Legal prism — 2026-10-18

Correction. The article's statement that "no limitation period applies to maintenance arrears" is an imprecise generalisation. The Law's no-limitation provision applies only to the Fund Administration's claim against the debtor for the recovery of maintenance disbursed by the Fund and the statutory interest calculated thereon — not to any maintenance claim as such. It would be more accurate to write: "No limitation period applies to the Fund Administration's recourse claim against the debtor for maintenance disbursed from the Fund and statutory interest." Moreover, the article fails to mention that the debtor must also pay statutory interest on the amounts disbursed by the Fund — this explains why, of the total EUR 412 million, EUR 112 million is interest alone.

From the day payment commences, the debtor incurs an obligation to pay maintenance and statutory interest to the Fund, and information about the debt becomes available on the portal www.latvija.lv within 10 working days.

The Fund pays the applicant only at the State-established minimum amount (in the news report — EUR 180 per month) and does not pay for a period during which the applicant has already received funds at least at that amount (Article 13(2.1) and (2.2)).

Core issue

More than 42,000 debtors and EUR 400 million in debt mean that for a large proportion of children the State pays maintenance in place of the debtor, while the debtor incurs a separate, indefinite debt owed to the State bearing statutory interest. The factual background of the news report is that the Fund has already covered EUR 312 million of principal debt and EUR 112 million of the interest component, and the legislator plans a further EUR 20 million in additional expenditure for 2027. The cluster of legal issues in this story operates on three levels: when and to what extent the Fund pays out maintenance, what obligations arise for the debtor and the applicant as a result, and what information about the debtor becomes publicly available. The solution rests on the Maintenance Guarantee Fund Law (Articles 11, 12 and 13) and the Regulations on the Maintenance Guarantee Fund Register of Applicants and Debtors (Cabinet Regulation No. 61 of 23 January 2024).

Legal assessment

The Fund pays out maintenance through two channels. Within an administrative procedure, where the parent has no court decision or agreement, payment is made under Article 11 of the Law, and the grounds for refusal are listed in Article 11(5) — for example, where the other parent is in fact providing care for the child. Where there is a court decision or agreement and a sworn bailiff has certified that the debtor has not deposited the amount into the deposit account, payment is made under Article 12. Where the debtor has no declared place of residence, a decision is adopted even if the enforcement case has not been submitted for enforcement, and notice of the commencement of payment is published in the official gazette "Latvijas Vēstnesis" (Article 5(4.1), Article 12(4)). From the day payment commences, the debtor incurs an obligation to pay maintenance and statutory interest to the Fund — either via the bailiff's deposit account or, where there is no enforcement case, directly to the Fund Administration. The Fund Administration becomes an enforcement creditor vis-à-vis the applicant for the portion of the amount paid out and, without any separate court decision, steps into the enforcement creditor's position (Article 12(5), Article 4(2)(1)). Conversely, an applicant to whom an unwarranted amount has been paid out incurs an obligation to repay it with statutory interest (Article 4(2)(3)). The public accountability mechanism operates through the register: information about the debt is posted on the portal www.latvija.lv within 10 working days of the adoption of the decision, if the debtor has not concluded or is not complying with an agreement on a payment schedule and is not a person with a disability or on long-term sick leave (Article 6 of the Law, points 7 and 9 of the Regulations). The restrictions mentioned in the news report — prohibitions on driving vehicles, carrying weapons and gambling — are not expressly set out in these sources, so their normative basis is not analysed in detail here; the sources show only the outcome — driving licence prohibitions are in force against 2,300 debtors.

Consequences

The practical consequences for the debtor are threefold: an indefinite debt to the Fund accruing statutory interest (the maintenance debt is not subject to limitation), publicly available information about the debt on the portal www.latvija.lv, and enforcement through a bailiff, with the Fund acting as enforcement creditor. Change is possible even without payment in full — the debtor may conclude an agreement on a payment schedule, whereupon information about them is deleted from the portal (point 9.3 of the Regulations); such agreements were concluded with 5,600 debtors in 2025. As regards the applicant, the Fund covers maintenance only at the State-established minimum amount — the EUR 180 per month mentioned in the news report — and does not pay for a period during which the applicant has already received funds at least at the amount available from the Fund (Article 13(2.1) and (2.2)). The amendments supported at first reading in the Saeima concerning the full minimum amount, for which a further EUR 20 million would be needed for 2027, would change the amount fixed in Article 13, but until entry into force it is not yet law.

If the amendments entered into force, the minimum sentence would rise from five to ten years, with mandatory probation supervision for up to three years and the possibility of confiscation of property added.

Under Section 51(3), a circumstance that is included in the composition of a criminal offence as a qualifying feature can no longer be regarded as a mitigating circumstance.

Core issue

Once the MPs' proposal becomes law, persons who kill a woman against whom they previously engaged in prolonged or repeated coercive and controlling behaviour will be liable under Article 117 of the Criminal Law for murder in aggravating circumstances — punishable by life imprisonment or deprivation of liberty for a term of 10 to 20 years, rather than under the basic composition of Article 116, where the penalty is life imprisonment or deprivation of liberty for a term of 5 to 20 years. The practical difference lies in the minimum sentence: it would rise from five to ten years, and mandatory probation supervision for up to three years and the possibility of confiscation of property would be added. The legal question arising is twofold: whether the legislature has grounds to include a new qualifying feature in Article 117, and how, once in force, the court will prove and qualify "prolonged or repeated coercive and controlling behaviour" as an element of the composition, rather than merely as a mitigating or aggravating sentencing circumstance under Articles 48 and 51.

Legal assessment

The existing structure of Article 117 is a closed list of qualifying features — from the murder of a pregnant woman to murder connected with robbery or rape — and the sanction for all of these features is the same: life imprisonment or deprivation of liberty for a term of 10 to 20 years, with probation supervision for up to three years, with or without confiscation of property. The proposal would add a new paragraph, and its application would require the court to establish two elements:

• that, prior to the murder, the perpetrator engaged in conduct aimed at restricting the victim's ability to make independent decisions and at establishing power over her;
• that this conduct was prolonged or repeated — a single escalation of a conflict would not fall within this feature.

Also significant is the provision of Section 51(3): a circumstance that is included in the composition of a criminal offence as a qualifying feature can no longer be regarded as a mitigating circumstance — this means that, once the amendments are adopted, the court could not take coercive and controlling behaviour into account "neutrally" in sentencing, but would be compelled to qualify it as an aggravating element of the composition. Significant context is also provided by Article 174.1 (in force since 04.07.2024), which already criminalises cruel or violent treatment of a close relative, a spouse, or a person in a permanent intimate relationship — this creates an evidentiary base and a police-recorded history upon which the murder qualification can rest. Alongside this, there is also a civil procedural mechanism: Article 45 of the Civil Procedure Law (definition of violent control in Section 2) allows the court to adopt a decision on interim protection against violence even before an action is brought, and the police removal procedure (Cabinet regulations on interim protection) records facts such as prior violence, financial dependence, and previous protection orders. In practice, these documents would become evidence for establishing "prolonged or repeated" conduct in criminal proceedings. From the case law available in the sources, there is the decision of the Department of Criminal Cases in case No. SKK-66/2020, which touches upon murder in aggravating circumstances and the limitation period for criminal liability with respect to the period when the previous Code was in force — this illustrates that qualification issues under this article reach the level of the Department of Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court, but specific case law on "coercive and controlling behaviour" as a feature cannot yet exist in Latvia, as no such norm is in force. The authors of the proposal cite the approach of Section 236 of the Canadian Criminal Code, where coercive control over the victim is recognised as a qualifying feature — this is comparative law, not a norm applicable in Latvia.

Consequences

If the amendments are adopted at the third reading and the law enters into force, the practical consequences would manifest as follows:

• prosecutors in murder cases where prior violence or control is documented would have to assess the application of the new feature and bring charges under Article 117 rather than Article 116;
• for the defence, the principal contest would concern the scope of the evidence — whether the conduct was specifically "prolonged or repeated" and whether its aim was control rather than a reaction to conflict;
• for the convicted person, the sentencing range would begin at 10 years, and the court could also order confiscation of property;
• for the victim's relatives and their counsel, this feature would provide an additional argument in disputes over qualification.

The risk side is the breadth of the definition: the forms of conduct listed in the proposal's justification (digital control, financial control, humiliation), without precise boundaries, may lead to inconsistent application and appellate disputes until such time as the Supreme Court provides clarifications.

Section 31.1(2) prohibits imposing on a candidate for board or council membership requirements that are disproportionate and unreasonably restrict open, fair and professional selection — this also applies to experience criteria.

A council member may not be a board member or hold a managerial position in another capital company that has a significant-volume transaction with the company represented; otherwise, combining offices remains permitted.

Core issue

29 individuals simultaneously hold positions on the boards and councils of multiple state and municipal capital companies, and the legislator largely permits this — the freedom to combine offices is restricted only selectively, primarily by council independence criteria and conflict-of-interest rules, rather than by a general prohibition. The legal question is twofold: first, in which cases one person's offices in different companies create non-compliance with the requirements for an independent council member and the conflict prohibitions under the Law on Governance of Capital Shares and Capital Companies of Public Persons; second, whether the selection practice of "2–3 years of experience in a similar company" is inconsistent with the prohibition in Section 31.1 (and Section 37(2)) on imposing requirements that are "disproportionate and unreasonably restrict open, fair and professional selection of board and council members." The solution is to be found in the specific provisions of the law: Section 31.1, Section 37, as well as Section 52 on the prohibition of competition and conflicts of interest for board members.

Legal assessment

The text of the law makes it possible to determine precisely when the rotation of offices between sectors becomes a legal problem:

• Fundamental principles of the nomination process: Section 31.1 (and similarly Section 37(2)) provides that nominations must comply with the principles of good corporate governance practice and must ensure "open, fair and professional" selection; imposing disproportionate requirements on a candidate is prohibited.
• Absolute disqualifications for a candidate (Section 31.1(4) / Section 37(4)): lack of higher education; conviction for an intentional criminal offence with an unexpunged criminal record; deprivation of the right to hold offices in commercial companies by a decision in criminal proceedings or administrative violation proceedings; declared bankruptcy. The number of offices held in different companies does not, in itself, fall within this list.
• Restrictions on a council member's independence and mutual relationships: the provisions visible in sources [2] and [7] prohibit a council member from holding the office of board member or a managerial position in another capital company that "has a significant-volume transaction" with the company represented, and from having been, within the last three years, a capital-share holder's official, a board member of a company in its group, or a management official for longer than one year.
• An independent council member (source [18]) must additionally not have received remuneration from the relevant company or its subsidiary (except council member remuneration) within the last three years, and must not have had significant-volume transactions with it.
• For board members, Section 52 requires compliance with the prohibition of competition under Section 171 of the Commercial Law and the restrictions of the law "On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in the Activities of Public Officials."
• Combining offices as such: Section 109(3) directly refers to the law "On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in the Activities of Public Officials" as the provision governing the right to combine the office of council member with other offices; an authorised person who is a public official must obtain a permit to combine offices (source [13]).
• As exceptions to the restrictions, Part 8 (sources [10], [14]) provides for re-nomination for a subsequent term and for situations where a candidate cannot be nominated in order to ensure the institution's capacity to act.
• Consequences of removal: Section 109(4) — a council member removed before the expiry of the term does not receive a removal benefit.
• Procedure: the nomination is ensured by the capital-share holder or the council; large companies must engage a personnel selection consultant (Section 31.1(3)); and the capital-share holder or the council has the right to reject the nomination commission's candidates with substantiated reasoning, in which case the selection is organised anew (Section 31.1(7)).

Consequences

Practically significant implications:

• With respect to the 29 individuals holding multiple offices, each of them must be assessed individually against the prohibition of competition under Section 171 of the Commercial Law, the conflict-of-interest provisions of Section 52, and the three-year "clean period" criteria for an independent council member.
• For selection commissions and the coordination institution, the proportionality of the "experience" criterion may become the subject of an administrative challenge, since Section 31.1(2) prohibits requirements that unreasonably restrict selection.
• Capital-share holders and councils retain the right to reject nominated candidates.
• Persons with multiple offices who are removed before the end of their term of office have no right to a removal benefit by virtue of Section 109(4).
• Procedurally, further steps await the publication of the nomination process documentation and results in the manner prescribed by the Cabinet of Ministers pursuant to Section 37(10) (source [15], point 4).

Article 13, Paragraph three, of the Animal Protection Law allows officials to confiscate an animal where the owner commits the acts referred to in Article 4 or fails to perform the acts referred to in Article 5, Paragraph two.

Article 8, Paragraph two, prohibits a person punished for cruelty to animals from keeping an animal — this is a sanction affecting legal status, not merely a monetary fine.

Core issue

The amendments to the Civil Law adopted by the Saeima change how animals will be assessed in courts and in dealings with authorities — no longer merely as property measurable in money, but as a living, sentient being which nonetheless retains the status of an object of civil rights. In practical terms, this means that the owner's power over an animal will henceforth be limited not only by the Animal Protection Law but also by the principle enshrined in the Civil Law itself: the provisions governing rights in things apply only insofar as they are compatible with the nature of the animal. The legal question arising here concerns the status of animals in civil law and how that status coheres with the existing framework — Articles 932 and 933 of the Civil Law on the capture of wild animals, and the owner's duties under Article 5 of the Animal Protection Law.

Legal assessment

Article 932 of the Civil Law currently provides that animals in a wild state become the property of the person who captures or kills them, unless the law provides otherwise, and Article 933 governs the re-escape into freedom of a captured animal. The amendments do not repeal the substance of these provisions but impose above them a value-oriented norm: the life and welfare of an animal are values deserving of protection, and monetary valuation is not the sole measure. Article 5, Paragraph one, of the Animal Protection Law already grants the owner the power over the animal as established in the Civil Law, except in the cases specified in that law and other regulatory enactments — this is the bridge through which the new principle will be integrated into the existing system. The owner's duties in Article 5, Paragraph two, are specific: to care for the animal's health and welfare in accordance with its species, age and physiology, not to subject the animal to pain and suffering, and to ensure physical activity and sufficient keeping space. If the owner fails to perform these duties or commits the acts referred to in Article 4, Article 13, Paragraph three, of the Animal Protection Law allows officials to confiscate the animal, and Article 12, Paragraph two, does not exempt from liability to compensate for losses even where the person has been held administratively or criminally liable. If the owner is unable to perform the duties, Article 9, Paragraph three, provides for alienation to a person capable of performing them, transfer to a shelter, or killing in the prescribed manner. Supervision is carried out by the Food and Veterinary Service, while local governments, pursuant to Article 39, establish and maintain shelters and capture stray domestic (household) animals. The new provision means that a court, for example in a damages claim concerning an animal, will no longer be able to treat it merely as a thing whose value is the market price — the animal's welfare and sentient nature must also be taken into account.

Consequences

Animal owners and traders must bear in mind that ownership rights over an animal become conditional — confiscation under Article 13, Paragraph three, and alienation under Article 9, Paragraph three, are real consequences in cases of violations. For persons punished for cruelty to animals, the prohibition in Article 8, Paragraph two, on keeping an animal remains an absolute barrier irrespective of debates over civil-law status. For veterinarians, shelters and animal catchers, the change in status may alter the assessment of documentation and liability, since the animal is no longer a mere chattel but also an object carrying protectable values. In court proceedings concerning harm to animals, new patterns of claims may be expected, as the amendments to the Civil Law will change the scope of compensable harm and the criteria of assessment.

Under Article 22 of the Railway Law and points 4 and 5 of the construction regulations, the initiator of the construction submits to the State Railway Technical Inspection a construction application, the construction design, and an explanatory memorandum, while responsibility for the lawfulness of the process rests precisely with that Inspection.

Point 50 of the construction regulations requires the conditions of the work execution project concerning railway traffic safety to be coordinated with "Latvijas dzelzceļš" as the manager of the facility in operation.

Core issue

The reconstruction of the parking lot at Aizkraukle Station means that in the coming months drivers will have to observe temporary traffic and parking restrictions in the area, while the municipality must complete the facility by October of next year. The legal essence of the news lies less in traffic organisation than in the fact that the parking lot is being built adjacent to a railway infrastructure object and on the basis of a contract with "Latvijas dzelzceļš" (Latvian Railway); consequently, the construction is regulated not only by the Construction Law but also by the Railway Law and the Railway Construction Regulations (Cabinet Regulation No. 384 of 21 June 2022). The specific question is the procedure by which such construction is initiated, who coordinates it, and who supervises its lawfulness. Under Article 22 of the Railway Law, the procedure for the design and construction of railway infrastructure objects is determined by the Cabinet of Ministers, and that procedure is implemented by the aforementioned construction regulations. Article 21 of the Railway Law requires the construction of engineering structures and communications crossing railway tracks to be coordinated in the manner provided for in the railway construction regulations, which here applies to the new access connection to the A6 motorway.

Legal assessment

The initiator of the construction — in this case, the municipality that acquired the right to build under the contract — pursuant to points 4 and 5 of the construction regulations submits to the State Railway Technical Inspection a construction application, the construction design in its minimum required composition, and an explanatory memorandum. The construction design must also include documents evidencing rights to the land plot or documents confirming that the intention has been coordinated with the landowner and with the owner or lawful possessor of the railway infrastructure object (point 5.3 of the construction regulations). Point 16 of the construction regulations provides that the building permit must incorporate the technical conditions of the municipal building authority, the technical conditions of the relevant railway infrastructure manager concerning connection to the infrastructure, and — for third-group engineering structures — the expert examination of the construction design. Responsibility for supervising the construction process and its lawfulness rests with the State Railway Technical Inspection (point 2 of the construction regulations). During construction works, the conditions of the work execution project concerning railway traffic organisation and safety must be coordinated with the manager of the facility in operation, namely "Latvijas dzelzceļš" (point 50 of the construction regulations), and the work execution project must be attached in the construction information system (point 51). Point 9 of the first part of Article 4 of the Railway Law includes special access roads and pedestrian paths for passengers within railway infrastructure; therefore, the fenced-off pedestrian routes and the access connection are not free economic activity but a part of an infrastructure object subject to all of its regime requirements. The third part of Article 8 of the Railway Law prohibits the use of unregistered infrastructure; accordingly, after handover, the object must be entered in the state register and records. The municipality's call not to park cars on private territories is consistent with the Railway Law provisions on the railway land demarcation zone (Article 12, definition), within which unauthorised use is not permissible, and works carried out within the zone must not impair the quality of operation and traffic safety.

Consequences

In practical terms, during the construction works drivers must reckon with a reduced number of parking spaces and the operation of prohibition signs at the access road; parking beyond the sign creates a risk of administrative liability under the Road Traffic Regulations. For the municipality, the principal deadline is the commissioning of the facility by October of next year, and before that the procedure for an operational readiness opinion and acceptance must be carried out in accordance with point 1.8 of the construction regulations. Financially, the project relies on EUR 448,567.06 in European Regional Development Fund assistance and EUR 149,603.46 in municipal co-financing; therefore, a breach of the deadline may also affect the performance of the EU fund agreement. The infrastructure manager, "Latvijas dzelzceļš", must during the works monitor that the works do not reduce the safety of train movements, and it may request corrections to the work execution project. The next expected step is the State Railway Technical Inspection's supervision of the works during construction, followed by a decision on acceptance of the facility into operation.