Whether decisions adopted in the Cabinet budget process without identified funding cover (EUR 469 million), together with the expenditure moratorium and efficiency mechanisms declared by the Ministry of Finance, produce legally binding effects or remain political declarations without a normative basis. [TEISINIS_PAGRUNDAS] On the basis of general principles of budget law, in the absence of extracts from specific provisions: the State budget is adopted by law (the Law on Budget and Financial Management), and therefore the “scenarios” and “solutions” set out in government declarations, presentations and working-group instructions are not normative acts and do not render expenditure either authorised or prohibited. Legally, only those decisions issued as Cabinet orders or amendments to legislation are adopted in final form, for example increases in teachers’ remuneration or the base pension, which create actual expenditure commitments for subsequent budget years. The “expenditure moratorium” for the fourth quarter is a Cabinet-level operational restriction that applies only where it has been issued as a binding act, not merely as a concept discussed by the NTSP.
In practice, this means that the legal force of the decisions adopted without funding cover in the amount of EUR 469 million does not depend on whether the “scenarios” promised by the Prime Minister are presented or not. They can be revoked only by an act of the same level, namely a Cabinet order or legislative amendment, and not by a declaration on reforms. Lawyers representing ministries, agencies or municipalities should assess whether the specific source of funding is included in the budget law or merely mentioned in a government document.
In the latter case, performance of the obligation depends on the adoption of the next budget. The risk point is the proposed “review of financing amounts laid down by law” in the amount of EUR 1 billion: this would entail a legislative process involving amendments to the relevant sectoral laws, with each reduction being separately open to challenge. The point to monitor is the submission of the 2027 budget package to the Saeima and the baseline expenditure included in it, as well as whether the Ministry of Finance report on fourth-quarter expenditure is converted into a binding Cabinet act.
Article 45(1) PPWR: producers have extended producer responsibility for packaging that they make available for the first time within the territory of a Member State or unpack without being end users.
The declaration of conformity must be prepared and retained in the accounting records: for five years for single-use packaging and ten years for reusable packaging, and supervisory authorities request it only during inspections.
Latvian merchants are not currently required to register in 27 foreign packaging registers and are not required to pay intermediaries hundreds or thousands of euros: mandatory registration in Member State registers is envisaged only from 2028. The panic described in the report is largely based on a misunderstanding of the deadlines, not on sanctions that are actually applicable. What has already been in force since the beginning of 2025, with certain requirements applying from 12 August 2026, is Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (PPWR). It is precisely the directly applicable status of the Regulation that means its requirements apply to merchants without the need for a transposing law. The legal issue arising here is twofold: first, what obligations already apply today to manufacturers and brand owners (declaration of conformity, new definitions: manufacturer, producer, economic operator); and second, how extended producer responsibility, governed by Article 45 PPWR and, in Latvia, by Article 15 of the Packaging Law, will continue to operate. The solution will need to be found both in the provisions of the PPWR (Articles 1, 3, 45-47, 55 and 71) and in national legislation: the Packaging Law and Cabinet Regulations on the recovery of used packaging and extended producer responsibility systems.
Article 1 PPWR sets out the objective of the Regulation: requirements for the sustainability and labelling of packaging throughout its life cycle in order for packaging to be placed on the market, as well as rules on extended producer responsibility and waste management, while harmonising national measures to prevent barriers to trade. Article 3 provides that packaging may be made available on the market only if the sustainability, safety, labelling and information requirements of the Regulation are met, and defines a “producer responsibility organisation” as a legal person that organises the fulfilment of extended responsibility obligations on behalf of several producers. In practical terms, this means:
For merchants currently paying fraudulent intermediaries for “registration”, the money has effectively been spent without any legal basis: the obligation to register in Member State registers arises only in 2028. The real risks today are different:
Under Article 945 of the Civil Law, a found item whose owner is unknown must be reported to the local police within one week from the date of finding; under Article 949, the item passes into the ownership of the finder if the owner does not come forward within six months of the notice.
Under Article 948 of the Civil Law, the finder’s reward is determined at the discretion of the court, but may not exceed one third of the value of the found item after deduction of expenses.
The finder is not free to dispose of the found property at will, but is subject to a set of duties and time limits, breach of which renders the conduct arbitrary misappropriation. The analysis is based on the provisions of the Civil Law governing found property, which impose obligations on the finder while also creating a potential route to acquiring ownership. The specific legal issue is when the found property becomes the finder’s property and what steps must be taken under Articles 940-954 of the Civil Law. If the owner is deceased, the rules of succession law apply, including Article 659 of the Civil Law on the protection of an estate.
The legal basis depends on whether the property is abandoned, lost, or hidden treasure. Article 941 of the Civil Law allows the finder of abandoned property to acquire ownership, whereas Article 942 provides that property relinquished by the owner under the pressure of external circumstances is not to be regarded as abandoned. In the case of lost property (Article 943), the following duties apply:
Under Article 948, the finder’s reward is determined at the discretion of the court, but may not exceed one third of the value of the property after deduction of expenses. Different rules apply to hidden treasure (Article 952): if found on the finder’s own land or ownerless land, it becomes the finder’s property; if found by chance on another person’s land, the finder acquires one half; but where searching for hidden treasure on another person’s land is prohibited, the finder forfeits everything (Article 953). If the owner is deceased, the property forms part of the estate as a legal person (Articles 382 and 383), and dealing with it without a legal basis is impermissible. Until an heir has been confirmed in inheritance rights, the property may not be transferred to another person, except to the estate curator. Under Article 659, upon the request of interested persons, a notary arranges for protection of the estate if the heirs are unknown, unreachable, unwilling or unable to accept the inheritance, or if the estate is excessively burdened with debts. Protection is carried out by a sworn bailiff, while the curator is appointed by the Orphan’s and Custody Court. A sworn bailiff may not take any action in respect of property whose ownership is unknown without an appropriate decision, because the authority to declare property ownerless has not been delegated to the bailiff.
The practical consequences for the finder are twofold. If the finder acts correctly, the finder may acquire ownership of the property or the proceeds, subject to the burden of expenses (Article 949), or receive a reward of up to one third of the value (Article 948). Arbitrary misappropriation, sale, or destruction means that the finder does not acquire ownership and is liable for interference with another person’s property, since prolonged possession does not in itself amount to the owner’s abandonment of the property. If the property is recognised as heirless property and creditors’ claims have been submitted, the bailiff assesses their validity under Cabinet Regulation No. 364, alienates the property, pays any remaining funds into the State budget, and transfers non-alienated property to the State or the municipality. The costs of protection and administration are initially borne by the interested person, and only thereafter may reimbursement be sought from the estate. The next expected step is action by a sworn notary in the succession matter: publication of the opening of the succession, establishment of protection, or preparation of an act terminating the succession matter.
Under Section 9, Paragraph one of the State Civil Service Law, an applicants’ and civil servants’ evaluation commission assesses an applicant’s suitability for the vacant position in accordance with the criteria for examining suitability for the post, not according to the field of the candidate’s previous professional activity.
Section 11 provides that the Director of the State Chancellery is appointed for a term of five years by the Prime Minister, and one and the same person may hold the position for no more than two consecutive terms.
Kaspars Gorkšs, as a candidate for the position of Director of the State Chancellery, has the same legal status as any other applicant: the law does not exclude persons with a background in sport, but links appointment to office solely to a defined set of requirements and to the competition procedure. The opinion expressed in the report is a political argument, not a legal impediment. The requirements for an applicant under Section 7, Paragraph one of the State Civil Service Law are mandatory: citizenship of the Republic of Latvia, proficiency in the Latvian language, higher education, not having reached the statutory retirement age, and no conviction for intentional criminal offences. For the competition for the position of Director of the State Chancellery, the commission is established by the relevant official, and Section 5 (as amended by the Law of 19 March 2026) provides that the criteria for examining suitability for the position of head of an institution are determined by the minister in coordination with the State Chancellery, while the Cabinet determines the procedure for planning the selection of heads of institutions, setting requirements, and evaluating applicants. In the context of Section 11, Paragraph five of the State Civil Service Law, and under the provisions of Section 16, the commission recommends an applicant to the Prime Minister for appointment as Director of the State Chancellery; the official assesses the commission’s recommendation and takes a decision. The substance of the office is defined by Section 17 of the State Administration Structure Law: the head of an institution organises and is responsible for the performance of the institution’s functions, manages administrative work by ensuring continuity, efficiency and legality, and manages financial, personnel and other resources. These functions are sector-neutral: the law does not require a prior career in public administration.
