Correction. (No content provided under this marker in the source text.)
If the Council cannot reach agreement with the regulator of another Member State on which state's jurisdiction a video-sharing platform falls under, it must immediately inform the European Commission (Article 23.5, paragraph 8, of the Electronic Media Law).
For breaches of content obligations, the Council may block access to the relevant websites in Latvia for a period of up to 24 months (Article 23.2, paragraph 2, of the Electronic Media Law).
A streaming platform levy currently does not exist in Latvia as a matter of law — the draft law adopted by the Saeima in two readings has not been adopted on third reading, so no platform has an obligation to pay the levy and the state cannot collect it. The key takeaway for the reader: the postponement of the levy is not an administrative decision that can be revoked or reinstated by a ministerial order, but rather a halt in the legislative process, the continuation of which requires a new decision by the Saeima. The legal question arising in this story is twofold: first, in what manner may a levy be imposed on streaming platforms established abroad, and second, what obligations already apply to these platforms regardless of the levy's fate. The jurisdictional issue would be resolved under Article 23.5 of the Electronic Media Law, which determines which Member State's regulator has supervisory authority over a given video-sharing platform. The existing content requirements for platforms are set out in Article 23.6 of the same law (protection of minors) and the rule that, upon request, the catalogue offered must include European audiovisual works amounting to at least 30 per cent. In terms of funding, significant to the industry is also the exemption in Article 10, point (b), of Directive 2014/24/EU, which exempts contracts for the acquisition and production of broadcast material from the application of the procurement directives.
In the case of the levy draft law, the parties' positions are as follows: the state (the Saeima and the Cabinet of Ministers) decides on the introduction of the levy, whereas platforms, as levy payers, would become subjects of the obligation only from the date the law enters into force. Until then, the supervision applicable to platforms is determined by Article 23.5 of the Electronic Media Law:
In practical terms, this means that the levy law itself would have to rest on this jurisdictional mechanism — platforms of the "Netflix" type without a group company registered in Latvia could become subject to a jurisdictional dispute to be resolved by the Commission, not by a Latvian authority. The consequences of breaching these obligations are set out in Article 23.2 of the law: if the provision of the service is not discontinued within the period set by the Council, the Council may adopt a decision to block access to the relevant websites in Latvia for a period of up to 24 months. Thus, the state already has at its disposal a coercive instrument against non-compliant platforms that is unrelated to the levy. Article 46.1 of the Copyright Law also operates in a separate field, regulating online services complementary to broadcasters' services — this concerns broadcasters rather than independent streaming platforms, and therefore applies only indirectly to the dispute covered in this news item. On the industry funding side, Article 10, point (b), of Directive 2014/24/EU allows audiovisual media service providers to conclude contracts for the production of broadcast material without procurement procedures — this explains why state support for the film industry takes shape under differing legal frameworks. Case law on the levy or jurisdictional disputes is not provided in these sources, so no specific cases can be applied.
Realistic scenarios:
Of practical importance to platforms is that the uncertainty over the levy does not annul existing obligations: the 30 per cent European works requirement in the catalogue and the protection of minors must already be observed now, failing which there is a risk of access restriction for up to 24 months under Article 23.2. Of importance to the industry is that the text adopted in two readings is not yet law, and the Prime Minister's change of position may also alter the fate of the government-sponsored draft law. Further monitoring point: one must await the Saeima's decision on whether the draft law proceeds to the third reading, and when.
The imposed four-year sentence fits only within the range of Section 253.¹, Paragraph One, of the Criminal Law (2 to 8 years), which means that the court has found that the acts were committed for the purpose of sale.
A requalification to Section 253, Paragraph One, opens a penalty range of up to three years — it is precisely this threshold that is of practical significance for the family's course of action.
The four-year prison sentence imposed on Nikam Endziņš means that the court has found him guilty of drug-related activities for the purpose of sale, and such a penalty falls within the range prescribed in Section 253.¹, Paragraph One of the Criminal Law — imprisonment for a term of two to eight years. The essential point for the reader: the four-year sentence is neither the maximum nor an exception, but falls within the middle of the range established by law; therefore, allegations of an unwarranted sentence should be linked not to the range itself, but to the quality of the evidence of guilt. The fact reported is simple — the court has delivered the judgment, and the convicted person has been taken into custody. The charge of drug distribution referred to in the report corresponds to Section 253.¹ of the Criminal Law (unauthorised manufacture, acquisition, possession, transportation or transfer for the purpose of sale, or unauthorised sale). In adjudicating the case, this provision also permits the imposition of confiscation of property and probation supervision for a period of up to three years after completion of the sentence.
