Correction. The article asserts that the setting of infrastructure charges is supervised by the State Railway Administration as the regulatory authority, but this is incomplete: in the context of the Law, part of the charges is set by the Public Utilities Commission pursuant to the Law, and the State Railway Administration's supervisory function concerns the compliance of charges with the calculation conditions and non-discrimination, as well as the handling of complaints. It would be more accurate to state that supervisory functions are divided between the authorities depending on the type of charge, and that the compliance of the charges set by "LatRailNet" with the regulatory framework is monitored by the State Railway Administration, which does not itself determine the amount of the charges. The article also fails to mention that the Railway Law grants the Administration the right to intervene in negotiations on the amount of charges and to conduct audits on the separation of accounting records, which is significant because the cost justification for the 25% increase will be precisely the object of such an audit.
The charge must be calculated in accordance with the information set out in the network statement, and the entity performing essential functions must be able to justify it to the carrier (Section 12(1)).
The regulation on the accelerated review of the charge is in force only until 31 December 2026, so the new rate can be applied precisely within this two-month window.
From 13 October 2026 until the end of the year, carriers in transit of Russian grain through Latvia must pay a railway infrastructure charge that is on average 25% higher — lawfully, and not as a sanction. The decision was adopted by LatRailNet, as the entity performing essential functions in respect of railway infrastructure of public use, relying on the competence to develop and approve the charge calculation scheme laid down in Section 11(1) of the Railway Law. The legal question on which this decision rests, and around which the dispute will continue, is: how far may one go in differentiating the charge by cargo category and by the state of the dispatch station, without exceeding the proportionality of the charge to costs and the principle of non-discrimination. The normative framework is Section 11 of the Railway Law (principles of charges; equivalent and non-discriminatory charges for equivalent services in similar market segments), Section 12 (calculation and collection of charges; the duty to justify to the carrier the consistency of the calculation with the network statement), and the amendments adopted by the Saeima under an expedited procedure on 17 September 2026, which allow an accelerated review of the charge for grain transit cargo with a dispatch station in Russia and remain in force until 31 December 2026.
LatRailNet's duties and procedure:
Practical consequences:
Point 19.7 of the Register Regulations makes the security measure — the prohibition on engaging in a specified occupation — a basis for an entry in the Register that gives effect to the prohibition for its entire period of validity; accordingly, Viškers cannot lawfully hold the position of neurologist already now.
Point 300.1 of the Regulations on the Competence of Forensic Medicine Experts expressly provides for expert examinations to determine the nature, time of origin and mechanism of bodily injuries, as well as the identification of features indicating the commission of a sexual offence.
Prosecutors have filed charges against neurologist Leonīds Viškers for sexual acts committed against nine patients using hypnosis; he now awaits trial, and until a judgment is rendered, restrictions on his professional activities remain in place. The essence of the news is a procedural turning point: the case is still in the hands of the prosecution and has not yet been forwarded to court, so the accused has not been convicted and no sentence has been imposed. The legal situation facing the accused, the victims, and the patient community in this case arises from two parallel mechanisms — criminal prosecution and restrictions of rights recorded in the Register of Medical Practitioners. The direct legal questions are twofold: first, under what criminal offence and what penalty the physician's conduct will be assessed, and second, for how long and on what basis his right to practise as a neurologist will be restricted. Commentators ground the potential penalties in the Criminal Law, under which the offence described in the report carries imprisonment for up to ten years; the sources as presented also include Article 137 (unauthorised medical treatment) and Article 138 (improper performance by a medical practitioner of professional duties), which concern the quality of performance of a physician's professional duty where serious or moderate bodily injury has been caused. The basis for the restrictions on professional activity lies in the Regulations on the Register of Medical Practitioners and Medical Support Personnel, points 19.6 and 19.7 of which (and the analogous points 32.5–32.7 and 42.5–42.7) provide that a restriction of rights is recorded in the Register where, pursuant to a court decision or a prosecutor's order, the person has been deprived of the right to engage in professional activity in the relevant field, or where a security measure — a prohibition on engaging in a specified occupation — has been applied.
The filing of charges means that the prosecutor has found the body of evidence sufficient to initiate prosecution; the next stage is referral of the case to court, where the court will determine guilt and sentence. The security measures — a prohibition on approaching specific persons and a prohibition on holding a particular position — were already imposed in September 2025, and point 19.7 of the Register Regulations makes such a decision by the prosecuting authority a basis for an entry in the Register that gives effect to the prohibition for its entire period of validity. In practical terms, this means that Viškers cannot lawfully hold the position of neurologist already now. Points 19.6 and 32.5/42.5 of the Register Regulations also provide for a second, more severe basis for an entry — a court decision depriving the person of the right to engage in professional activity in the relevant field. Such a decision, as an additional penalty, is possible only following a conviction. Accordingly, the current lawfulness of Viškers' professional activity rests on the security measure, while after the trial it would rest on a court decision. The position of the victims is portrayed in the sources through the procedural lens: nine women have been recognised as victims, their applications have been consolidated into a single investigation, and expert examinations were used to overcome the factor of time — the offences were committed between 2020 and 2024. Procedurally significant is also the appeal against the initial refusal to open criminal proceedings: the prosecution overturned the police decision, and only thereafter, on 22 January 2025, were the proceedings initiated. In the field of certification, in October 2025 the Certification Council of the Latvian Physicians' Association suspended the operation of Viškers' certificate in the neurology specialty. The sources contain no case law on comparable cases, so no forecast of the court's approach can be offered.
The immediate practical prospect is referral of the case to court and trial hearings at which the evidence on all nine episodes will be examined. Should the court convict Viškers, the possible consequences are:
For patients and society, this means that the physician cannot lawfully accept patients already at the investigation stage, while the ultimate questions — guilt and sentence — will remain dependent on the court. For the victims, it is of practical importance that the consolidated criminal case means a single set of proceedings against a single accused, in which all episodes are examined together.
Correction. The report's assertion that, once the full judgment becomes available (26 October), an appeal may be filed within ten working days is inaccurate: the text of the Civil Procedure Law provided points to a different approach, and in criminal procedure the time limit for filing an appeal is ten days from the pronouncement of the judgment, which is not to be identified with the date of issue of the full reasoned judgment. It would be more accurate to state: an appeal must be filed within the time limit set by the Criminal Procedure Law from the date of pronouncement of the appellate court's judgment, and that time limit does not commence merely upon familiarisation with the full judgment. Furthermore, the report does not distinguish between the first-instance sentencing and the content of the appellate court's decision — the text does not make clear whether the Regional Court left the sentence untouched or altered its extent.
The additional penalty — a five-year prohibition on engaging in commercial activity — falls within the scope of Section 320(2) of the Criminal Law, "for a period of up to five years," which the court applied at its maximum.
Within 30 days of the judgment entering into force, the company will have to pay the EUR 124,000 fine, and the seized real property will remain as security for the recovery until payment.
The trajectory for Igor Trubko is what has already been established at first instance — an actual prison sentence of four years and six months, a five-year prohibition on engaging in commercial activity, and a fine of 200 minimum monthly wages (EUR 124,000) imposed on the legal entity "Rīgas namu apsaimniekotājs" — and the appellate court's decision not to amend the judgment practically consolidates this outcome. The legal question to be resolved in this matter is the qualification of the offering of a bribe and the proportionality of the penalties — this is governed by Section 323 of the Criminal Law (bribe-giving), while the consequences for the legal entity and the seizure as security are arranged under Sections 70.5 and 70.6 of the Criminal Law and the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law on seizure and enforcement of decisions. Alongside acts committed on a large scale, a more serious qualification also exists — Section 320(3) of the Criminal Law provides for imprisonment from two to ten years, so a prison sentence of four years and six months falls within an acceptable range. From the perspective of the market and the participants in the concession tender, it is material that, according to the KNAB summary of evidence, the bribe was offered precisely for favourable terms in the concession tender regulations, which means that the integrity of the public procurer's decision-making process was legally infringed.
Trubko, as a private individual who offered a bribe to a public official (then the head of a Riga City Council faction), is liable under Section 323(1) of the Criminal Law — a penalty of up to five years' imprisonment, probation supervision, community service, or a fine.
Practically, this means that if the courts of subsequent instances do not amend the judgment, Trubko will face serving an actual prison sentence, and for five years he will be unable to engage in commercial activity — including performing the functions of a member of the management board or council of "Rīgas namu apsaimniekotājs," where he is currently the chairman of the council and an indirect co-owner. For Kossovičs, as the person who informed the KNAB of the bribe offer, the report is merely context — his procedural status is not assessed within this body of sources.
If a minority government of the 41 deputies of the Joint List is put forward for approval, its legal fate will be decided at a single moment — the Saeima vote on expressing confidence in all ministers as a whole. The fact that experts consider this scenario the leading one means that the government will be formed without a coalition majority, relying on individual agreements with other factions. The direct question of law is the procedure by which the Cabinet of Ministers is composed and approved when its formateur lacks a majority in the Saeima, and what consequences follow if confidence is not expressed or is subsequently lost. These questions are governed by the Law on the Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers, primarily Articles 14, 15, 17 and 18 thereof, as well as the Constitutional provisions on the competence of the Cabinet of Ministers referred to in Article 3 of the Law. Essentially: the law does not require the government formateur to have a majority — it requires only a positive voting result at the moment of approval. The minority government model is therefore legally possible, but its stability is a political, not a normative, question.
The candidate for the office of Prime Minister — in this scenario, Andris Kulbergs — pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Law on the Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers submits to the President of the State and the Speaker of the Saeima a Declaration signed by him and the invited ministers, together with a draft Saeima decision on the expression of confidence.
The individual agreements on the budget and reforms mentioned in the report are not regulated by law — they are political, not normative, commitments, and their legal force is secured solely by voting results in the Saeima. Liepiņa's opinion on the significance of the choice of the head of the KNAB correlates with Article 33(2) of the Law, which classifies the appointment of consultative officials among political decisions — such decisions remain within the executive branch regardless of the government's majority status.
If the Saeima approves the Kulbergs Cabinet, the government will operate with the full competence prescribed by law — minority status does not in itself restrict either the issuance of regulations within the scope of an authorisation or the adoption of political decisions (Article 33).
Section 38(1) of the Accounting Law provides that the activity of an outsourced accountant is permitted only under a valid licence issued by the State Revenue Service for five years; the state fee is EUR 100.
Section 37 of the Accounting Law, following revocation of a licence, imposes a one-year prohibition on practising the profession, holding managerial positions or being a beneficial owner of an outsourced accountant.
An outsourced accountant in Latvia works with a very broad range of clients' financial information, and the legislator has subjected this profession to both licensing and enhanced anti-money-laundering (AML) supervision. The practical context of the report: in the FID's National Risk Assessment, the sector's risk is rated as medium-high; as of the end of 2025, 4,450 providers were under State Revenue Service (VID) supervision, and 37% of surveyed providers reported annual turnover of up to EUR 10,000. The direct legal question this story raises is: what happens to an accountant who fails to comply with licensing and AML requirements, and what obligations apply to a licensed provider in day-to-day practice. The answer rests on Section 36(3), Section 37 and Section 38 of the Accounting Law, as well as on the Law on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist and Proliferation Financing (AML Law). Persons providing services informally without a licence risk a prohibition on their activities, while licensed providers risk suspension or revocation of their licence if they breach AML rules.
The licence must satisfy education and experience requirements — at least first-level professional higher education or a bachelor's degree in accounting, economics, management or finance, and at least three years of experience — and these requirements also apply to the responsible outsourced accountant of a merchant (conditions of Section 36(2)). Competence over supervision and the suspension and revocation of licences lies with the VID (Section 38(2); point 3.7.7 of the VID information system regulations, which also covers maintenance of the public register). A licensed accountant must establish an AML internal control system, carry out customer due diligence including identification of the beneficial owner and transaction monitoring, and maintain professional civil liability insurance. The AML system must also include staff training: Article 16 of the Cabinet regulations on AML risk-management human resources requires external training on legislation, trends and the most frequently identified deficiencies, while Article 24 requires extraordinary training on significant regulatory changes. The confidentiality regime has an exception: Article 8 of the AML Law provides that the reporting duty to the FID does not apply to outsourced accountants when they defend or represent clients in pre-trial or court proceedings or advise on initiating or avoiding proceedings — this is the scope of professional privilege, outside of which the reporting duty applies. A licence may be revoked if non-compliance or the submission of false information about compliance with requirements is identified, systematic non-cooperation with the VID, the inclusion of the responsible accountant on a risk-persons list, a risk address, or repeatedly unreported suspicious transactions (the list of revocation grounds in the Accounting Law). An additional reputational and prohibition mechanism: Section 37 prohibits a person convicted of an intentional economic crime or a crime in the service of state institutions, or whose licence was revoked within the last year for breaches of the AML Law or sanctions legislation, from acting as an outsourced accountant; such a person may also not hold managerial positions or be a beneficial owner of an outsourced accountant. The medium risk profile also entails enhanced due diligence: the AML Law permits the application of additional enhanced due diligence requirements and enhanced supervision mechanisms to customers from high-risk third countries, with a duty to systematically report transactions of such customers.
The practical consequences are divided according to the status of the parties: