they arrive from other third countries. Accordingly, the more difficult issue in this matter is not “whether to prohibit”, but rather how to prevent a situation in which grain from the occupied territories of Ukraine is declared to be Russian grain or third-country grain and moved in transit through EU ports. It is precisely this issue that Cabinet Regulation No. 538 of 8 September 2026 addresses by establishing a special border-control mechanism: under Paragraph 4.¹, border control of grain is carried out even where it is not intended for distribution in the EU, “including where there are suspicions that the origin of food grain is the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine”. For transit operators and ports, the expected position is enhanced documentary and physical control, with the burden of proving origin resting on the participants.
The procedural control mechanism is determined by several interrelated sources.
| Participant | Obligation | Provision | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Customs authority | Requesting origin documents and, in case of doubt, requesting additional evidence | UCC Art. 61 | |
| Food and Veterinary Service | Physical inspection, sampling for laboratory testing | Cabinet Regulation No. 538, para. 6.2.3 | |
| Importer/transit operator | Certification of origin and submission of accompanying documents | UCC Art. 61; Cabinet Regulation No. 538, para. 6.2.1 | Market participants relying on the “neutrality” of transit should note that Paragraph 4.¹ of Cabinet Regulation No. 538 expressly provides that control also applies to goods “not intended for distribution in the European Union”. This means that transit status is no longer an automatic exclusion from control. |
The practical implications of further developments are several for different participants.
From 1 July 2027, property damage of up to EUR 50,000 with no injured persons may be settled through the injured party’s own MTPL insurer, and the new procedure will apply to contracts entering into force from that date.
Disputes between an insurer and LTAB regarding the obligation to pay compensation are handled by the Bureau itself, which decides whether compensation is to be paid or refused and ensures payment.
Victims of road traffic accidents are facing a two-stage change in the applicable regime: from 1 July 2027, compensation for property damage of up to EUR 50,000 may be claimed from the victim’s own insurer rather than from the insurer of the party at fault; and from 1 January 2027, where the person who caused the accident has not been identified, compensation from the Guarantee Fund will be available not only for personal injury but also for property damage. These changes amend the Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law (the MTPL Law), and were supported on 7 October by the Budget and Finance (Taxation) Committee of the Saeima. The legal issue is twofold: which insurer is obliged to pay compensation, and from which source it is covered where the party at fault is unidentified or uninsured. The current law directs the injured party to the insurer of the party at fault: the insurer is obliged to accept and examine the claim relating to the insured event, decide on compensation, and pay it within the statutory time limits. The law also imposes on insurers a duty to provide information on the procedure for notification and claiming compensation. It is precisely these rules allocating obligations that will have to be adjusted in order to make direct claims settlement possible.
As regards an unidentified party at fault, the law excludes from compensable losses those caused by an unidentified vehicle, except for personal injury and certain property losses referred to in Section 25 of the law. The amendments expand the scope of those exceptions: compensation for damage from the Guarantee Fund will also be available where, as a result of the damage, the vehicle’s authorisation to participate in road traffic is cancelled, even if there are no injured persons. The Guarantee Fund is one of three funds held in the accounts of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Latvia (LTAB), and LTAB brings recourse claims against responsible persons in the cases provided for by law. The recourse mechanism is also material to the new regime: if compensation is paid from the Guarantee Fund, LTAB may bring recourse claims against persons where the law permits this. Similarly, even where the party at fault is unknown, the possibility of recourse remains an anti-fraud tool, a risk identified by the Chair of LTAB’s Management Board. The rules governing data in the information system provide that the system must include the circumstances of insured events, driver data, and information from the Penalty Register concerning persons convicted of road traffic offences during the preceding five years. This means that, under the new direct settlement scheme, where the injured party’s insurer pays compensation but the loss was caused by another insurer’s client, disputes over inter-insurer settlement will be resolved through LTAB, not by the injured party. LTAB also provides the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Latvia, at least quarterly, with aggregated information on the situation in compulsory insurance.
In practice, drivers and injured parties should note two different effective dates:
Correction. The article states that during the construction works “the maximum permitted driving speed over the overpass has been set at 30 km/h”, but does not mention that 30 km/h is not an arbitrarily selected limit, but a speed prescribed for particularly hazardous work sites. Under paragraph 101.3 of the rules on the equipping of work sites, this applies where an excavation is located at the edge of the carriageway or where traffic is passing before temporary bridges or bridges under repair. It would be more precise to say that a 30 km/h limit is justified if an appropriate work-site signing scheme has been installed at the site; absent such circumstances, the restriction would lack a basis. Similarly, the closure of pedestrian movement on one side and diversion to the other side is based on paragraph 80.1 of the rules concerning the organisation of pedestrian movement along a work site, rather than on a free organisational choice.
The construction contractor submits an application to the municipality for the restriction of traffic no later than 10 days before the planned restriction, and the construction contractor ensures traffic organisation measures during the construction works (Sections 5 and 4.2 of the regulations).
The municipality publishes information on the traffic restriction no later than the next working day after the decision enters into force, indicating the section, type, duration, and contact telephone number (subparagraph 12.2).
During the reconstruction of the Lithuanian Highway overpass, Jelgava Municipality is entitled to restrict traffic on its street, and drivers on this section should expect not a prohibition but a restricted regime: two of four lanes closed, a 30 km/h speed limit, and diverted pedestrian routes. The news fact is that reconstruction of the overpass will begin on 13 October and is planned to continue until June 2028, with total costs of EUR 5.26 million, financed in equal parts by the Ministry of Transport and the municipality. The legal question arising here is on what basis and under what procedure the municipality may restrict traffic on an operational street section while construction works are being carried out there. This is governed by the Procedure for Prohibiting or Restricting Traffic, issued pursuant to Section 5, Paragraph three of the Law “On Roads” and Section 8, Paragraph one of the Road Traffic Law, as well as the Road and Street Construction Regulations, which regulate the reconstruction process and the organisation of works without interrupting the street’s core function.
The overpass is located on a municipal street; therefore, the decision to impose traffic restrictions is taken by the relevant municipality. Subparagraph 3.2 of the regulations assigns this competence directly to the municipality, not to SIA “Latvijas Valsts ceļi”. The basis for the restriction is subparagraph 2.3: traffic may be restricted “during maintenance works or construction works on a road or a section thereof”. The procedure and allocation of obligations are set out in clear provisions:
In practical terms, drivers and public transport passengers should expect slower traffic, a 30 km/h speed regime, and possible additional delays until the end of summer 2027 for the works on the Riga side and until June 2028 for the full reconstruction. Approximately 16,000 vehicles cross the overpass daily, including around 2,300 lorries and buses, so the impact of the restriction will be noticeable. The construction contractor is obliged to maintain the construction site and traffic organisation until the signing of the act confirming completion of the construction works, at which point that responsibility ends (Section 36 of the Construction Regulations). If changes to traffic organisation or road signs are placed incorrectly, or if a hazard arises due to non-compliance with them, the municipality, as the decision-maker, and the construction contractor, as the party responsible for ensuring the organisation, will each be liable within their respective spheres of competence.