The distribution of penalties among the drug-related provisions of the Criminal Law depends on two factors — quantity and purpose:
The imposed four-year sentence fits only within the range of Section 253.¹, Paragraph One; therefore, judging by the length of the sentence, the court has found that the acts were committed for the purpose of sale, but has not found a large quantity or a group of persons acting pursuant to a prior agreement, which would be qualified under Section 253, Paragraph Two. The partner's claim that Endziņš "did not sell or distribute anything," if proven, would entail a requalification to Section 253, Paragraph One, with a penalty range of up to three years — it is precisely this threshold that is of practical significance for the family's course of action. Additional consequences supported by the sources consulted: the court may have imposed confiscation of property and probation supervision for a period of up to three years, which would continue after release from custody. The report does not mention such impositions, so their existence must be verified in the text of the judgment. Section 254 of the Criminal Law will no longer assist in this situation — release from criminal liability applies to a person who has voluntarily surrendered the substances or reported them before the conclusion of the proceedings, not after conviction. The
section does not provide case law on similar matters, so the comparison with other criminal proceedings mentioned by Bokāne cannot be legally assessed on the basis of the available sources.
The family's declared objective — obtaining a reduction of the sentence — in practical terms means challenging the judgment on appeal, where the appellant will seek either release from liability, a reduction of the sentence, or a requalification to a less serious offence. If the appeal fails, the sentence will be served in a custodial facility, and upon its completion probation supervision for up to three years may commence, if such supervision has been imposed.
A fine and arrest, by their punitive nature, correspond to a sanction of the criminal sphere, and therefore such cases are protected by Article 6 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (*Engel v. Netherlands*, 1976).
In the event of non-payment of the fine, the decision is to be referred for compulsory execution, and this must be indicated in the decision itself.
The heroic yet lawful themes of this news item resonate in the European Council session and concern the financing of Ukraine next year (2026), the protection of frozen Russian assets, and the non-attenuation of sanctions; however, the legal sources provided relate only to the regulation of administrative liability in Latvia. This means that the reader must not draw from these sources any concrete legal position on the question of Ukraine's financing or the use of frozen assets. The only bridge between the news item and the sources is Section 2(5) of the Administrative Liability Law, which provides that directly applicable regulatory acts of the European Union governing administrative liability form part of Latvia's administrative liability system. If EU-level sanctions acts contain norms on administrative liability, they are applicable in Latvia within the framework of this statutory system. Thus, the legal question that the sources permit to be addressed is not "what will happen to the 70 billion euros," but rather within which system, and subject to which types of penalties, a sanctions violator falls in Latvia. Its resolution rests on Sections 1, 2 and 14 of the Administrative Liability Law.
Section 2(2) of the Administrative Liability Law provides that the general rules, the concept of an offence, the types of penalties and the procedure are determined by the Law itself, while Section 2(3) provides that specific offences, penalties and the competence of officials are determined by the laws regulating the relevant sector. In the field of taxation, the norms of the Law on Taxes and Duties provide that administrative liability for tax offences may also be established in the law governing the specific tax, and that customs duty sanctions are regulated by the Customs Law. The types of penalties are set out in Section 14: a warning and a fine are basic penalties, while deprivation of rights and prohibition of the exercise of rights are additional penalties which, pursuant to the visible part of Section 18, must be imposed for a term of one month to two years and only by law. The measure of the penalty is determined within the framework of Section 19(2), taking into account the nature of the offence, the person's financial situation and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances; the list of aggravating circumstances (in the visible part of Section 21) includes acting as part of a group and committing the offence under the influence of intoxicating substances. Where several offences are committed by a single act, a penalty is imposed for each separately (Section 22). When examining a complaint, the court may leave the decision in force, annul it and terminate the case, annul it and impose a penalty, or amend the measure of the penalty within the framework of the law (Section 227(1)); the court may adopt a judgment less favourable to the person only where the case has been initiated on the complaint of the victim or the protest of a prosecutor (Section 227(2)). In the field of sanctions offences, Section 86(2) is also essential, pursuant to which property connected with an administrative offence is confiscated. Among the case-law materials in the sources is the Constitutional Court's opinion on Section 279(2) of the Administrative Violations Code and Section 239(4) of the Civil Procedure Law, which rests on the European Court of Human Rights judgment in *Engel v. Netherlands* (1976): a fine and arrest, by their punitive nature, correspond to a sanction of the criminal sphere, and therefore such cases are protected by Article 6 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7. In practical terms, this means that a fine imposed for a sanctions offence in Latvia must be adjudicated with the full set of fair-trial guarantees.
The practically most significant scenarios concern those who in Latvia might violate the EU sanctions regime.
In addition to the imprisonment, the final judgment imposes a fine of EUR 2,220, partial confiscation of property (a vehicle and a trailer), deprivation of the right to hold public offices for one year, and probation supervision for one year; monetary recovery in the amount of EUR 14,800 has been applied to SIA "Modus Būve".
Article 4 of the Latvian Sentence Execution Code provides that the execution of a criminal sentence begins when the judgment has entered into force, and the execution must observe the fundamental principles, including the prohibition of causing physical suffering or degrading human dignity.
The former Mayor of the Daugavpils City Council, Eigims, faces a real custodial sentence of one and a half years, as the Supreme Court, on 30 September 2026, left the appellate judgment unchanged, and this decision is not subject to further appeal. The legal issue examined by the Supreme Court concerned compliance with the presumption of innocence and the evaluation of documents submitted by the defence, which is governed by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law and Articles 35–50 of the Criminal Law.
The purpose of the sentence, pursuant to Article 35 of the Criminal Law, is the protection of public safety, the restoration of justice, the punishment of the guilty person, and resocialisation. The final sentence was determined under the aggregation of criminal offences: Article 50(4) of the Criminal Law provides that additional sentences are first determined individually but, under the aggregation of offences, are added to the principal sentence, and Article 41¹ (referred to in the source as Article 50(4.1)) permits the total sentence to exceed the maximum limit by no more than one half. The appellate court reduced the sentence, finding that the right to the completion of criminal proceedings within a reasonable time had not been observed — this corresponds to the possibility under Article 53 of the Criminal Law to impose a sentence below the minimum threshold or a milder type of sentence. The Supreme Court's assessment regarding the presumption of innocence: the appellate court's conclusion that the documents submitted by the defence do not prove innocence is not in itself a violation of the presumption; what matters is whether guilt is substantiated by evidence supporting the charges and whether the defence documents have been duly evaluated. The fine of EUR 2,220 falls within the parameters of Article 41 of the Criminal Law, which ties fines to a number of minimum monthly wages according to the gravity of the offence and the financial situation of the offender.
Since the Supreme Court's decision is not subject to further appeal, Eigims practically faces:
SIA "Modus Būve" is affected, as a coercive measure, by the monetary recovery of EUR 14,800; for the company whose capital share owner is Sprūgs, this affects future participation in public procurement. This is also of practical significance for the Daugavpils municipality and procurement participants, as the final judgment confirms the link between the 2018 procurement for the reconstruction of an educational institution (contract in the amount of EUR 2,730,347) and the demand for a bribe.
Article 15(1)(3) of the Competition Law treats as a merger also a situation in which a market participant acquires part or all of another market participant's assets or the rights to use them.
The notification obligation arises where the combined turnover in Latvia must be at least EUR 30 million and at least two participants must each have a turnover of at least EUR 1.5 million (Article 15(2)).
As a franchisee of "Elvi," "Vita mārkets" awaits the legally completed merger process: the Competition Council (CC) has already granted permission to acquire lease rights over the premises of the former "Sky" store in Berģi, meaning the one-million-euro investment and the store opening at the end of November can proceed without competition law obstacles. The legal question is whether the acquisition of lease rights over premises used by another market participant constitutes a merger of market participants at all, and whether it triggers the notification obligation. The acquisition of assets or rights to use them constitutes a merger if it increases the acquirer's market share in any specific relevant market — therefore, the acquisition of lease rights over retail premises on Sigulda Highway in Berģi falls within this definition.
The notification obligation arises only if the turnover thresholds of Article 15(2) are met: the combined turnover of the merger participants in Latvia in the preceding financial year must be at least EUR 30 million, and at least two participants must each have a turnover of at least EUR 1.5 million. "Vita mārkets" operated with a turnover of EUR 156.438 million last year, so its involvement in the merger effectively determines that these thresholds are met. The procedure followed the requirements of the Cabinet regulations: the notification must specify the type of merger in accordance with Article 15(1), the net turnover in Latvia for the last financial year, the envisaged stages of the process, as well as any restrictions of competition necessary for the implementation of the merger (point 21 of the regulations). For each participant, the net turnover for the last financial year must be indicated (point 20). Where a merger occurs under Article 15(1)(3), through the acquisition of assets or rights to use them, turnover is calculated by adding the acquirer's net turnover and the turnover generated from the use of those assets in economic activity (point 12 of the regulations). Double counting of turnover is not permitted. In assessing the merger, the CC considers whether it does not significantly impede competition and does not create or strengthen a dominant position; the CC's conclusion cited in the report — that the market structure will not change significantly and competition will not be reduced — corresponds to this assessment standard. Case law is reflected in the sources in case No. p/08/10/1 concerning the actions of SIA "Latvijas Mobilais Telefons," where a violation of Article 15(2) was established: a merger that fails to meet the notification conditions or is implemented without CC permission is punishable. In case No. p/06/05/2 concerning the actions of SIA "Neste Latvija," the CC similarly assessed the acquisition of assets or rights to use them under Article 15(1)(3), confirming that the acquisition of lease rights may also constitute a merger. An additional safeguard for participants: if the merger does not meet the conditions of Article 15(2), the market participants may request written confirmation that the CC will not exercise its right to request a notification within 12 months from the date of implementation of the merger (Article 15(2.1)).
The CC's positive decision means that "Vita mārkets" may implement the merger — acquire the lease rights, invest approximately one million euros, and open the store within the planned timeframe, creating 37 jobs in the store and the adjacent production facility. In the context of the insolvent "Skai Baltija," the transfer of rights to use the assets proceeds without competition law risk, as the CC found that a dominant position will not be created in any of the markets. Practically important for the participants: