Article 20 of the Law on Scientific Activity provides that the rights and duties of the LAS are determined by its Charter, which is approved by the Saeima — it is precisely in the Charter that the answer must be sought as to whether the President may unilaterally send a letter as an LAS document.
Article 10 of the Law on Scientific Activity assigns to the Council of Latvian Science the task of establishing research ethics principles in cooperation with the LAS; therefore the Academy's conduct in this matter must also be assessed against its own participation in ethics regulation.
The President of the Latvian Academy of Sciences, in this situation, acts not as a private individual but as the head of a person that the law declares a derived public-law entity with autonomous competence — therefore the question of whether his letter was an LAS document or a personal opinion is not merely an ethical but a legal question of representation and accountability. The practical situation: the granting of citizenship has already been revoked by the Saeima's law of 22 October, so further consequences will primarily affect the LAS itself — its reputation, its internal accountability procedures, and its role in shaping research ethics principles. The direct legal question is under what document the LAS President acts and which institution evaluates his conduct. Article 20 of the Law on Scientific Activity provides that the rights and duties of the LAS are determined by its Charter, this law and other laws, as well as its statutes, and the Charter is approved by the Saeima — it is precisely in the Charter that the answer must be sought as to whether the President may unilaterally execute and send a letter as an LAS document, and in what procedure he reports to the General Assembly. Kalviņš's statement that he would "act in accordance with the decision of the LAS General Assembly" relates to this internal division of competence. A second question concerns the role of academic integrity and verification of scientific qualifications. Article 10 of the Law on Scientific Activity additionally assigns to the Council of Latvian Science, together with the LAS, the function of "determining the principles of research ethics and scientific discussion in cooperation with the Latvian Academy of Sciences"; therefore the LAS's conduct in this story must also be assessed against the Academy's own participation in ethics regulation.
The parties' duties and competence are distributed as follows:
Realistic scenarios:
Article 24(1)(3) of the Citizenship Law permits deprivation where a person, in declaring belonging to the citizenry, has knowingly provided false information or concealed facts concerning the conditions of acquisition, and this has been established by a court judgment.
The Saeima's annulment law operates ex tunc — citizenship granted on 15 October is deemed never to have been acquired, and Vishwanatha is legally restored to the status of an Indian citizen.
Divjai Vishwanathai, whom the Saeima admitted to citizenship on 15 October for exceptional merits, no longer holds that citizenship — on 22 October the Saeima urgently annulled its decision with retroactive effect. It is important for the reader to understand: this is not deprivation of citizenship under Article 24, but the annulment of a legislative act from the moment of its adoption; therefore, Vishwanatha is legally restored to the position that existed before 15 October — that of an Indian citizen without Latvian citizenship. Such annulment is possible because admission to citizenship for exceptional merits is granted by a Saeima decision, which constitutes a legislative act, and the legislature may declare it void. The direct legal questions are twofold. First, whether the ground for granting citizenship — exceptional merits to Latvia — was genuine, given that documents concerning scientific qualifications and publications have been called into question; this is assessed under Article 13(1) of the Citizenship Law, which permits admission for exceptional merits only for a person who has no right to naturalise under the general procedure and who has genuinely rendered exceptional merits. Second, what the procedure is when the ground for granting proves to be false — here two paths compete: annulment by the Saeima through a new law, or deprivation under Article 24(1)(3) of the Citizenship Law, which provides for deprivation of a person who, in declaring belonging to the citizenry or in naturalising, has knowingly provided false information or concealed facts concerning the conditions of acquisition.
Article 13 of the Citizenship Law structures the grant of citizenship for exceptional merits as an individual legislative act: the person submits to the Saeima an application with an autobiography and a declaration that there are no facts indicating the application of the restrictions set out in Article 11, and the Saeima decision is published in "Latvijas Vēstnesis". The provisions of Article 12 do not apply to such a person (except for Article 12(1)(7)), and dual citizenship may arise — hence, for Vishwanatha as an Indian citizen, dual citizenship was not an obstacle. The committee's annotation stated that the responsible authorities had no information concerning circumstances that, under the Citizenship Law, would bar citizenship — meaning that verification of the authenticity of the documents in fact relied on the information provided by the applicant and by those supporting the application (in this case, the President of the Latvian Academy of Sciences). The annulment mechanism used by the Saeima is not the deprivation procedure under Article 24. Article 24 permits deprivation where a person has knowingly provided false information or concealed facts concerning the conditions of acquiring citizenship, and this has been established by a court judgment, and only where the person would not become stateless; the decision is adopted by the responsible institution in the procedure prescribed by the Cabinet of Ministers, and contestation or appeal by the person under the Administrative Procedure Law does not suspend the operation of the decision. By contrast, the Saeima chose the legislative route — a new law declaring the previous one void from the moment of its adoption. In such a procedure no court judgment on the provision of false information is required, and the annulment operates ex tunc: the citizenship is deemed never to have been acquired. The practical difference is significant: under the Article 24 procedure a person could contest and appeal the decision, whereas against a law annulling a previous law, the Citizenship Law provides no individual contestation mechanism. Vishwanatha's position after the annulment is determined by the fact that she acquired Latvian citizenship solely by the annulled act — she cannot rely on the principle of equal rights of citizens under Article 4, as she is not a citizen. Her Indian citizenship remained unaffected, since admission to citizenship for exceptional merits did not require renunciation of the previous citizenship, and the annulment therefore does not leave her stateless. Nor do these developments affect the status of her spouse and family members — this is consistent with the logic of Article 24(2), that the loss of citizenship does not affect the citizenship of a spouse, children, or other family members.