The essence of the matter is this: the candidacy is assessed only against the criteria laid down in law and in the job description, and a sporting career is neither a basis for eligibility nor an obstacle under the law. The Constitutional Court case concerning the compliance of Section 7 of the State Civil Service Law with the Constitution emphasised that the requirement of higher education and the commission’s assessment are supplemented by the institution of a probationary period. Case law shows that the education requirement and the commission’s assessment are constitutionally justified means of ensuring competence, while the legislature has also included a probationary period as a filter for individual suitability. This means that the legislature has addressed the issue of competence not by restricting the field of prior experience, but through procedure: criteria, commission, competition, probationary period. This logic applies equally to any candidate, including a former athlete. Section 2 of the State Administration Structure Law declares the objective of democratic, lawful, effective, open and publicly accessible state administration, and, within the meaning of Section 1, an administrative official is appointed on the basis of professional criteria, not on political or biographical criteria as in the case of a political official.
Practical consequences if Gorkšs’s candidacy proceeds or has already been approved:
Under Section 4(1) of the Road Traffic Law, general administration of road traffic is exercised by the Cabinet of Ministers and municipalities within their respective competence, while Section 8(1) of the Law permits the road manager temporarily to restrict or prohibit traffic where adverse road, climatic or other conditions have arisen that endanger traffic safety.
In relation to municipal roads and streets, the decision to prohibit or restrict traffic is taken by the relevant municipality, as provided in Paragraph 3.2 of the regulations “Procedures for Prohibiting or Restricting Traffic”.
The Commission of Gulbene Municipality rejected the proposal to introduce a two-hour parking restriction on Ozolu Street, and businesses and street users currently do not need to take into account either a time limit or a road sign; the parking arrangements remain unchanged. The key legal issue here is who has competence to impose parking restrictions and what the basis is for the municipality’s decision-making. A municipality becomes the manager of a street within the meaning of the Road Traffic Law after the street is included in the maintenance list by a council decision, and thereafter it independently determines traffic organisation by equipping the street with technical means of traffic organisation under Paragraph 9 of the regulations “On the Procedure by Which a Municipality Participates in the Construction and Maintenance of a Road or Street of Municipal Significance”.
Gulbene Municipality, as the manager of Ozolu Street, is entitled, but not obliged, to impose a parking restriction; the decision falls within its discretion, provided that the relevant assessment criteria are observed. The municipality also has broader scope to establish no-parking zones and speed restriction zones, assessing their public necessity and compliance with safety criteria. The Commission’s approach that the views of local businesses should first be ascertained is not a legal obligation, but rather an element of diligence in the reasoning of the decision, particularly because the 15 submitted survey forms all express full support for the restriction. The Commission rejected that support on the ground that other parking spaces are available nearby, at the cultural centre, the hotel, and on Ābeļu Street; in other words, it assessed the public necessity as insufficient. Formally, the Commission meeting is not yet the final decision: the final decision on traffic organisation on a street of municipal significance must be adopted by the council, and the Commission’s vote, with only one member in favour and four against, is a recommendatory document. By installing road sign No. 537 “Parking” and road markings, the municipality would act as manager, and the requirements established by the signs and markings would be binding on road users under Section 19(1) of the Road Traffic Law. Supervision of compliance with the parking arrangements, if the restriction were imposed, would be carried out by the State Police, while under Section 4(4.1) of the Law the municipal police are also entitled to perform these activities.
The practical consequences at present are adverse for the applicant and the users of the street section: parking remains unrestricted, and no driver on Ozolu Street can be held liable for longer-term parking because no prohibition or restriction is in force. Possible further scenarios are: