Dispute Resolution practice news 2025

Plans to Change the Jurisdiction of the Economic Affairs Court

Amendments to the Civil Procedure Law and Criminal Procedure Law have been submitted to the Saeima (the Parliament of the Republic of Latvia), providing for changes to the jurisdiction of the Economic Affairs Court.

The amendments are justified by the fact that currently the majority of cases received by the Economic Affairs Court are criminal cases, more precisely, proceedings concerning criminally obtained property, which account for 50% of all cases received by the court. Civil cases, on the other hand, accounted for only 25%. As a result, the expertise of the Economic Affairs Court judges is not being fully used.

Until now, the Criminal Procedure Law provided that the Economic Affairs Court would hear a criminal case if a person was charged with several criminal offences, the most serious or one of the most serious criminal offences is subject to examination by the Economic Affairs Court, including if the most serious criminal offence corresponded to Article 195 of the Criminal Law (legalization of criminally obtained funds). Consequently, the Economic Affairs Court also heard criminal proceedings related to crimes against morality and sexual inviolability, the illegal circulation of narcotic and psychotropic substances, illegal hunting, etc., which do not fall within the expertise of the Economic Affairs Court.

The amendments provide for a narrowing of the jurisdiction of the Economic Affairs Court in criminal cases and an expansion of its jurisdiction in civil cases. It is planned that from  September 1, 2026, the Economic Affairs Court will also hear the following types of civil cases: 1) claims for the acquisition of shares or stock in a capital company; 2) claims for losses caused to a capital company by members of its board and council, procurators, founders, auditors and participants; 3) claims regarding the termination of a capital company’s activities; 4) claims by merchants regarding the payment of insurance compensation; 5) claims regarding the provision of information to members and shareholders; 6) claims arising from financial instruments; 7) claims arising from collective consumer claims.

However, from September 1, 2026, the Economic Affairs Court will only hear cases relating to Article 195 of the Criminal Law (laundering of criminally obtained funds) only if the criminal offence in question is related to certain criminal offences: the second or third part of Article 177 (fraud) of the Criminal Law, the second or third part of Article 178 (insurance fraud), the second or third part of Article 179 (misappropriation), the fourth part of Article 193 (illegal activities with financial instruments and means of payment) (except where means of payment specified in the second sentence of Article 1(38) of the Credit Institutions Act have been used in the criminal offence), Article 193(²⁾(illegal use of inside information and manipulation of financial markets), Article 199 (commercial bribery), Article 201 (usury), Article 206 (unlawful use of trademarks, other distinguishing marks and designs), Article 207 (business activities without registration and without a permit (license)), Article 208 (prohibited business activities), Article 213 (driving into insolvency), Article 217 (violation of accounting and statistical information rules), Article 217¹  (violation of wage regulations), Article 218 (evasion of taxes and similar payments) or Article 218¹  (reporting of a transaction that did not actually take place in a value added tax return).

The amendments also provide for transitional provisions, stipulating that civil cases filed with the court before the amendments on the extension of the jurisdiction of the Economic Affairs Court come into force shall continue to be examined by the court where the case was filed. Criminal cases in which court proceedings have been initiated in the Economic Affairs Court before the date of entry into force of the amendments shall continue to be examined by the Economic Affairs Court. In these cases, the decision appealed against shall be examined by the regional court in accordance with the general distribution procedure. Criminal cases received by the Economic Affairs Court before the date on which the amendments enter into force, but in which court proceedings have not been initiated in the Economic Affairs Court, shall be referred to the district (city) court for examination according to jurisdiction.

Latvia Prepares to Ratify the Protocol No.16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

On 4 September 2025, the Saeima (the Parliament of the Republic of Latvia) referred to committees for consideration a draft law “On Protocol No.16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”, which provides for Latvia’s accession to the said protocol.

Until now, Latvian courts have had the opportunity and, in certain cases, the obligation to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling in accordance with Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. However, until now, Latvian courts have not had the right to request an advisory opinion from the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or its protocols.

Accession to Protocol No.16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms will enable the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court (Senate) to request the European Court of Human Rights to provide an advisory opinion on important issues concerning the interpretation or application of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or its protocols.

When submitting a request to the European Court of Human Rights, the court will have to state the grounds and provide information on the legal and factual circumstances of the case under consideration. The panel of five judges of the European Court of Human Rights will then decide whether to accept the request for an advisory opinion.

Advisory opinions will be reasoned. However, if the advisory opinion does not reflect the unanimous opinion of all judges, any judge will be entitled to add his or her separate opinion to the opinion. Advisory opinions will be published.

It should be noted that Protocol No.16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms provides that advisory opinions are not binding. At the same time, it cannot be denied that an opinion issued by the European Court of Human Rights would be considered valuable material for adjudicating cases at the national level, thereby accelerating the fair resolution of cases.

Amendments to the Constitutional Court Law Adopted in the First Reading

On 5 June 2025, the Saeima (the Parliament of the Republic of Latvia) adopted amendments to the Constitutional Court Law in the first reading.

The amendments provide for the possibility for persons who have been confirmed as judges of the Constitutional Court and previously appointed to the position of prosecutor to return to an equivalent position as a prosecutor after the expiry of their term of office as a judge of the Constitutional Court, as well as the right to a prosecutor’s service pension.

The amendments also include several procedural issues that the Constitutional Court had previously regulated through decisions in procedural hearings. For example, the amendments provide for the inclusion in the Constitutional Court Law of the Constitutional Court’s obligation to suspend proceedings if it decides to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the interpretation or validity of a European Union legal norm or to refer a question to an international court. Similarly, the Constitutional Court will suspend proceedings in a case if it is not possible until the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union or the international court, adopted in order to provide answers to the questions posed by the Constitutional Court in another case pending before the Constitutional Court in preliminary ruling proceedings, has entered into force.

Currently, the Constitutional Court Law stipulates that when examining a constitutional complaint (application), i.e. a complaint that may be submitted by any person who considers that their fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution are infringed by a legal norm that does not comply with a legal norm of higher legal force, the panel may refuse to initiate proceedings even in cases where the legal grounds contained in the complaint are clearly insufficient to satisfy the claim. In the case of other applicants, for example, if the application is submitted by at least twenty members of the Saeima (the Parliament of the Republic of Latvia), when the legal basis contained in the application is clearly insufficient to satisfy the claim, the Constitutional Court panel is not entitled to refuse to initiate proceedings on that basis. Consequently, the amendments provide that this ground for refusal may also be applied to other types of applications.