The practical consequences are distributed across several subjects:
Article 13(1) of the Citizenship Law provides that a person with special merit to Latvia is granted citizenship by a Saeima decision published in "Latvijas Vēstnesis".
If this were a matter of deprivation under Article 24(1)(3), the ten-year period under Article 24(3) from the acquisition of citizenship would also apply.
Divjas Kananas Višvanatai, whose citizenship was granted by a Saeima decision on 15 October, is most likely deemed never to have held it — the law recognising it has been repealed ab initio, so she legally reverts to the status of a foreign national. Such a "retroactive" repeal mechanism is not provided for in the Citizenship Law itself: the law is an act of the Saeima's free discretion, by which parliament corrects its earlier expression of will. Two questions arise: whether the Saeima may revoke its decision on the grant of citizenship for special merit, and what further mechanisms exist if she has already exercised the rights of a citizen. The key provision is Article 13 of the Citizenship Law — the grant of citizenship for special merit is effected "by a Saeima decision", and logically this means that revocation likewise occurs by a Saeima decision, not by an order of the responsible institution.
Article 13(2) provides that the person submits to the Saeima an application, an autobiography, and a declaration that no facts exist indicating the presence of a naturalisation impediment. It is precisely the assessment of the completeness of this declaration that is the reason for doubt cited in the annotation of Jaunā Vienotība — the Saeima relied on incomplete information as the basis of its decision. The Saeima's competence in this procedure is exceptional in character: the decision is not an administrative act that may be appealed under the Administrative Procedure Law, so the only corrective mechanism is the parliament's own action — which is what occurred, through the adoption of the alternative bill prepared by the Legal Affairs Committee. It is essential to distinguish three different instruments:
| Instrument | To whom it applies | Who decides | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grant for merit (Art. 13) | A person without eligibility for naturalisation | Saeima | |
| Deprivation of citizenship (Art. 24) | A person who has acquired another citizenship without Cabinet permission or has provided false information | Responsible institution or court | |
| Loss of citizenship (Art. 22) | Renunciation or deprivation | — | If this were a matter of deprivation under Article 24(1)(3) (knowingly false information when declaring allegiance upon acquiring citizenship or naturalising), the ten-year period under Article 24(3) from the acquisition of citizenship would also apply. However, in Višvanata's case this mechanism does not fit: she acquired citizenship not by naturalisation but by way of a Saeima decision, and the revocation was effected by a new law, not through a deprivation procedure. |
The practical consequences for Višvanata are that she is legally a foreign national, and must therefore reckon with the standard status of a foreigner in Latvia: a residence permit, lawful grounds for employment, rather than the rights of a citizen. If she ever wished to obtain citizenship again, she would have to follow the naturalisation route with all its requirements — proficiency in the language, history and anthem, a lawful source of income, and a promise of allegiance to the Republic of Latvia (Articles 11 and 12 of the Citizenship Law). For the company SIA "Dr. Vishys", the change of status does not materially affect commercial matters, but may affect the context of public support and cooperation with the LZA. The political dimension — the Saeima's precision in future decisions on merit-based citizenship — will apply to all future candidates under Article 13. The Saeima decision will be published in the official gazette "Latvijas Vēstnesis", and from that moment the non-existence of the repealed law becomes legally irrefutable; if Višvanata or third parties consider their rights affected, they must apply to the Constitutional Court with an appropriate application for review of the norms of the new law.
Article 14(1), point 3: citizenship is revoked from a person who, in attesting membership of the Latvian citizenry, has knowingly provided false information or concealed facts concerning the conditions for acquisition, and the 10-year time limit is set in Article 14(3).
The Saeima's decision of 15 October granting Latvian citizenship to Divjai Kananai Višvanatai has been repealed, thereby revoking the acquisition of citizenship; the person reverts to the previous legal status — that of a foreign national, with all the attendant rights of residence and activity in Latvia, irrespective of the repealed law. The factual event is singular: the Saeima adopted a law on the granting of citizenship for special merits, but repealed it following public reaction and the reaction of the President of the State. The legal question arising is twofold — whether the repealed law leaves no effects, and whether a person who acquired citizenship using false documents faces revocation of citizenship. The procedure is governed by Article 13 of the Citizenship Law, while the grounds for revocation are regulated by Article 14 of the Law.
Naturalisation for special merits to the benefit of Latvia is governed by Article 13 of the Citizenship Law, which requires:
Notably, Article 13 provides neither deadlines for the granting nor any obligation on state institutions to verify in advance the actual substance of the special merits — the decision is political, and its justification remains within the sphere of the Saeima's responsibility. From this follows the criticism concerning the expedited procedure: the law contains no requirement to verify the authenticity of documents, which means that such a requirement was not a duty of the state administration, but a diligence imposed by the Saeima on itself. The sources do not reveal the legal mechanism of the repeal, and any analysis of it would be speculation. Accordingly, the applicable forward-looking regulation in this case is Article 14 — Article 14(1), point 3, provides that citizenship shall be revoked from a person who "in attesting membership of the Latvian citizenry or in naturalising, has knowingly provided false information or concealed facts relating to the conditions for the acquisition or renewal of Latvian citizenship". If false documents were found to have been used in the adoption of the repealed law, this provision could be applicable — should the person wish to re-acquire citizenship in any procedure, the provision of false information would become a ground for revocation of citizenship by court judgment. Application of
to this situation:
prospective position of the person:
possible adverse consequences for the person:
involvement of the state administration:
the practical problem: the sources contain no indication that citizenship granted under the Article 13 procedure may be revoked by court judgment or decision of an institution; the repeal thus occurred by a new legislative act of the Saeima, and its legal basis must be assessed at the constitutional level.
Realistic further scenarios:
Section 41(5.3) requires that, where the mark is included in sponsorship announcements, a clearly legible notice stating that gambling is permitted only for persons aged 18 and over must be placed alongside it, together with information on the self-exclusion mechanism.
If the State Revenue Service finds that the announcement does not fall within the exception of Section 41(5.1), the consequence is a fine on the legal entity of 100 to 1,400 fine units, and repeated violations may constitute grounds for revocation of the licence.
An advertisement for the "Laimz" online casino displayed in central Riga, with fine-print reference to the sponsorship of an athlete at the Jūrmala cycling marathon, comes close to the boundary of Section 41(5) of the Gambling and Lotteries Law, which prohibits the advertising of gambling venues outside those venues. However, Section 41(5.1) does not extend this prohibition to a registered figurative trademark of a toto and betting organiser licensed in Latvia, and point 4 of Section 41(5.1) expressly permits it in sponsorship announcements concerning sports organisations and adult athletes, disseminated in connection with the specific sports event. The legal question is whether the particular visual design satisfies the conditions of the exception — registration of the trademark, content restrictions, and the mandatory warning requirement. The analysis rests on Section 41 (subsections 5, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3) of the Gambling and Lotteries Law and, if the advertisement qualifies as a sponsored programme, also on Section 2(4) of the Electronic Media Law. Supervision is carried out by the State Revenue Service.
The exception operates only where several conditions are cumulatively met:
In practice, the content of the visual composition is decisive. If the dominant image is the casino's visual identity and the sports reference is barely discernible, the State Revenue Service may assess whether this exceeds the "indication of a registered trademark" and amounts in substance to gambling advertising. The Consumer Rights Protection Centre's assessment that no prima facie signs of a violation exist rests on the fact that the registered trademark "laimz" was used in connection with a sports event and an athlete. Section 2(4) of the Electronic Media Law provides that a gambling organiser may not sponsor programmes, even though a sponsorship announcement concerning a sports event is permitted under Section 41(5.1). The context is further shaped by point 24 of the Regulations on the Register of Self-Excluded Persons, which obliges the organiser to provide information on the risk of gambling addiction and on the right to request self-exclusion.
If the State Revenue Service finds that the announcement does not fall within the exception of Section 41(5.1) or breaches the requirements of subsections 5.2 or 5.3, the consequence is administrative liability for the legal entity. Section 76(5) of the Gambling and Lotteries Law provides for a fine on a legal entity of 100 to 1,400 fine units, and Section 76(7) sanctions unauthorised organisation of gambling to a similar extent. Additional risks for the organiser: