Country report : non-discrimination : Latvia 2017.
Date: 2017-10-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
Subjects: Latvia, age discrimination, anti-discriminatory measure, discrimination based on disability, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, equal treatment, ethnic discrimination, national law, religious discrimination, report, sexual discrimination, social policy

Latvia 

2017 

Including summaries in 
English, French and 
German 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 
Directorate D — Non-discrimination and Roma coordination 
Unit JUST/D1 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Country report  

Non-discrimination 

Latvia 

Anhelita Kamenska 

Reporting period 1 January 2016 – 31 December 2016 

2017 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-79-68849-2   

doi:10.2838/09809 

DS-04-17-463-3A-N 

© European Union, 2017 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Latvia – 2017 

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 5 
RÉSUMÉ ............................................................................................................ 12 
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG ........................................................................................ 20 
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 28 
GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................. 30 
1 
THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION .................................................... 33 
2 
2.1  Grounds of unlawful discrimination explicitly covered ................................ 33 

2.1.1  Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the 

directives ................................................................................. 33 
2.1.2  Multiple discrimination ............................................................... 35 
Assumed and associated discrimination ....................................... 35 
2.1.3 
2.2  Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) ...................................................... 36 
2.2.1 
Situation testing ....................................................................... 37 
Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) ................................................... 38 
Statistical evidence ................................................................... 39 
2.3.1 
2.4  Harassment (Article 2(3)) ...................................................................... 41 
2.5 
Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) ................................................ 42 
2.6  Reasonable accommodation duties (Article 2(2)(b)(ii) and Article 5 Directive 

2.3 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 43 
PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE ............................................................ 48 
3.1  Personal scope ..................................................................................... 48 

3.1.1 

EU and non-EU nationals (Recital 13 and Article 3(2) Directive 
2000/43 and Recital 12 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/78) ........... 48 
3.1.2  Natural and legal persons (Recital 16 Directive 2000/43) ............... 48 
Private and public sector including public bodies (Article 3(1)) ........ 49 
3.1.3 
3.2  Material scope ...................................................................................... 49 
Employment, self-employment and occupation ............................. 49 

3.2.1 
3.2.2  Conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to 

3.2.3 

3.2.4 

occupation, including selection criteria, recruitment conditions and 
promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the 
professional hierarchy (Article 3(1)(a)) ........................................ 50 
Employment and working conditions, including pay and dismissals 
(Article 3(1)(c)) ........................................................................ 50 
Access to all types and to all levels of vocational guidance, vocational 
training, advanced vocational training and retraining, including 
practical work experience (Article 3(1)(b)) ................................... 51 

3.2.5  Membership of, and involvement in, an organisation of workers or 

3.2.6 

employers, or any organisation whose members carry on a particular 
profession, including the benefits provided for by such organisations 
(Article 3(1)(d)) ........................................................................ 52 
Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 
3(1)(e) Directive 2000/43) ......................................................... 53 
Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43) .................... 53 
Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43) ............................... 54 
Access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the 
public (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) .................................... 56 
3.2.10  Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) ................................. 57 
EXCEPTIONS ............................................................................................. 59 
4.1  Genuine and determining occupational requirements (Article 4) .................. 59 
4.2  Employers with an ethos based on religion or belief (Article 4(2) Directive 

3.2.7 
3.2.8 
3.2.9 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 59 

4.3  Armed forces and other specific occupations (Article 3(4) and Recital 18 

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 60 
4.4  Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) ................................................... 60 
4.5  Work-related family benefits (Recital 22 Directive 2000/78) ....................... 62 

3 

3 

4 

 
 
4.6  Health and safety (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78) .................................... 63 
4.7  Exceptions related to discrimination on the ground of age (Article 6 Directive 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 63 
4.7.1  Direct discrimination ................................................................. 63 
4.7.2 

Special conditions for young people, older workers and persons with 
caring responsibilities ................................................................ 64 
4.7.3  Minimum and maximum age requirements ................................... 64 
4.7.4  Retirement ............................................................................... 65 
4.7.5  Redundancy ............................................................................. 67 
4.8  Public security, public order, criminal offences, protection of health, protection 
of the rights and freedoms of others (Article 2(5), Directive 2000/78) ......... 68 
4.9  Any other exceptions ............................................................................. 68 
POSITIVE ACTION (Article 5 Directive 2000/43, Article 7 Directive 
2000/78) .................................................................................................. 69 
REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT ................................................................. 71 
6.1 
Judicial and/or administrative procedures (Article 7 Directive 2000/43, Article 
9 Directive 2000/78) ............................................................................. 71 

6.2  Legal standing and associations (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/43, Article 9(2) 

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 74 
6.3  Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78).. 76 
6.4  Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) ...... 78 
6.5  Sanctions and remedies (Article 15 Directive 2000/43, Article 17 Directive 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 79 

5 

6 

7 

8 

BODIES FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUAL TREATMENT (Article 13 Directive 
2000/43) .................................................................................................. 84 
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES........................................................................ 90 
8.1  Dissemination of information, dialogue with NGOs and between social partners
 .......................................................................................................... 90 
8.2  Compliance (Article 14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78)...... 91 
COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL ....................................................... 93 
9 
10  CURRENT BEST PRACTICES ....................................................................... 95 
11  SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES .................................................. 96 
11.1  Potential breaches of the directives (if any) .............................................. 96 
11.2  Other issues of concern ......................................................................... 96 
12  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2016 .............................................................. 97 
12.1  Legislative amendments ........................................................................ 97 
12.2  Case law .............................................................................................. 97 
ANNEX 1: TABLE OF KEY NATIONAL ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION ..... 99 
ANNEX 2: TABLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ..................................... 102 

4 

 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  

1. Introduction 

Latvia  is  a  multi-ethnic  country,  although  the  proportion  of  the  different  ethnic  groups 
among its population has varied. Ethnic origin is recorded in the population register. It is 
based on the ethnicity of either of a person’s parents and can be changed upon reaching 
the age of majority by choosing the ethnicity of any grandparents. The entry  of ethnicity 
in  passports  is  optional.  In  2011,  of  a  population  of  2 067 887,  62.1 %  were  Latvians, 
26.9 % Russians, 3.3 % Belarusians, 2.2 % Ukrainians, 2.2 % Poles; 1.2 % Lithuanians, 
0.3 % Jewish, 0.1 % Estonians, 0.3 % Roma, 0.1 % Germans, and 1.3 % others.1  

Latvian citizens number 1 804 392 or 84.1 % of the population; of these, ethnic Latvians 
constitute 71.1 %, while the remaining citizens are representatives of different minorities. 
11.8 % or 252 017 inhabitants are non-citizens,2 of which ethnic Russians are the largest 
group.  Therefore,  issues  relating  to  non-citizens  are  often  treated  as  mainly  concerning 
Russians  or  Russian-speakers,  and  the  rights  of  citizens  and  non-citizens,  as  well  as 
linguistic issues, remain sensitive. There are 73 863 third country nationals, of which the 
largest  group  are  citizens  of  Russia  (55 440),  followed  by  Ukrainians  (6 442),  and 
Belarusians (3 034).3 

The Roma population in Latvia is relatively small, at 7 645 (2015),4 although it is higher 
according to data from Roma associations.5 In a 2015 survey, 82.3 % of Roma alleged that 
they  or  their  relatives  had  been  refused  work  due  to  their  ethnic  origin.6  There  are  no 
longer separate Roma classes in Latvia in 2016. Nevertheless, the share of Roma children 
attending  special  schools  –  34 %  in  2016/2017–  is  disproportionally  high,  and  has 
increased by 7 % compared to 2013/2014.7  

According to the study ‘Attitude towards the Elderly and their Discrimination on the Latvian 
Labour Market’, people over 40-45 experience discrimination because of their age in the 
Latvian labour market. The difficulties of disabled persons in finding employment are also 
common knowledge, although there are no sufficiently representative studies to confirm 
this. 

There  have  been  no  recent  relevant  studies  or  reports  regarding  ethnic  minorities  or 
discrimination on the ground of racial or ethnic origin. The most recent study was published 
in  2010:  ‘Ethnic  Minorities  in  the  Latvian  Labour  Market,  1997–2009:  Outcomes, 
Integration Drivers and Barriers’.  

1   2011 Population Census. 
2   Non-citizens are a special category of people - former USSR citizens who were resident in Latvia on 1 July 
1991 and who have not obtained citizenship of any other country, thus this term does not encompass 
foreign citizens and stateless persons. Data concerning citizenship are as of 01.01.2015. 

3  Data concerning citizenship are as of 01.01.2015. 
4   Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs, Statistics of the Population Register (01.01.2016) Latvian 

population breakdown by nationality and ethnic affiliation, available at: 
http://www.pmlp.gov.lv/lv/assets/documents/statistika/IRD2016/ISVN_Latvija_pec_TTB_VPD.pdf. 

5   Latvijas Fakti Market and Social Research Centre (2015). Roma in Latvia (Romi Latvijā). p 44. The research 

was conducted under the project ‘Different people. Diverse experience. One Latvia II’, No. 
JUST/2013/PROG/AG/4978/AD, p.5. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/files/summaries_selected_2013_ag_prog_ad_en.pdf. 

6   Tirgus un sociālo pētījumu centrs “Latvijas Fakti” (2015). Romi Latvijā. Pētījuma ziņojums 2015, p. 61, in 

Latvian at file 
https://www.km.gov.lv/uploads/ckeditor/files/Sabiedribas_integracija/Romi/Papildu/romi_latvija_petijums_
LV.pdf. 

7   Ministry of Culture (2014) Informative Report on the Implementation of Roma Integration Policy Measures 

(Informatīvais ziņojums par romu integrācijas politikas pasākumu īstenošanu Latvijā), 12. lpp, at 
https://www.km.gov.lv/uploads/ckeditor/files/Sabiedribas_integracija/Romi/Dokumenti/Info-
zinojumi2014_230315.pdf. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
There is little documented evidence about the difficulties encountered by sexual minorities, 
most  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  many  of  them  are  forced  to  conceal  their  sexual 
orientation as a result of the negative attitudes commonly found in Latvian society.  

The  only  consultations  with  NGOs  taking  place  on  a  regular  basis  are  those  addressing 
issues of disability and gender. While  a framework for dialogue with social partners also 
exists, the issue  of discrimination  has still only been addressed to  a limited extent,  and 
mostly on gender issues. There is very little public debate, and it has largely concentrated 
on issues of Russian-speakers and related issues, as well as in connection with Gay Pride 
events – the sexual orientation issue.  

Since  the  transposition  of  the  anti-discrimination  directives  and  the  closure  of  the 
Secretariat of the Special Assignments Minister for Integration Affairs, there has been no 
national authority co-ordinating issues related to non-discrimination.  

The only group that is being specifically targeted to some extent is that of disabled people, 
where the law is attempting to provide some financial incentive to employers to employ 
them. There is no provision on possible positive action anywhere in Latvian legislation. 

2. Main legislation 

The  cornerstone  of  the  prohibition  of  discrimination  is  Article  91  of  the  Latvian 
Constitution,8  which  provides,  inter  alia,  that  human  rights  shall  be  observed  without 
discrimination of any kind. Thus, the Constitution outlaws all discrimination, but does not 
expressly  state  the  grounds  on  which  discrimination  is  prohibited.  The  Constitution  is 
regarded as having direct effect, that is, it directly binds all public bodies, but it does not 
have horizontal effect. This means that, while discrimination is illegal in the public sector 
even without any further laws, which are thus only needed to provide for sanctions and 
the  enforcement  of  the  principle  of  non-discrimination,  in  the  private  sector  the 
introduction  of  special  laws  to  outlaw  discrimination  is  essential.  The  same  applies  to 
international treaties: the treaties binding on Latvia only bind public bodies.  

Apart  from  Protocol  No.  12  to  the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights,9  which  the 
country  has  signed  but  not  ratified  yet,  Latvia  is  a  party  to  most  of  the  important 
international  agreements  relevant  for  counteracting  discrimination,  such  as  the 
International  Covenant  on  Civil  and  Political  Rights,10  the  Optional  Protocol  to  the 
Covenant,11  the  Covenant  on  Economic,  Social  and  Cultural  Rights,12  the  Convention  on 
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,13 the Framework Convention on the 
Protection  of  National  Minorities,14  the  Convention  of  the  Rights  of  the  Child,15  the  UN 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,16 and the Revised European Social 
Charter.17 The Latvian Government has not recognised the competence of the Committee 
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, however. These ratified instruments constitute 

8   Latvia, Constitution (Satversme), 15.02.1922.  
9   Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as 

amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 04.11.1950, ETS 5. 

10   UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16.12.1966, United Nations, 

Treaty Series, vol. 999. 

11   UN General Assembly, Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 

19.12.1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999. 

12   UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16.12.1966, United 

Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 993. 

13   UN General Assembly, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 

21.12.1965, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 660. 

14   Council of Europe, Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, 01.02.1995, ETS 157. 
15   UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, United Nations, Treaty 

Series, vol. 1577. 

16   UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: resolution / adopted by the 

General Assembly, 24.01.2007, A/RES/61/106. 

17   Council of Europe, European Social Charter (Revised), 03.05.1996, ETS 163. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
part of the domestic legal order, having been promulgated in the Official Journal, and they 
can  be  applied  directly  by  domestic  courts,  unless  their  application  depends  on  the 
enactment of a statute. 

Anti-discrimination law is fragmented in Latvia: there is no one single comprehensive law. 
However, coverage has improved due to the adoption of amendments to existing laws. The 
main  problem  is  that,  since  discrimination  is  not  outlawed  in  the  private  sector  unless 
expressly provided for by statute and, even though it is outlawed in the public sector due 
to  the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution,  the  absence  of  a  specific  implementing  law 
considerably complicates enforcement of the prohibition. 

The most comprehensive prohibition is found in the Labour Law18 adopted in 2001, which 
was  subsequently  amended  to  address  the  remaining  gaps.  This  law  prohibits 
discrimination in the employment relationships that it covers and, since November 2006, 
its non-discrimination provisions have applied to state civil service relationships.  

The  Labour  Law  and  the  Law  on  the  Prohibition  of  Discrimination  of  Natural  Persons-
Economic  Operators19  are  the  only  laws  to  include  sexual  orientation  as  a  prohibited 
ground. The Labour Law, the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination of Natural Persons-
Economic Operators, the Law on Social Security20 and the Consumer Rights Protection Law, 
are  the  four  laws  that  expressly  refer  to  disability.  The  four  laws  that  refer  to  age  as  a 
prohibited ground of discrimination include the Labour Law, the Law on the Prohibition of 
Discrimination of Natural Persons-Economic Operators, the Law on Social Security and the 
Law on Patients’ Rights. 

A number of other laws contain non-discrimination clauses with exhaustive or open lists of 
prohibited grounds of discrimination, which never include all the grounds covered by the 
directives. The Law on Education contains a closed list limited to ‘property and social status, 
race,  ethnicity,  gender,  religious  or  political  opinions,  health  condition,  occupation  and 
place of residence’. Some laws do not contain any anti-discrimination clauses, for example 
the Law on Housing, although housing issues come under the amended Consumer Rights 
Protection Law.  

Criminal  Law  prohibits  hate  crimes/incitement  to  hatred  on  grounds  of  gender,  age, 
disability  and  other  circumstances,  along  with  the  prohibition  of  racially  and  religiously 
motivated crimes.21 Sexual orientation is not expressly mentioned.  

The main problem with Latvian anti-discrimination legislation is the patchy nature of the 
regulations, from which most other problems arise. Generally, all of the required fields are 
covered, although within those fields not all of the required grounds are covered. 

3. Main principles and definitions 

The Labour Law, the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination of Natural Persons-Economic 
Operators, the Law on Social Security,22 the Law on Support to Unemployed Persons and 
Job Seekers23 and the Consumer Rights Protection Law24 contain definitions of direct and 
indirect discrimination and harassment which comply with the directives; they also prohibit 
instruction to discriminate. Protection against victimisation exists in the framework of the 
Labour  Law,  the  Consumer  Rights  Protection  Law,  the  Law  on  Support  to  Unemployed 

18   Latvia, Labour Law (Darba likums), 12.06.2001.  
19   Latvia, Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination of Natural Persons-Economic Operators (Fizisko personu – 

saimnieciskās darbības veicēju diskriminācijas aizlieguma likums), 19.12.2012.  

20   Latvia, Law on Social Security (likums ‘Par sociālo drošību’), 07.09.1995.  
21   Latvia, Criminal Law (Krimināllikums), 17.06.1998. 
22   The old definition of indirect discrimination narrowing to comparable situations remains in the law.  
23   Latvia, Law on Support to Unemployed Persons and Job Seekers (Bezdarbnieku un darba meklētāju atbalsta 

likums), 09.05.2002.  

24   Latvia, Consumer Rights Protection Law (Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības likums), 18.03.1999.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Persons  and  Job  Seekers,  the  Law  on  Social  Security,  the  Law  on  the  Prohibition  of 
Discrimination  of  Natural  Persons-Economic  Operators  and  the  Education  Law,25  and  in 
connection with complaints to the Ombudsman’s Office.  

The law is silent on the issue of discrimination by association or on presumed grounds or 
characteristics; the wording of the anti-discrimination provisions in Latvian laws referring 
to a person’s (meaning the person who is invoking the provision) race, religious conviction 
etc.  certainly make it easier to address discrimination based on assumed characteristics 
than based on association. However, in the absence of relevant case law testing these two 
issues, the only thing that can be said with certainty is that the law contains no express 
prohibitions.  

The grounds for discrimination are not defined either in the Labour Law or elsewhere, and 
there is concern that disability might be interpreted narrowly compared with under the UN 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, using the technical meaning of this 
term,  i.e.  relying  on  formal  recognition  of  a  person’s  diminished  ability  to  work  and 
excluding de facto disability. 

The  Labour  Law  is  the  only  law  providing  for  justification  of  differential  treatment  on 
different grounds in relation to genuine occupational requirement. 

Provisions relating to exceptions in other laws (‘differential treatment associated with any 
of  the  grounds  shall  only  be  acceptable  in  such  cases  if  such  treatment  is  objectively 
justified with a legitimate purpose, for the achievement of which the selected means are 
proportionate’)  such  as  the  Law  on  Social  Security,  the  Law  on  the  Prohibition  of 
Discrimination of Natural Persons-Economic Operators, the Law on Support to Unemployed 
Persons and Job Seekers, the Education Law and the Consumer Rights Protection Law do 
not distinguish between direct and indirect discrimination, nor do they distinguish between 
the  grounds  covered  by  the  directives  and  other  grounds  for  differential  treatment.  The 
amendments to the laws concerning discrimination (including direct discrimination) have 
been  adopted  with  the  purpose  of  transposing  the  directives  into  national  law  but,  in 
separate instances, they lack sufficient precision. In such cases it remains for the courts 
to consult the text of the directives. Additionally, the Labour Law provides for an exemption 
for employment by religious organisations, which, on the face of it, is broader than the one 
provided for by the directive. The Labour Law sets out the obligation of the employer to 
provide  reasonable  accommodation  for  disabled  people.  There  are  no  rules  on  multiple 
discrimination. 

4. Material scope 

The  Labour  Law  provides  protection  against  all  forms  of  discrimination  (direct,  indirect, 
harassment,  instruction  to  discriminate  and  victimisation)  in  all  aspects  of  employment 
relationships  and  in  both  the  public  and  private  sectors,  including  state  civil  service 
relationships  (but  excluding  military  service)  and  contract  work  carried  out  by  self-
employed  persons.  This  includes  the  establishment  of  such  relationships  and  concerns, 
inter alia, gender, race, age, disability, religion and sexual orientation.26 

Access to vocational guidance and training, as well as issues of education in both the public 
and private sectors, are covered by the Labour Law, which refers to ‘occupational training’, 
and by the Law on Education,27 which also applies to both the public and private sectors. 
The problem with the latter law, however, is that it contains an exhaustive list of grounds 
which  does  not  include  age,  disability  (although  it  could  be  argued  that  this  can  be 

25   Latvia, Education Law (Izglītības likums), 29.09.1998.  
26   The complete list includes ‘race, skin colour, age, disability, religious, political or other conviction, national 

or social origin, property or marital status, sexual orientation or other circumstances’. 

27   Listing ‘property and social status, race, ethnicity, gender, religious or political opinions, health condition, 

occupation and place of residence’ as prohibited grounds. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
subsumed under the ‘health’ heading) or sexual orientation. Education and training could 
also come under the Consumer Rights Protection Law, but the list of its prohibited grounds 
is limited to gender, race, ethnic origin and disability. The Law on Support to Unemployed 
Persons and Job Seekers, which covers retraining, prohibits discrimination on the grounds 
of gender, race and ethnic origin. 

The  respective  laws  on  membership  of  and  involvement  in  organisations  of  workers  or 
employers  or  in  professional  organisations  do  not  always  contain  anti-discrimination 
clauses; whereas the provisions of the Labour Law apply in relation to the first of these 
two, professional organisations remain problematic and are not covered. The field of social 
protection,  including  social  security  and  healthcare,  is  covered  by  the  Law  on  Social 
Security, which lists age and disability,28 although it does not contain express reference to 
sexual  orientation.  This  law  defines  social  services  as  those  provided  by  the  state  or 
municipality, hence it does not apply to the private sector. 

Access to goods and services is covered by the Consumer Rights Protection Law. Its list of 
prohibited  grounds  is  limited  to  gender,  race,  ethnic  origin  and  disability,  which  is  not 
contrary to the directives as such.  

5. Enforcing the law 

There are a number of legal avenues for addressing cases of discrimination: 

- 
- 

- 

- 

- 

Courts of general jurisdiction; 
Constitutional Court - legislation which is allegedly discriminatory on the grounds of 
age has twice been challenged in it; 
Possibility of submitting a complaint to the same public institution that has treated 
the person differently or to a higher institution; 
State Labour Inspectorate if discrimination has occurred within the framework of a 
labour relationship; the inspectorate can impose a fine; 
Ombudsman’s  Office,  which  is  empowered  to  strive  for  an  amicable  settlement;  it 
can file a complaint in an administrative court if it is in the public interest, or it can 
bring a case to the civil court if the issue concerns a violation of equal treatment. 

The normal avenue for  redress would be a  court of general jurisdiction. A law on state-
sponsored legal aid in civil cases29 has been in force since 2005, yet its real impact has still 
to be evaluated. NGOs can submit a complaint or bring a case on behalf of natural persons 
who are the victims of discrimination. The Ombudsman’s Office can also bring such a case. 
However,  the  amendments  to  the  Civil  Procedure  Law  adopted  in  December  2013  now 
restrict  representation  at  cassation  court  level,  including  on  discrimination  matters,  to 
victims  and  advocates  only,  and  this  excludes  NGOs,  the  Ombudsman  and  other  legal 
practitioners. 

The  provision  on  the  shift  in  the  burden  of  proof  is  included  in  the  Labour  Law, 
(employment),  the  Consumer  Rights  Protection  Law  and  the  Law  on  the  Prohibition  of 
Discrimination  of  Natural  Persons-Economic  Operators  (both  these  latter  laws  covering 
access to goods and services), as well as in Law on Education and the Law on Support to 
Unemployed Persons and Job Seekers.  

On several occasions, the Supreme Court has criticised lower courts for failing to shift the 
burden of proof.30 In cases coming under the Administrative Procedure Law, the exception 
of examination ex officio applies. 

28   The list of prohibited grounds, with the exception of sexual orientation, is the same as in the Labour Law. 
29   State-sponsored legal aid in administrative cases was discontinued in 2009.  
30   Latvia, Supreme Court Civil Case Department (Augstākās tiesas Civillietu tiesu palāta), R. S. v. Riga New St 
Gertrude Evangelical Lutheran Church (R.S. v. Rīgas Jaunā Svētās Ģertrūdes evanģēliski luteriskā draudze; 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Latvian  national  law  is  silent  on  the  issue  of  situation  testing  and  the  use  of  statistical 
evidence. There is no evidence of them being used and hence no case law. 

The relatively low average compensations awarded in discrimination cases raises the issue 
of their proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness. Moreover, the majority of court 
judgments  are  not  publicly  available.  The  provisions  of  the  Criminal  Law  providing  for 
penalties of up to three years’ imprisonment have never been applied.  

The  majority  of  discrimination  cases  brought  before  the  courts  concern  the  area  of 
employment, and predominantly relate to gender grounds. From 2005 to 2016 inclusive, 
in the known discrimination cases that resulted in a favourable outcome for the victim (of 
which there were over a dozen, two concerning discrimination on the ground of gender, 
two  on  disability,31  one  on  ethnic  origin,32  one  on  age33  and  one  on  victimisation),  the 
amounts awarded ranged from EUR 42834 to EUR 7 142. The highest award was granted 
in a conciliation case, while the median moral compensation awarded has been EUR 1 500. 

Since the ratification of the UN CRPD, several court  cases have arisen in relation to the 
reasonable accommodation of persons with disability in the realm of social protection35 and 
access to public buildings in relation to healthcare services.36  

The Administrative Procedure Law provides for compensation for financial loss or personal 
harm, including moral harm, which has been caused to an individual by an administrative 
act or by the actual action of an institution. The Code of Administrative Offences provides 
for a fine ranging from EUR 140 to EUR 715 for violation of prohibition of discrimination. 
The State Labour Inspectorate has imposed sanctions predominantly in discriminatory job 
advertisement cases on grounds of gender, age or ethnicity. Sanctions have ranged from 
warnings  to  fines  ranging  from  EUR 70  to  EUR 535,  but  such  small  amounts  cannot  be 
considered dissuasive. The Supreme Court, in line with Court of Justice of the European 
Union jurisprudence, has clarified that there is no need to specifically prove the existence 
of moral damage in cases of discrimination, as moral damage is presumed from the very 
fact of discrimination in employment relationships.37 

6. Equality bodies 

Since  March  2007,  the  tasks  of  the  specialised  body  have  been  performed  by  the 
Ombudsman’s  Office,  which  is  entrusted  with  the  task  of  promoting  the  observance  of 
human rights, including the promotion of equal treatment, without listing the grounds of 
discrimination and thus encompassing all of them. Its functions include inquiring into any 
individual complaint related to a human rights violation, starting investigations on its own 
initiative, analysing the observance of human rights and issuing surveys and reports. The 
office is entitled to review individual complaints, to acquire the necessary information and 
to  strive  for  an  amicable  settlement.  If  this  fails,  the  office  can  advise  the  parties  of  its 

Latvia, Supreme Court Senate, (Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesa) Case Nr. SKC-684/2012 (E.L. v State 
Joint Stock Company International Airport Riga [E.L. v Valsts akciju sabiedrība „Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga”). 
31   Latvia, Supreme Court Civil Case Department (Augstākās tiesas Civillietu tiesu palāta), R. S. v. Riga New St 
Gertrude Evangelical Lutheran Church (R.S. v. Rīgas Jaunā Svētās Ģertrūdes evanģēliski luteriskā draudze), 
11.04.2007; Latvia, Kurzeme Regional Court (Kurzemes apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesas kolēģija), case No. 
C40066110 (V.Trusēvičs v. SIA Bio-Venta [Bio-Venta Ltd]), 21.09.2011. 

32   Latvia, Jelgava Court (Jelgavas tiesa), S.Kozlovska v SIA Palso, Case No C15066406, 25.05.2006.  
33   Latvia, Supreme Court Senate (Augstākās tiesas Senāts), Case No C32276312 (SKC-1702/2013), 

29.11.2013. 

34   Latvia switched to using the euro as its national currency, replacing the lat on 01.01.2014. 
35   Administrative Regional Court (Administratīvā apgabaltiesa), Case No A420528911B. v. State Social 

Insurance Agency (B.V. pret Valsts Sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūru), 27.09.2013. 

36   Latvia, Administrative District Court (Administratīvā rajona tiesa), Case No A420571712, 02.12.2013 Latvia, 

Supreme Court Civil Case Department (Augstākās tiesas Civillietu tiesu palāta), R. S. v. Riga New St 
Gertrude Evangelical Lutheran Church (R.S. v. Rīgas Jaunā Svētās Ģertrūdes evanģēliski luteriskā draudze. 

37   Latvia, Supreme Court Senate (Augstākās tiesas Senāts), Case No. C32276312 (SKC – 1702/2013), 

29.11.2013.  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
opinion and proposals in the form of recommendations and can also present its suggestions 
and recommendations to the relevant institution or official; however, it cannot enforce its 
recommendations, nor can it levy any fines. It has the right to bring a Constitutional Court 
case if the legislation does not comply with a norm of higher legal force. Likewise, it can 
file a complaint in an administrative court if this is in the public interest, or it can bring a 
case to the civil court if violation of equal treatment is at issue. It also provides legal advice 
to  the  victims  and  can  help  them  to  prepare  a  court  case.  The  Ombudsman  has  never 
represented a client in a discrimination case in court, but it has facilitated the conclusion 
of two conciliation agreements.  

The budget cuts during the economic crises inevitably affected the functioning of the body. 
In 2010 the budget of the office was cut by 57 % compared with 2008. This resulted in 
cuts  to  personnel.  At  different  times,  there  have  been  one  to  three  staff  members 
specialising in non-discrimination issues in the office. In 2014, the Legal Equality Section 
comprised three members of staff.38 In early 2015, the section was closed down, and the 
staff were assigned to other departments,39 which raises concerns over whether the office 
fulfils the minimum requirements of the Racial Equality Directive in practice. In 2015, the 
office’s budget was EUR 1 144 522 and in 2016 it was EUR 1 329 113, which represents a 
rise of nearly 14 % compared to 2015.40 Data on complaints about discrimination and their 
outcome are not publicly available, but are available upon request.  

7. Key issues 

Differential treatment is not adequately prohibited in relation to vocational training outside 
employment relationships. 

There continues to be no national co-ordination on non-discrimination issues. Since 2004, 
case law has remained limited concerning discrimination on grounds of race/ethnic origin 
(1), disability (3), age (2), religion (0), and sexual orientation (0).  

The amendments to the Civil Procedure Law excluding NGOs from representing victims of 
discrimination at the instance  of cassation contravene the non-regression clauses of the 
equality directives. 

38   Although, since early 2015, the office has no longer had this section. See: Ombudsman (LR Tiesībsargs), 

‘Personnel’, available in Latvian at http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/lv/pages/par-mums. 

39   LR Tiesībsargs (2015), ‘Personnel’, at http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/en/pages/about-us/darbinieki.  
40   Republic of Latvia Ombudsman (2016), Annual Report of 2016, p.261: ‘factual expenditures for 2015 and 

2016 (lower than the approved budget by the Government)’.  

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
RÉSUMÉ 

1. Introduction 

La Lettonie est un pays multiethnique, où la proportion des différents groupes ethniques 
formant la population a cependant varié avec le temps. L’origine ethnique est consignée 
dans  le  registre  de  l’état  civil  sur  la  base  de  l’origine  ethnique  des  parents  et  peut  être 
modifiée  à  l’âge  de  la  majorité  en  choisissant  l’origine  ethnique  des  grands-parents. 
L’inscription  de  l’origine  ethnique  dans  le  passeport  est  facultative.  En  2011,  les 
2 067 887 habitants se répartissaient comme suit: 62,1 % de Lettons, 26,9 % de Russes, 
3,3 % de Biélorusses, 2,2 % d’Ukrainiens, 2,2 % de Polonais, 1,2 % de Lituaniens, 0,3 % 
de  Juifs,  0,1 %  d’Estoniens,  0,3 %  de  Roms,  0,1 %  d’Allemands  et  1,3 %  d’autres 
origines.41  

Les citoyens lettons, au nombre de 1 804 392, représentent 84,1 % de la population, dont 
71,1 % de Lettons de souche, les autres citoyens formant différentes minorités. Le pays 
compte 11,8 % de non-ressortissants,42 soit 252 017 habitants, parmi lesquels les Russes 
de souche constituent le groupe le plus important. Il en résulte que les questions relatives 
aux  non-ressortissants  sont  souvent  traitées  comme  des  questions  concernant 
principalement les Russes ou les russophones, et que les droits des ressortissants et des 
non-ressortissants, de même que les questions linguistiques, restent des sujets sensibles 
en Lettonie. La population compte 73 863 ressortissants de pays tiers, parmi lesquels le 
groupe  le  plus  important  est  formé  de  citoyens  russes  (55 440),  suivis  des  Ukrainiens 
(6 442) et des Biélorusses (3 034).43 

La  population  rom  est  relativement  peu  importante  en  Lettonie:  elle  comptait 
7 645 personnes  en  2015,44  mais  pourrait  être  plus  nombreuse  selon  les  données  des 
associations  roms.45  Dans  une  enquête  réalisée  en  2015,  82,3 %  des  Roms  ont  affirmé 
qu’eux-mêmes  ou  leurs  proches  s’étaient  vu  refuser  du  travail  en  raison  de  leur  origine 
ethnique.46 Il n’existe plus, en 2016, de classes réservées aux élèves roms, mais il n’en 
reste  pas  moins  que  le  pourcentage  d’enfants  roms  suivant  un  enseignement  spécial,  à 
savoir  34 %  en  2016/2017,  est  disproportionnellement  élevé  et  s’est  accru  de  7 %  par 
rapport à 2013/2014.47  

Il ressort d’une étude consacrée à l’attitude envers les personnes âgées et la discrimination 
à  leur  égard  sur  le  marché  du  travail letton  que  les  personnes  de  plus  de  40-45 ans  se 
heurtent sur ce marché à une discrimination fondée sur leur âge. La difficulté rencontrée 

41   Recensement démographique 2011. 
42   Les non-ressortissants forment une catégorie spéciale regroupant des ressortissants de l’ex-URSS qui 
résidaient en Lettonie au 1er juillet 1991 et n’ont obtenu la citoyenneté d’aucun autre pays; le terme 
n’englobe donc pas ici les ressortissants étrangers ni les personnes apatrides. Les données relatives à la 
citoyenneté reflètent la situation au 1er janvier 2015. 

43  Les données relatives à la citoyenneté reflètent la situation au 1er janvier 2015. 
44   Office de la citoyenneté et des migrations, Statistiques, Registre de la population (1er janvier 2016), 

Ventilation de la population lettone par nationalité et appartenance ethnique, disponible (en letton) sur: 
http://www.pmlp.gov.lv/lv/assets/documents/statistika/IRD2016/ISVN_Latvija_pec_TTB_VPD.pdf. 
45   Latvijas Fakti Market & Social Research Centre (2015). Romi Latvijā (Roms en Lettonie), p 44. Étude 

réalisée dans le cadre du projet «Different people. Diverse experience. One Latvia II», 
réf. JUST/2013/PROG/AG/4978/AD, p.5, disponible (en anglais) sur: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/files/summaries_selected_2013_ag_prog_ad_en.pdf. 

46   Tirgus un sociālo pētījumu centrs «Latvijas Fakti» (2015). Romi Latvijā. Pētījuma ziņojums 2015, p. 61, 

disponible (en letton) sur: 
https://www.km.gov.lv/uploads/ckeditor/files/Sabiedribas_integracija/Romi/Papildu/romi_latvija_petijums_
LV.pdf. 

47   Ministère de la Culture (2014), Rapport informatif sur la mise en œuvre des mesures en faveur de 

l’intégration des Roms (Informatīvais ziņojums par romu integrācijas politikas pasākumu īstenošanu 
Latvijā), 12. lpp, disponible (en letton) sur: 
https://www.km.gov.lv/uploads/ckeditor/files/Sabiedribas_integracija/Romi/Dokumenti/Info-
zinojumi2014_230315.pdf. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
par les personnes handicapées pour trouver un emploi est également de notoriété publique, 
même si l’on ne dispose d’aucune étude suffisamment représentative pour le confirmer. 

Aucune  étude  ni  rapport  pertinent  n’a  été  récemment  réalisé(e)  à  propos  des  minorités 
ethniques ou de la discrimination fondée sur la race ou l’origine ethnique. La dernière étude 
en  date  a  été  publiée  en  2010  sur  le  thème  «Les  minorités  ethniques  sur  le  marché  du 
travail letton, 1997–2009: bilan, moteurs et freins de l’intégration». 

On  dispose  de  peu  d’éléments  de  preuve  circonstanciés  concernant  les  difficultés 
rencontrées par les minorités sexuelles, en raison très probablement du fait que beaucoup 
de leurs membres n’ont d’autre choix que de dissimuler leur orientation  sexuelle face aux 
attitudes négatives largement répandues au sein de la société lettone.  

Les seules consultations régulières d’ONG concernent les questions relatives au handicap 
et au genre. S’il existe  également un cadre de dialogue avec les partenaires  sociaux, la 
question  de  la  discrimination  n’y  a  été  abordée  jusqu’ici  que  de  façon  restreinte  et  en 
rapport surtout avec le genre. Le débat public est très limité et se concentre principalement 
sur  la  problématique  des  russophones  et  les  questions  connexes,  ainsi  que  sur  la 
problématique de l’orientation sexuelle en rapport avec l’organisation de «Gay Prides».  

Depuis la transposition des directives antidiscrimination et la fermeture du secrétariat du 
ministre chargé des affaires spéciales en matière d’intégration de la société, il n’y a plus 
d’autorité nationale assurant la coordination des questions relevant de la lutte contre la  
discrimination.  

Le seul groupe spécifiquement ciblé est, dans une certaine mesure, celui des personnes 
handicapées  puisqu’une  loi  s’efforce  d’offrir  des  mesures  d’incitation  financière  pour 
encourager  les  employeurs  à  les  engager.  On  ne  trouve  nulle  trace  dans  la  législation 
lettone d’une disposition relative à d’éventuelles actions positives. 

2. Législation principale 

L’interdiction  de  discrimination  a  pour  pierre  angulaire  l’article 91  de  la  Constitution 
lettone,48  qui  prévoit  notamment  que  les  droits  de  l’homme  seront  observés  sans 
discrimination  d’aucune  sorte.  Ainsi  donc,  la  Constitution  proscrit  toutes  formes  de 
discrimination, mais ne spécifie pas explicitement les motifs protégés. La Constitution est 
considérée comme ayant un effet direct, c’est-à-dire que ses dispositions sont directement 
exécutoires pour tous les organes publics, mais elle n’a pas d’effet horizontal. En d’autres 
termes, si la discrimination est illégale dans le secteur public même en l’absence de lois 
supplémentaires  –  celles-ci  étant  uniquement  nécessaires  pour  prévoir  des  sanctions  et 
l’application du principe de la  non-discrimination – il s’avère essentiel d’adopter des lois 
spéciales  pour  proscrire  la  discrimination  dans  le  secteur  privé.  Il  en  va  de  même  des 
traités  internationaux:  ceux  qui  sont  juridiquement  contraignants  pour  la  Lettonie  ne 
s’appliquent qu’aux organes publics.  

Hormis le protocole n° 12 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme,49 qu’elle a 
signé  mais  pas  encore  ratifié,  la  Lettonie  adhère  à  la  plupart  des  grandes  conventions 
internationales de lutte contre les discriminations, telles que le Pacte international relatif 
aux droits civils et politiques50 et son protocole facultatif,51 le Pacte international relatif aux 

48   Lettonie, Constitution (Satversme), 15 février 1922.  
49   Conseil de l’Europe, Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, telle 

que modifiée par les protocoles n° 11 et 14, 4 novembre 1950, STCE n° 005. 

50   Assemblée générale des NU, Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques, 16 décembre 

1966, Nations unies, Recueil des traités, vol. 999. 

51   Assemblée générale des NU, Protocole facultatif se rapportant au Pacte international relatif aux droits civils 

et politiques, 19 décembre 1966, Nations unies, Recueil des traités, vol. 999. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
droits économiques, sociaux et culturels,52 la Convention internationale sur l’élimination de 
toutes les formes de discrimination raciale,53 la Convention-cadre pour  la protection des 
minorités nationales,54 la Convention relative aux droits de l’enfant55, la Convention relative 
aux  droits  des  personnes  handicapées56  et  la  Charte  sociale  européenne  révisée.57  Le 
gouvernement letton n’a toutefois pas reconnu la compétence du Comité pour l’élimination 
de la discrimination raciale. Ces instruments ratifiés font partie de l’ordre juridique interne 
après leur promulgation au Journal officiel et peuvent être appliqués directement par les 
juridictions nationales sauf si leur application requiert la promulgation d’une loi. 

La  législation  antidiscrimination  lettone  est  fragmentée.  Il  n’existe  pas  de  loi  unique  et 
exhaustive, mais la couverture s’est améliorée suite à l’adoption d’amendements aux lois 
existantes. Le problème majeur est le fait que la discrimination n’est pas proscrite dans le 
secteur privé à moins qu’une loi l’interdise explicitement et que, même si elle est proscrite 
dans  le  secteur  public  en  vertu  de  la  suprématie  de  la  Constitution,  l’absence  de  loi 
d’exécution spécifique complique considérablement la mise en application de l’interdiction. 

C’est dans la loi sur le travail,58 adoptée en 2001 et subséquemment modifiée pour combler 
les lacunes restantes, que l’on trouve l’interdiction de discrimination la plus complète. Cette 
loi interdit la discrimination dans les relations de travail qu’elle couvre et, depuis novembre 
2006,  ses  dispositions  antidiscrimination  s’appliquent  aux  relations  dans  la  fonction 
publique de l’État.  

La  loi  sur  le  travail  et  la  loi  sur  l’interdiction  de  discrimination  à  l’égard  des  personnes 
physiques – prestataires d’une activité économique59 sont les seules à inclure l’orientation 
sexuelle  en  tant  que  motif  interdit  de  discrimination.  La  loi  sur  le  travail,  la  loi  sur 
l’interdiction  de  discrimination  à  l’égard  des  personnes  physiques  –  prestataires  d’une 
activité économique, la loi sur la sécurité sociale60 et la loi sur la protection des droits des 
consommateurs  sont  les  quatre  lois  qui  font  expressément  référence  au  handicap.  Les 
quatre lois mentionnant l’âge en tant que motif interdit de discrimination sont la loi sur le 
travail,  la  loi  sur  l’interdiction  de  discrimination  à  l’égard  des  personnes  physiques  – 
prestataires d’une activité économique, la loi sur la sécurité sociale et la loi sur les droits 
des patients. 

Plusieurs  autres  lois  contiennent  des  clauses  de  non-discrimination  avec  des  listes 
exhaustives  ou  ouvertes  de  motifs  de  discrimination  interdits,  mais  celles-ci  n’incluent 
jamais tous les motifs visés par les directives. La loi sur l’enseignement contient une liste 
fermée qui se limite à «la fortune et au statut social, à la race, à l’appartenance ethnique, 
au sexe, aux convictions religieuses et politiques, à l’état de santé, à la profession et au 
lieu de résidence». Certaines lois ne contiennent aucune clause antidiscrimination: tel est 
notamment le cas de la loi sur le logement, bien que les questions relatives au logement 
tombent sous le coup de la loi modifiée sur la protection des droits des consommateurs.  

52   Assemblée générale des Nations unies, Pacte international relatif aux droits économiques, sociaux et 

culturels, 16 décembre 1966, Nations unies, Recueil des traités, vol. 993. 

53   Assemblée générale des NU, Convention internationale sur l’élimination de toutes les formes de 

discrimination raciale, 21 décembre 1965, Nations unies, Recueil des traités, vol. 660. 

54   Conseil de l’Europe, Convention-cadre pour la protection des minorités nationales, 1er février 1995, STCE 

n° 157. 

55   Assemblée générale des NU, Convention relative aux droits de l’enfant, 20 novembre 1989, Nations unies, 

Recueil des traités, vol. 1577. 

56   Assemblée générale des NU, Convention relative aux droits des personnes handicapées: résolution adoptée 

par l’Assemblée générale, 24 janvier 2007, A/RES/61/106. 

57   Conseil de l’Europe, Charte sociale européenne (révisée), 3 mai 1996, STCE n° 163. 
58   Lettonie, loi sur le travail (Darba likums), 12 juin 2001.  
59   Lettonie, loi sur l’interdiction de discrimination à l’égard des personnes physiques – prestataires d’une 

activité économique (Fizisko personu – saimnieciskās darbības veicēju diskriminācijas aizlieguma likums), 
19 décembre 2012.  

60   Lettonie, loi sur la sécurité sociale (likums ‘Par sociālo drošību’), 7 septembre 1995.  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
La loi pénale interdit les crimes de haine/d’incitations à la haine aux motifs du genre, de 
l’âge, du handicap et d’autres situations, en sus de l’interdiction des crimes à motivation 
raciale ou religieuse.61 L’orientation sexuelle n’est pas mentionnée de manière expresse.  

La  nature  fragmentaire  de  la  réglementation  est  le  problème  principal  de  la  législation 
antidiscrimination  lettone,  et  la  cause  de  la  plupart  des  autres  problèmes.  De  manière 
générale,  tous  les  domaines  requis  sont  couverts  mais,  à  l’intérieur  de  ceux-ci,  tous  les 
motifs requis ne le sont pas. 

3. Principes généraux et définitions 

La  loi  sur  le  travail,  la  loi  sur  l’interdiction  de  discrimination  à  l’égard  des  personnes 
physiques – prestataires d’une activité économique, la loi sur la sécurité sociale,62 la loi sur 
l’aide aux chômeurs et aux demandeurs d’emploi63 et la loi sur la protection des droits des 
consommateurs64  contiennent  des  définitions  de  la  discrimination  directe,  de  la 
discrimination  indirecte  et  du  harcèlement  conformes  aux  directives;  elles  interdisent 
également toute injonction de discriminer. La protection contre les rétorsions existe dans 
le cadre de la loi sur le travail, de la loi sur la protection des droits des consommateurs, de 
la loi sur l’aide aux chômeurs et aux demandeurs d’emploi, de la loi sur la sécurité sociale, 
de la loi sur l’interdiction de discrimination à l’égard des personnes physiques – prestataires 
d’une activité économique et de la loi sur l’enseignement,65 et en rapport avec les plaintes 
déposées auprès du Bureau du Médiateur.  

La  loi  est  muette  sur  la  question  de  la  discrimination  par  association ou  fondée  sur  des 
motifs  ou  caractéristiques  présumés;  le  libellé  des  dispositions  antidiscrimination 
contenues dans les lois lettonnes faisant référence à la race, aux convictions religieuses, 
etc. de la personne (invoquant la disposition) permet sans aucun doute de faire valoir plus 
aisément  une  discrimination  fondée  sur  des  caractéristiques  présumées  qu’une 
discrimination par association. Faute cependant de jurisprudence pertinente, tout ce que 
l’on peut dire avec certitude, c’est que la loi ne contient pas d’interdiction explicite à l’égard 
de ces deux formes de discrimination.   

Les motifs de discrimination ne sont définis ni dans la loi sur le travail ni ailleurs, et  l’on 
peut  craindre  que  le  handicap  fasse  l’objet  d’une  interprétation  étroite  par  rapport  à  la 
Convention des Nations unies relative aux droits des personnes handicapées en utilisant le 
terme dans son acception technique, autrement dit en se basant sur une reconnaissance 
officielle  de  la  capacité  de  travail  réduite  de  la  personne  concernée  et  en  excluant  le 
handicap de fait. 

La  loi  sur  le  travail  est  la  seule  à  prévoir  la  justification  d’une  différence  de  traitement 
fondée sur divers motifs en rapport avec l’exigence professionnelle essentielle. 

Les  dispositions  relatives  aux  exceptions  figurant  dans  d’autres  lois  («une  différence  de 
traitement associée à l’un des motifs sera uniquement admissible lorsque le traitement en 
question est objectivement justifié par un but légitime et que les moyens d’atteindre ce 
but sont proportionnés») telles que la loi sur la sécurité sociale, la loi sur l’interdiction de 
discrimination à l’égard des personnes physiques – prestataires d’une activité économique, 
la loi sur l’aide aux chômeurs et aux demandeurs d’emploi, la loi sur l’enseignement et la 
loi  sur  la  protection  des  droits  des  consommateurs,  ne  font  pas  de  distinction  entre 
discrimination directe et indirecte, ni entre les motifs visés par les directives et d’autres 

61   Lettonie, loi pénale (Krimināllikums), 17 juin 1998. 
62   L’ancienne définition de la discrimination indirecte restreignant aux situations comparables subsiste dans la 

loi.  

63   Lettonie, loi sur l’aide aux chômeurs et aux demandeurs d’emploi (Bezdarbnieku un darba meklētāju 

atbalsta likums), 9 mai 2002.  

64   Lettonie, loi sur la protection des droits des consommateurs (Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības likums), 

18 mars 1999.  

65   Lettonie, loi sur l’enseignement (Izglītības likums), 29 septembre 1998.  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
motifs  de  traitement  différencié.  Les  amendements  apportés  aux  lois  relatives  à  la 
discrimination  (y  compris  la  discrimination  directe)  ont  été  adoptés  dans  le  but  de 
transposer  les  directives  dans  l’ordre  juridique  interne,  mais  ils  manquent  de  précision 
dans  plusieurs  cas  distincts  et  c’est  alors  aux  cours  et  tribunaux  qu’il  appartient  de 
consulter le texte des directives. La loi sur le travail prévoit en outre, pour ce qui concerne 
l’emploi par des organisations religieuses, une dérogation qui paraît plus large que celle 
prévue par la directive. La loi sur le travail impose aussi à l’employeur l’obligation d’assurer 
un aménagement raisonnable pour les personnes handicapées. Il n’existe pas de règles en 
matière de discrimination multiple. 

4. Champ d’application matériel 

La loi sur le travail prévoit une protection contre toutes les formes de discrimination (la 
discrimination  directe,  la  discrimination  indirecte,  le  harcèlement,  l’injonction  de 
discriminer et les rétorsions) dans tous les aspects des  relations de travail, tant dans le 
secteur public que dans le secteur privé, y compris les relations dans la fonction publique 
(mais  à  l’exclusion  du  service  militaire)  et  le  travail  sous  contrat  effectué  par  des 
indépendants.  Cette  protection  inclut  l’établissement  des  dites  relations,  en  rapport 
notamment avec le genre, la race, l’âge, le handicap, la religion et l’orientation sexuelle.66 

L’accès  à  l’orientation  professionnelle  et  à  la  formation  professionnelle  ainsi  que  les 
questions d’éducation dans le secteur public comme dans le secteur privé sont couverts 
par la loi sur le travail qui fait référence à la «formation professionnelle» et par la loi sur 
l’enseignement,67  qui  s’applique  également  aux  secteurs  public  et  privé.  Cette  dernière 
pose néanmoins problème dans la mesure où elle comporte une liste exhaustive de motifs 
n’incluant ni l’âge, ni le handicap (même si on pourrait faire valoir que celui-ci est couvert 
par la rubrique «santé»), ni l’orientation sexuelle. L’éducation et la formation pourraient 
également relever de la loi sur la protection des droits des consommateurs, mais celle-ci 
limite la liste des motifs interdits au genre, à la race, à l’origine ethnique et au handicap. 
La  loi  sur  l’aide  aux  chômeurs  et  aux  demandeurs  d’emploi,  qui  couvre  la  reconversion 
professionnelle, interdit la discrimination fondée sur le genre, la race et l’origine ethnique. 

Les lois relatives à l’affiliation et à la participation à des organisations de travailleurs ou 
d’employeurs  ou  à  des  organisations  professionnelles  ne  contiennent  pas  toujours  de 
clauses antidiscrimination; si les dispositions de la loi sur le travail s’appliquent aux deux 
premiers  types  d’organisations  susmentionnées,  les  organisations  professionnelles 
continuent pour leur part de poser problème et ne sont pas couvertes. Le domaine de la 
protection sociale, y compris la sécurité sociale et les soins de santé, est couvert par la loi 
sur la sécurité sociale qui cite l’âge et le handicap,68 mais ne fait aucune mention explicite 
de l’orientation sexuelle. Cette loi définit les services sociaux comme ceux prestés par l’État 
ou la municipalité, et ne s’applique donc pas au secteur privé. 

L’accès  aux  biens  et  aux  services  est  couvert  par  la  loi  sur  la  protection  des  droits  des 
consommateurs, dont la liste des motifs interdits se limite au genre, à la race, à l’origine 
ethnique et au handicap, ce qui n’est pas en soi incompatible avec les directives.  

5. Mise en application de la loi 

Plusieurs voies légales permettent d’adresser un recours en cas de discrimination: 

66   La liste complète comprend «la race, la couleur de peau, l’âge, le handicap, les convictions religieuses, 

politiques ou autres, l’origine nationale ou sociale, la fortune ou l’état matrimonial, l’orientation sexuelle ou 
d’autres situations». 

67   Énumérant comme motifs interdits «la fortune et le statut social, la race, l’appartenance ethnique, le genre, 

les opinions religieuses ou politiques, l’état de santé, la profession et le lieu de résidence».  

68   La liste des motifs interdits, à l’exception de l’orientation sexuelle, est la même que celle figurant dans la loi 

sur le travail. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
- 
- 

- 

- 

- 

les juridictions de compétence générale; 
la  Cour  constitutionnelle:  une  législation  prétendument  discriminatoire  en  rapport 
avec l’âge a été contestée à deux reprises auprès de cette instance; 
une  plainte  peut  être  déposée  auprès  de  l’institution  publique  ayant  elle-même 
pratiqué une différence de traitement à l’égard de la personne introduisant le recours 
ou auprès d’une institution de niveau supérieur; 
l’Inspection nationale du travail si la discrimination s’est produite dans le cadre d’une 
relation de travail. Celle-ci peut infliger une amende; 
le Bureau du Médiateur, qui est habilité à rechercher un règlement à l’amiable; il peut 
saisir une juridiction administrative lorsqu’il y va de l’intérêt public, ou une juridiction 
civile s’il s’agit d’un cas de non-respect de l’égalité de traitement. 

l’assistance 

juridique  subventionnée  par 

La voie de recours normale serait une juridiction de compétence générale. Une loi portant 
les  affaires  civiles  et 
sur 
administratives69 est en vigueur depuis 2005, mais il faut encore en évaluer le véritable 
impact. Des ONG peuvent déposer une plainte ou engager une action au nom de personnes 
physiques victimes de discrimination. Le Bureau du Médiateur peut lui aussi saisir la justice. 
Les amendements apportés en décembre 2013 à la loi sur les procédures civiles limitent 
cependant  désormais  la  représentation  au  niveau  de  la  cassation,  y  compris  dans  les 
affaires  de  discrimination,  aux  victimes  et  aux  avocats  uniquement,  et  excluent  par 
conséquent les ONG, le Médiateur et d’autres praticiens du droit.  

l’État  dans 

La disposition relative au renversement de la charge de la preuve est incluse dans la loi 
sur le travail (emploi), dans la loi sur la protection des droits des consommateurs et dans 
la loi sur l’interdiction de discrimination à l’égard des personnes physiques – prestataires 
d’une  activité  économique  (ces  deux  dernières  lois  couvrant  l’accès  aux  biens  et  aux 
services), ainsi que dans la loi sur l’enseignement et dans la loi sur l’aide aux chômeurs et 
aux demandeurs d’emploi.  

La Cour suprême a reproché à plusieurs occasions à des juridictions inférieures de ne pas 
avoir  renversé  la  charge  de  la  preuve.70  Dans  les  affaires  relevant  de  la  loi  sur  les 
procédures administratives, l’exception d’examen d’office s’applique. 

La législation nationale est muette sur la question du recours au test de situation et aux 
preuves  statistiques;  on  ne  trouve  nulle  trace  de  leur  utilisation  et,  dès  lors,  aucune 
jurisprudence en la matière. 

Le montant moyen relativement faible des indemnités allouées dans le cadre d’affaires de 
discrimination  soulève  la  question  de  savoir  si  elles  sont  effectives,  proportionnées  et 
dissuasives. La plupart des arrêts prononcés par les cours et tribunaux ne sont, en outre, 
pas rendus publics. Les dispositions de la loi pénale prévoyant des peines allant jusqu’à 
trois ans d’emprisonnement n’ont jamais été appliquées. 

La  majorité  des  affaires  de  discrimination  portées  en  justice  concernent  le  domaine  de 
l’emploi  et  principalement  des  motifs  liés  au  genre.  Dans  les  affaires  connues  de 
discrimination soumises à la justice entre 2005 et 2016 et dont l’issue a été favorable à la 
victime (il y en a eu plus d’une douzaine, dont deux portaient sur une discrimination fondée 
sur  le  genre,  deux  sur  une  discrimination  fondée  sur  le  handicap,71  une  sur  une 

69   L’assistance juridique subventionnée par l’État dans les affaires administratives a été interrompue en 2009.  
70   Lettonie, chambre juridictionnelle civile de la Cour suprême (Augstākās tiesas Civillietu tiesu palāta), R. S. 
c. Nouvelle Église luthérienne évangélique Ste-Gertrude de Riga (R.S. v. Rīgas Jaunā Svētās Ģertrūdes 
evanģēliski luteriskā draudze); Lettonie, Sénat de la Cour suprême (Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesa), 
affaire n° SKC-684/2012 (E.L. c. State Joint Stock Company International Airport Riga (E.L. v Valsts akciju 
sabiedrība „Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga). 

71   Lettonie, chambre juridictionnelle civile de la Cour suprême (Augstākās tiesas Civillietu tiesu palāta), R. S. 
c. Nouvelle Église évangélique luthérienne Ste-Gertrude de Riga (R.S. v. Rīgas Jaunā Svētās Ģertrūdes 
evanģēliski luteriskā draudze), 11 avril 2007; Lettonie, tribunal régional du Kurzeme (Kurzemes 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
discrimination fondée sur l’origine ethnique,72 une sur une discrimination fondée sur l’âge73 
et une sur une discrimination relevant de rétorsions), les montants attribués se sont situés 
dans une fourchette allant de 428 à 7 142 euros.74 Le montant le plus élevé a été accordé 
dans une affaire de  conciliation, et l’indemnité moyenne pour préjudice moral s’établit à 
1 500 euros. 

Depuis la ratification de la Convention des Nations unies relative aux droits des personnes 
handicapées,  plusieurs  procédures  ont  été  engagées  en  justice  en  rapport  avec 
l’aménagement  raisonnable  à  l’intention  de  ces  personnes  pour  ce  qui  concerne  la 
protection sociale75 et l’accès aux bâtiments publics où sont dispensés des soins de santé.76  

La loi sur les procédures administratives prévoit une indemnisation pour perte financière 
ou préjudice personnel, y compris le préjudice moral, causé(e) à un particulier par un acte 
administratif  ou  par  l’action  concrète  d’une  institution.  Le  code  des  infractions 
administratives  prévoit  une  amende  de  140  à  715 euros  en  cas  de  non-respect  de 
l’interdiction  de  discrimination.  L’Inspection  nationale  du  travail  a  surtout  imposé  des 
sanctions dans des cas d’offres d’emploi entachées de discrimination fondée sur le genre, 
l’âge ou l’origine ethnique. Les sanctions en question sont allées d’avertissements à des 
amendes de 70 à 535 euros – soit des montants trop faibles pour être considérés comme 
dissuasifs. La Cour suprême a précisé, dans le droit fil de la jurisprudence de la Cour de 
justice de l’Union européenne, qu’il n’y a pas lieu de démontrer spécifiquement l’existence 
d’un préjudice moral en cas de discrimination, ce préjudice étant présumé du fait même 
de l’établissement d’une discrimination dans les relations de travail.77 

6. Organismes de promotion de l’égalité de traitement 

Depuis  mars 2007,  les  tâches  incombant  à  l’organisme  spécialisé  sont  exécutées  par  le 
Bureau du Médiateur, lequel a pour mission de promouvoir le respect des droits de l’homme 
et notamment la promotion de l’égalité de traitement – sans énumération des motifs de 
discrimination et, par conséquent, les englobant tous. Il est chargé d’enquêter sur toute 
plainte individuelle liée à la violation des droits de l’homme, d’entreprendre des enquêtes 
de sa propre initiative, d’analyser le respect des droits de l’homme et de publier des études 
et des rapports. Le Bureau est habilité à examiner les plaintes individuelles, à se procurer 
les  informations  nécessaires  et  à  s’efforcer  de  parvenir  à  un  règlement  à  l’amiable.  S’il 
échoue,  le  Bureau  peut  faire  connaître  aux  parties  son  avis  et  ses  propositions  sous  la 
forme  de  recommandations; 
il  peut  également  présenter  ses  suggestions  et 
recommandations  à  l’institution  compétente.  Il  ne  peut  cependant  ni  faire  appliquer  ses 
recommandations ni infliger d’amendes. Il a le droit de porter une affaire devant la Cour 
constitutionnelle  lettone  si  la  législation  n’est  pas  conforme  à  une  norme  juridique 
supérieure.  De  même,  il  peut  saisir  une  juridiction  administrative  si  la  démarche  est 
d’intérêt public, ou une juridiction civile si une violation de l’égalité de traitement est en 
cause. Il apporte également ses conseils juridiques aux victimes et peut les aider à préparer 
leur dossier. Le Médiateur n’a jamais représenté un client en justice dans une affaire de 
discrimination, mais il a facilité la conclusion de deux accords de conciliation.  

apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesas kolēģija), affaire n° C40066110 (V.Trusēvičs c. SIA Bio-Venta [Bio-Venta 
Ltd]), 21 septembre 2011. 

72   Lettonie, tribunal de Jelgava Court (Jelgavas tiesa), S.Kozlovska c. SIA Palso, affaire n° C15066406, 25 mai 

2006.  

73   Lettonie, Sénat de la Cour suprême (Augstākās tiesas Senāts), affaire n° C32276312 (SKC-1702/2013), 

29 novembre 2013. 

74   La Lettonie a adopté le 1er janvier 2014 l’euro comme sa monnaie nationale en remplacement du lats. 
75   Tribunal administratif régional (Administratīvā apgabaltiesa), affaire n° A420528911, B. c. Agence nationale 

d’assurances sociales (B. v. pret Valsts Sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūru), 27 septembre 2013. 

76   Lettonie, tribunal administratif de district (Administratīvā rajona tiesa), affaire n° A420571712, 2 décembre 
2013. Lettonie, chambre juridictionnelle civile de la Cour suprême (Augstākās tiesas Civillietu tiesu palāta), 
R. S. c. Nouvelle Église évangélique luthérienne Ste-Gertrude de Riga (R.S. v. Rīgas Jaunā Svētās Ģertrūdes 
evanģēliski luteriskā draudze). 

77   Lettonie, Sénat de la Cour suprême (Augstākās tiesas Senāts), affaire n° C32276312 (SKC – 1702/2013), 

29 novembre 2013, sur http://www.l2d.lv/v.php?i=82540.  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Les  restrictions  budgétaires  imposées  par  la  crise  économique  ont  immanquablement 
affecté le fonctionnement du Bureau du Médiateur, dont le budget était réduit de 57 % en 
2010 par rapport à celui de 2008. Elles ont entraîné des réductions de personnel avec pour 
conséquence  qu’à  différents  moments,  le  Bureau  n’a  compté  qu’un  à  trois  membres 
spécialisés  dans  les  questions  de  discrimination.  En  2014,  le  département  juridique  en 
charge  de  l’égalité  comprenait  trois  personnes.78.  Il  a  été  fermé  début  2015  et  son 
personnel a été affecté à d’autres départements,79 ce qui suscite certaines préoccupations 
quant à savoir si le Bureau répond dans la pratique aux exigences minimales de la directive 
relative à l’égalité raciale. Le budget du Bureau s’établissait à 1 144 522 euros en 2015 et 
à 1 329 113 euros en 2016, soit une hausse de près de 14 % entre ces deux années.80 Les 
données  relatives  aux  plaintes  pour  discrimination  et  à  leur  aboutissement  ne  sont  pas 
accessibles au public mais peuvent être obtenues sur demande. 

7. Points essentiels 

Les  différences  de  traitement  ne  sont  pas  interdites  de  manière  adéquate  en  ce  qui 
concerne la formation professionnelle en dehors des relations d’emploi. 

Il n’y a toujours pas de coordination nationale sur les questions relevant de la lutte contre 
la  discrimination.  La  jurisprudence  reste  limitée  depuis  2004  pour  ce  qui  concerne  la 
discrimination  fondée  sur  la  race/l’origine  ethnique  (1  cas),  le  handicap  (3 cas),  l’âge 
(2 cas), la religion (aucun cas) et l’orientation sexuelle (aucun cas).  

Les  amendements  à  la  loi  sur  les  procédures  civiles  qui  excluent  les  ONG  de  la 
représentation  de  victimes  de  discrimination  au  niveau  de  la  cassation  enfreignent  les 
clauses de non-régression des directives relatives à l’égalité. 

78   Ceci étant dit, le Bureau ne comprend plus ce département depuis début 2015. Voir le site en anglais du 
Médiateur (LR Tiesībsargs), rubrique «Personnel» sous «About Us» (http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/en/about-
us/darbinieki).   

79   Voir le site en anglais du Médiateur (LR Tiesībsargs) (2015), rubrique «Personnel» sous «About Us» 

(http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/en/about-us/darbinieki).  

80   Médiateur de la République de Lettonie (2016), Rapport annuel 2016, p. 261: «dépenses effectives pour 

2015 et 2016 (inférieures au budget approuvé par le gouvernement)».  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG  

1. Einleitung 

Lettland ist ein multiethnisches Land, wobei die Anteile der unterschiedlichen ethnischen 
Gruppen  im  Wandel  begriffen  sind.  Die  ethnische  Herkunft  wird  im  Melderegister 
verzeichnet. Sie beruht auf der ethnischen Zugehörigkeit der beiden Elternteile und kann 
bei  Erreichen  der  Volljährigkeit  durch  die  ethnische  Zugehörigkeit  eines  Großelternteils 
ersetzt werden. Der Eintrag der ethnischen Zugehörigkeit im Pass ist freigestellt. Im Jahr 
2011 setzte sich die insgesamt 2 067 887 Einwohner zählende Bevölkerung Lettlands wie 
folgt  zusammen:  62,1 %  Letten,  26,9 %  Russen,  3,3 %  Weißrussen,  2,2 %  Ukrainer, 
2,2 % Polen, 1,2 % Litauer, 0,3 % Juden, 0,1 % Esten, 0,3 % Roma, 0,1 % Deutsche und 
1,3 % sonstige ethnische Gruppen.81 

1 804 392 Personen bzw. 84,1 % der Bevölkerung sind lettische Staatsbürger; davon sind 
71,42  %  ethnische  Letten,  der  Rest  gehört  unterschiedlichen  Minderheiten  an.  252 017 
Personen  bzw.  11,8  %  sind  sogenannte  „Nichtbürger“.82  Die  größte  Gruppe  unter  den 
Nichtbürgern sind ethnische Russen. Fragen im Zusammenhang mit Nichtbürgern werden 
daher meist behandelt, als würden sie ausschließlich die russische bzw. russischsprachige 
Bevölkerung betreffen, und die Rechte von Bürgern und Nichtbürgern, wie auch sprachliche 
Aspekte, 
es 
heikle 
73 863 Drittstaatsangehörige; die größte Gruppe stellen russische Staatsbürger (55 440), 
gefolgt von Ukrainern (6442) und Weißrussen (3034).83 

Insgesamt 

Themen. 

immer 

noch 

sind 

gibt 

Die  Roma-Bevölkerung  in  Lettland  ist  relativ  klein und  beläuft  sich  auf  7645  Menschen 
(2015);84  Daten  von  Roma-Verbänden  zufolge  ist  die  Zahl  jedoch  höher.85  In  einer 
Befragung  von  2015  gaben  82,3  %  der  Roma  an,  dass  man  ihnen  selbst  oder  ihren 
Familienangehörigen  aufgrund  ihrer  ethnischen  Herkunft  eine  Arbeit  verweigert  hatte.86 
2016 gab es in Lettland keine separaten Roma-Klassen mehr. Der Anteil der Roma-Kinder, 
jedoch 
die  Sonderschulen  besuchen –  34 % 
unverhältnismäßig hoch und im Vergleich zu 2013/2014 um 7 % gestiegen.87 

im  Zeitraum  2016/2017 –, 

ist 

Nach  der  Studie  „Einstellung  gegenüber  älteren  Menschen  und  ihre  Diskriminierung  auf 
dem  lettischen  Arbeitsmarkt“  werden  Menschen  über  40-45  Jahren  auf  dem  lettischen 
Arbeitsmarkt  wegen  ihres  Alters  diskriminiert.  Es  ist  auch  allgemein  bekannt,  dass 
Menschen mit Behinderungen nur schwer eine Arbeit finden, obwohl sich diese Annahme 
nicht durch ausreichend repräsentative Untersuchungen belegen lässt. 

81   Volkszählung von 2011. 
82   „Nichtbürger“ ist eine spezielle Personenkategorie und bezeichnet ehemalige Bürger der UdSSR, die am 

1. Juli 1991 in Lettland ansässig waren und nie die Staatsbürgerschaft irgendeines anderen Landes erhalten 
haben. Ausländische Staatsbürger und Staatenlose fallen daher nicht unter diesen Begriff. Die Daten zur 
Staatsangehörigkeit sind auf dem Stand vom 01.01.2015. 

83  Zahlen zur Staatsangehörigkeit per 01.01.2015. 
84   Amt für Staatsbürgerschaft und Migrationsangelegenheiten, Statistik der Bevölkerungsregister 

(01.01.2016), Aufschlüsselung der lettischen Bevölkerung nach Nationalität und ethnischer Zugehörigkeit, 
abrufbar unter: 
http://www.pmlp.gov.lv/lv/assets/documents/statistika/IRD2016/ISVN_Latvija_pec_TTB_VPD.pdf. 

85   Latvijas Fakti, Zentrum für Markt- und Sozialstudien (2015), Romi Latvijā (Roma in Lettland), S. 44. Die 

Studie war Teil des Projekts „Different people, various experiences, one Latvia II“, 
Nr. JUST/2013/PROG/AG/4978/AD, S. 5; abrufbar unter: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/files/summaries_selected_2013_ag_prog_ad_en.pdf. 

86   Tirgus un sociālo pētījumu centrs „Latvijas Fakti“ (2015). Romi Latvijā. Pētījuma ziņojums 2015, S. 61; 

abrufbar (in lettischer Sprache) unter: 
https://www.km.gov.lv/uploads/ckeditor/files/Sabiedribas_integracija/Romi/Papildu/romi_latvija_petijums_
LV.pdf. 

87   Kultusministerium (2014), Informationsbericht über die Umsetzung politischer Maßnahmen zur 

Eingliederung der Roma (Informatīvais ziņojums par romu integrācijas politikas pasākumu īstenošanu 
Latvijā), 12. lpp, abrufbar unter 
https://www.km.gov.lv/uploads/ckeditor/files/Sabiedribas_integracija/Romi/Dokumenti/Info-
zinojumi2014_230315.pdf.  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  jüngerer  Zeit  wurden  keine  relevanten  Studien  oder  Berichte  über  ethnische 
Minderheiten  oder  Diskriminierung  aufgrund  der  Rasse  oder  der  ethnischen  Herkunft 
veröffentlicht. Die aktuellste Studie stammt aus dem Jahr 2010 und trägt den Titel: „Ethnic 
Minorities in the Latvian Labour Market, 1997–2009: Outcomes,  Integration Drivers and 
Barriers“. 

Es gibt wenig dokumentierte Nachweise über die Schwierigkeiten, mit denen Angehörige 
sexueller  Minderheiten  konfrontiert  sind.  Grund  dafür  ist  wahrscheinlich,  dass  viele  von 
ihnen  gezwungen  sind,  ihre  sexuelle  Orientierung  zu  verbergen,  weil  entsprechende 
negative Haltungen in der lettischen Gesellschaft weit verbreitet sind.  

Regelmäßige  Konsultationen  finden  nur  mit  NROs  statt,  die  sich  für  die  Rechte  von 
Behinderten und für Geschlechtergleichstellung einsetzen. Es gibt zwar einen Rahmen für 
den  Dialog  mit  den  Sozialpartnern,  das  Thema  Diskriminierung  wird  jedoch  nur  selten 
behandelt und wenn, dann meist in Bezug auf die Gleichstellung von Frauen und Männern. 
Es  gibt  kaum  eine  öffentliche  Debatte  zum  Thema,  höchstens  zur  Stellung  der 
russischsprachigen  Minderheit  oder,  im  Zusammenhang  mit  Schwulen-  und  Lesben-
Veranstaltungen, zu Fragen der sexuellen Orientierung.  

Seit der Umsetzung der Gleichbehandlungsrichtlinien und der Schließung des Sekretariats 
des Sonderministers für Integration gibt es keine nationale Stelle, die den Kampf gegen 
Diskriminierung koordiniert.  

Die einzige Gruppe, die in gewissem Umfang durch Fördermaßnahmen unterstützt wird, 
sind  Menschen  mit  Behinderungen.  Es  gibt  gesetzlich  geregelte  finanzielle  Anreize,  mit 
denen  Arbeitgeber  bei  der  Beschäftigung  behinderter  Menschen  unterstützt  werden. 
Nirgendwo im lettischen Recht sind positive Maßnahmen vorgesehen. 

2. Wichtigste Gesetze 

Den  Eckpfeiler  des  Diskriminierungsverbots  in  Lettland  bildet  Artikel 91  der  lettischen 
Verfassung,88  wonach  unter  anderem  die  Menschenrechte  ohne  jede  Diskriminierung 
geschützt  werden  müssen.  Das  heißt,  die  Verfassung  verbietet  Diskriminierung,  zählt 
jedoch nicht ausdrücklich die geschützten Diskriminierungsgründe auf. Die Verfassung ist 
direkt anwendbar und damit für alle öffentlichen Stellen verbindlich, sie hat jedoch keine 
horizontale  Wirkung.  Damit  ist  Diskriminierung  zwar  im  öffentlichen  Sektor  auch  ohne 
weitere  gesetzliche  Bestimmungen  verboten,  die  daher  nur  benötigt  werden,  um 
Sanktionen  und  Rechtsmittel  zur  Durchsetzung  des  Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatzes  zu 
regulieren.  Im privaten Sektor  ist die Einführung spezieller Gesetze,  die Diskriminierung 
verbieten, jedoch unerlässlich. Das gleiche gilt für internationale Abkommen: Sie sind in 
Lettland nur für öffentliche Stellen verbindlich.  

Neben  dem  12.  Protokoll  der  Europäischen  Menschenrechtskonvention,89  das  Lettland 
unterzeichnet,  aber  noch  nicht  ratifiziert  hat,  ist  das  Land  den  meisten  wichtigen 
internationalen  Übereinkommen  zur  Bekämpfung  von  Diskriminierung  beigetreten,  z. B. 
dem Internationalen Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte,90 dem Fakultativprotokoll 
zu  diesem  Pakt,91  dem  Pakt  über  wirtschaftliche,  soziale  und  kulturelle  Rechte,92  dem 

88   Lettland, Verfassung (Satversme), 15.02.1922.  
89   Europarat, Konvention zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten, geändert durch die Protokolle 

Nr. 11 und 14, 04.11.1950, ETS 5. 

90   UN-Vollversammlung, Internationaler Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte, 

16.12.1966, Vertragssammlung der Vereinten Nationen, Band 999. 

91   UN-Vollversammlung, Fakultativprotokoll zum Internationalen Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte, 

19.12.1966, Vertragssammlung der Vereinten Nationen, Band 999. 

92   UN-Vollversammlung, Internationaler Pakt über wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Rechte, 

16.12.1966, Vertragssammlung der Vereinten Nationen, Band 993. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
jeder  Form  von  Rassendiskriminierung,93  dem 
Übereinkommen  zur  Beseitigung 
Rahmenübereinkommen zum Schutz nationaler Minderheiten,94 dem Übereinkommen über 
die  Rechte  des  Kindes,95  dem  UN-Übereinkommen  über  die  Rechte  von  Menschen  mit 
Behinderungen96  und  der  revidierten  Europäischen  Sozialcharta.97  Allerdings  erkennt  die 
lettische  Regierung  die  Zuständigkeit  des  UN-Ausschusses  für  die  Beseitigung  der 
Rassendiskriminierung  nicht  an.  Die  ratifizierten  Übereinkommen  wurden  im  Lettischen 
Amtsblatt bekannt gemacht, sie bilden damit einen Teil der nationalen Rechtsordnung und 
können von lettischen Gerichten direkt angewandt werden, sofern ihre Anwendung nicht 
die Verabschiedung eines Gesetzes voraussetzt. 

Das  lettische  Antidiskriminierungsrecht  ist  fragmentiert,  d. h.  es  gibt  kein  einheitliches, 
umfassendes  Antidiskriminierungsgesetz.  Durch  die  Überarbeitung  geltender  Gesetze 
konnte  der  Geltungsbereich  jedoch  ausgeweitet  werden.  Die  Vorrangstellung  der 
Verfassung  verbietet  Diskriminierung  im  öffentlichen  Sektor,  nicht  jedoch  im  privaten 
Sektor,  wo  ein  solches  Verbot  durch  Einzelgesetze  eingeführt  werden  muss.  Deshalb 
kompliziert das Fehlen eines allgemeinen Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes die Durchsetzung 
des Gleichbehandlungsgebots. 

Das  weitreichendste  Verbot  findet  sich  im  2001  verabschiedeten  Arbeitsgesetz98,  das 
seitdem noch überarbeitet wurde, um bestehende Gesetzeslücken zu schließen. Das Gesetz 
verbietet Diskriminierung in allen Beschäftigungsverhältnissen, die unter das Gesetz fallen, 
auf 
und 
Beschäftigungsverhältnisse der öffentlichen Hand angewandt.  

dieses  Diskriminierungsverbot 

seit  November 

2006  wird 

auch 

Das  Arbeitsgesetz  und  das  Gesetz  über  das  Verbot  der  Diskriminierung  von  natürlichen 
Personen – Wirtschaftsakteuren99 sind die einzigen Gesetze, die sexuelle Orientierung als 
verbotenen  Diskriminierungsgrund  beinhalten.  Das  Arbeitsgesetz,  das  Gesetz  über  das 
Verbot  der  Diskriminierung  von  natürlichen  Personen –  Wirtschaftsakteuren,  das  Gesetz 
über soziale Sicherheit100 und das Gesetz zum Schutz der Verbraucherrechte sind die vier 
Gesetze, in denen Behinderung ausdrücklich erwähnt wird. Die vier Gesetze, die Alter als 
verbotenen Diskriminierungsgrund enthalten, sind das Arbeitsgesetz, das Gesetz über das 
Verbot  der  Diskriminierung  von  natürlichen  Personen –  Wirtschaftsakteuren,  das  Gesetz 
über soziale Sicherheit und das Gesetz über Patientenrechte. 

Einige  andere  Gesetze  beinhalten  Diskriminierungsverbote  mit  abgeschlossenen  oder 
offenen Listen verbotener Diskriminierungsgründe, die jedoch nie alle Gründe umfassen, 
die  unter  die  Richtlinien  fallen.  Das  Bildungsgesetz  enthält  eine  abgeschlossene 
Aufzählung,  in  der  „Vermögen  und  sozialer  Status,  Rasse,  ethnische  Zugehörigkeit, 
Geschlecht,  religiöse  oder  politische  Überzeugung,  Gesundheitszustand,  Beruf  und 
Wohnort“ 
kein 
Diskriminierungsverbot,  zum  Beispiel  das  Gesetz  über  Wohnraum,  wobei  dieser  Bereich 
teilweise im reformierten Verbraucherschutzgesetz geregelt ist.  

sind.  Manche  Gesetze 

aufgeführt 

überhaupt 

enthalten 

93   UN-Vollversammlung, Internationales Übereinkommen zur Beseitigung jeder Form von 

Rassendiskriminierung , 21.12.1965, Vertragssammlung der Vereinten Nationen, Band 660. 
94   Europarat, Rahmenübereinkommen zum Schutz nationaler Minderheiten, 01.02.1995, ETS 157. 
95   UN-Vollversammlung, Übereinkommen über die Rechte des Kindes, 20. November 1989, Vertragssammlung 

der Vereinten Nationen, Band 1577. 

96   UN-Vollversammlung, Übereinkommen über die Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderungen: Resolution der 

Generalversammlung, 24.01.2007, A/RES/61/106. 

97   Europarat, Europäische Sozialcharta (revidiert), 03.05.1996, ETS 163. 
98   Lettland, Arbeitsgesetz (Darba likums), 12.06.2001.  
99   Lettland, Gesetz über das Verbot der Diskriminierung von natürlichen Personen – Wirtschaftsakteuren 
(Fizisko personu – saimnieciskās darbības veicēju diskriminācijas aizlieguma likums), 19.12.2012.  

100  Lettland, Gesetz über soziale Sicherheit (likums „Par sociālo drošību“), 07.09.1995.  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Das  Strafgesetzbuch  verbietet  Hassverbrechen  bzw.  Anstiftung  zum  Hass  aufgrund  des 
Geschlechts, des Alters, einer Behinderung oder anderer Merkmale sowie rassistisch oder 
religiös motivierte Verbrechen.101 Sexuelle Orientierung wird nicht ausdrücklich erwähnt. 

Größtes Problem des lettischen Antidiskriminierungsrechts ist seine lückenhafte Struktur, 
aus  der  sich  die  meisten  anderen  Probleme  ergeben.  Prinzipiell  sind  alle  vorgegebenen 
Bereiche  abgedeckt, 
in  allen  Bereichen  alle  geforderten 
Diskriminierungsgründe geschützt. 

jedoch  sind  nicht 

3. Wichtigste Grundsätze und Begriffe 

von 

Arbeitslosen 

Das  Arbeitsgesetz,  das  Gesetz  über  das  Verbot  der  Diskriminierung  von  natürlichen 
Personen – Wirtschaftsakteuren, das Gesetz über soziale Sicherheit,102 das Gesetz über die 
das 
Unterstützung 
Verbraucherschutzgesetz104  enthalten  Definitionen  von  unmittelbarer  und  mittelbarer 
Diskriminierung und Belästigung, die den Richtlinien entsprechen; sie verbieten auch die 
Anweisung  zur  Diskriminierung.  Schutz  vor  Viktimisierung  bieten  das  Arbeitsgesetz,  das 
Verbraucherschutzgesetz,  das  Gesetz  über  die  Unterstützung  von  Arbeitslosen  und 
Arbeitssuchenden,  das  Gesetz  über  soziale  Sicherheit,  das  Gesetz  über  das  Verbot  der 
Diskriminierung 
das 
Bildungsgesetz;105  Schutz  vor  Viktimisierung  besteht  auch  im  Zusammenhang  mit 
Beschwerden bei der Ombudsstelle. 

Personen –  Wirtschaftsakteuren 

Arbeitssuchenden103 

natürlichen 

und 

und 

und 

von 

Es  gibt  keine  Bestimmungen  über  Diskriminierung  aufgrund  von  Assoziierung  oder  von 
mutmaßlichen Gründen oder Eigenschaften; der Wortlaut des Diskriminierungsverbots in 
lettischen Gesetzen bezieht sich auf Rasse, religiöse Überzeugung usw. von Personen (d. h. 
der  Personen,  die  sich  auf  das  Verbot  berufen),  wodurch  Diskriminierung  aufgrund 
mutmaßlicher  Eigenschaften  wesentlich  einfacher  zu  verfolgen  ist  als  Diskriminierung 
aufgrund  von  Assoziierung.  Da  aber  noch  kein  Fallrecht  zu  diesen  Fragen  vorliegt,  lässt 
sich  bisher  nur  mit  Sicherheit  sagen,  dass  diese  Diskriminierungsformen  im  lettischen 
Recht nicht ausdrücklich verboten sind. 

Die  Diskriminierungsgründe  werden  weder  im  Arbeitsrecht  noch  anderswo  definiert.  Es 
steht  zu  befürchten,  dass  der  Begriff  „Behinderung“  enger  gefasst  ist  als  im 
Übereinkommen über die Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderungen der Vereinten Nationen 
und  auf  eine  technische  Definition  reduziert  wird,  bei  der  nur  eine  formal  bestätigte 
Minderung der Erwerbsfähigkeit anerkannt wird und nicht eine tatsächliche Behinderung. 

Das  Arbeitsgesetz  ist  das  einzige  Gesetz,  das  Ungleichbehandlung  aus  bestimmten 
Gründen wegen wesentlicher beruflicher Anforderungen zulässt. 

Die Ausnahmebestimmungen in anderen Gesetzen („eine Ungleichbehandlung in Bezug auf 
einen der genannten Gründe ist nur zulässig, wenn sie durch einen rechtmäßigen Zweck 
sachlich  gerechtfertigt  ist  und  die  gewählten  Mittel  zur  Erreichung  dieses  Ziels 
verhältnismäßig  sind“)  wie  dem  Gesetz  über  soziale  Sicherheit,  dem  Gesetz  über  das 
Verbot der Diskriminierung von natürlichen Personen – Wirtschaftsakteuren, dem Gesetz 
über die Unterstützung von Arbeitslosen und Arbeitssuchenden, dem Bildungsgesetz und 
dem  Verbraucherschutzgesetz  unterscheiden  weder  zwischen  unmittelbarer  und 
mittelbarer Diskriminierung, noch zwischen Gründen, die unter die Richtlinien fallen, und 
anderen  Gründen  für  eine  Ungleichbehandlung.  Die  Gesetze,  die  Diskriminierung 

101  Lettland, Strafgesetzbuch (Krimināllikums), 17.06.1998. 
102  Die alte Definition von mittelbarer Diskriminierung, die den Schutz auf vergleichbare Situationen 

einschränkt, ist in dem Gesetz weiterhin enthalten.  

103  Lettland, Gesetz über die Unterstützung von Arbeitslosen und Arbeitssuchenden (Bezdarbnieku un darba 

meklētāju atbalsta likums), 09.05.2002.  

104  Lettland, Verbraucherschutzgesetz (Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības likums), 18.03.1999.  
105  Lettland, Bildungsgesetz (Izglītības likums), 29.09.1998.  

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
(einschließlich  von  unmittelbarer  Diskriminierung)  verbieten,  wurden  im  Rahmen  der 
Umsetzung der Richtlinien in nationales Recht überarbeitet, allerdings in vielen Fällen nicht 
mit  ausreichender  Präzision.  In  diesen  Fällen müssen  die  Gerichte  sich  am  Wortlaut  der 
Richtlinien  orientieren.  Außerdem  enthält  das  Arbeitsgesetz  eine  Ausnahmebestimmung 
für religiöse Organisationen, die auf den ersten Blick weiter gefasst ist, als es die Richtlinien 
erlauben.  Das  Arbeitsgesetz  verpflichtet  Arbeitgeber,  angemessene  Vorkehrungen  für 
Menschen  mit  Behinderungen  zu 
treffen.  Es  gibt  keine  Bestimmungen  über 
Mehrfachdiskriminierung. 

4. Sachlicher Geltungsbereich 

Das  Arbeitsgesetz  bietet  in  allen  Aspekten  von  Beschäftigungsverhältnissen,  sowohl  im 
öffentlichen als auch im privaten Sektor, einschließlich des öffentlichen Dienstes (jedoch 
nicht  beim  Militärdienst)  und  bei  Auftragsarbeiten,  die  durch  selbständig  Erwerbstätige 
ausgeführt  werden,  Schutz  vor  jeder  Form  der  Diskriminierung  (unmittelbare  und 
mittelbare  Diskriminierung,  Belästigung,  Anweisung 
zur  Diskriminierung  und 
Viktimisierung). Das Verbot gilt auch für die Einstellung von Arbeitnehmern und bezieht 
sich  unter  anderem  auf  die  Gründe  Geschlecht,  Rasse,  Alter,  Behinderung,  Religion  und 
sexuelle Orientierung.106 

Der  Zugang  zur  Berufsberatung  und  beruflichen  Bildung  und  Fragen  der  Bildung  im 
öffentlichen und privaten Sektor sind im Arbeitsgesetz geregelt, das sich auf die „berufliche 
Bildung“ bezieht, und im Bildungsgesetz,107 das ebenfalls für den öffentlichen wie auch den 
privaten  Sektor  gilt.  Allerdings  enthält  letzteres  Gesetz  eine  abgeschlossene  Aufzählung 
verbotener Diskriminierungsgründe, in der Alter,  Behinderung und sexuelle Orientierung 
(obwohl  Behinderung  möglicherweise  unter  den  Begriff 
nicht  enthalten  sind 
„Gesundheitszustand“  subsumiert  werden  kann).  Auch  das  Verbraucherschutzgesetz  ist 
möglicherweise  für  Fragen  der  allgemeinen  und  beruflichen  Bildung  relevant,  dieses 
verbietet jedoch nur Diskriminierung aufgrund von Geschlecht, Rasse, ethnischer Herkunft 
und  Behinderung.  Das  Gesetz  über  die  Unterstützung  von  Arbeitslosen  und 
Arbeitssuchenden,  das  den  Bereich  der  Fortbildung  betrifft,  verbietet  Diskriminierung 
aufgrund von Geschlecht, Rasse und ethnischer Herkunft. 

in  einer  Arbeitnehmer-  oder 
Die  Gesetze  über  Mitgliedschaft  und  Mitwirkung 
Arbeitgeberorganisation  bzw.  einer  Berufsorganisation  enthalten  nicht  in  jedem  Fall  ein 
Diskriminierungsverbot. Die Bestimmungen des Arbeitsgesetzes gelten zwar für die ersten 
beiden, Berufsorganisationen bleiben aber ein Problem und sind nicht gesetzlich abgedeckt. 
sozialen  Sicherheit  und  der 
Der  Bereich  Sozialschutz 
Gesundheitsversorgung  ist  im  Gesetz  über  soziale  Sicherheit  geregelt,  das  Alter  und 
Behinderung  aufzählt,108  sexuelle  Orientierung  jedoch  nicht  ausdrücklich  erwähnt. 
Außerdem definiert dieses Gesetz soziale Leistungen als Leistungen des Staates oder der 
Kommunen, d. h. es gilt nicht für den privaten Sektor. 

einschließlich  der 

Der  Zugang  zu  Gütern  und  Dienstleistungen  ist  durch  das  Verbraucherschutzgesetz 
abgedeckt. Die Liste der verbotenen Gründe ist auf Geschlecht, Rasse, ethnische Herkunft 
und Behinderung beschränkt, was an sich nicht gegen die Richtlinien verstößt.  

5. Rechtsdurchsetzung 

Opfer von Diskriminierung haben verschiedene rechtliche Möglichkeiten: 

106  Die vollständige Liste beinhaltet „Rasse, Hautfarbe, Alter, Behinderung, religiöse, politische oder sonstige 

Überzeugung, nationale oder soziale Herkunft, Vermögens- oder Personenstand, sexuelle Orientierung oder 
sonstige Umstände“. 

107  Hier werden „Vermögen und sozialer Status, Rasse, ethnische Zugehörigkeit, Geschlecht, religiöse oder 
politische Überzeugungen, Gesundheitszustand, Beruf und Wohnort“ als verbotene Gründe aufgezählt. 
108  Die Liste der verbotenen Diskriminierungsgründe entspricht der des Arbeitsgesetzes mit Ausnahme von 

sexueller Orientierung. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
- 
- 

- 

- 

- 

Klage vor einem ordentlichen Gericht; 
Verfassungsgericht – es wurde bereits zweimal gegen Rechtsvorschriften Beschwerde 
eingereicht,  weil  deren  Bestimmungen  eine  mutmaßliche  Altersdiskriminierung 
darstellen, 
Beschwerde bei der öffentlichen Stelle, die gegen den Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatz 
verstoßen hat, oder bei einer übergeordneten Stelle, 
Staatliche  Arbeitsinspektion,  wenn  die  Diskriminierung 
Arbeitsverhältnisses stattgefunden hat, die Inspektion kann Geldbußen verhängen, 
Büro  des  Ombudsmanns,  der  eine  gütliche  Einigung  anstreben  kann.  Der 
Ombudsmann  kann  im  öffentlichen  Interesse  Klage  vor  einem  Verwaltungsgericht 
einreichen  oder  Fälle  vor  ein  Zivilgericht  bringen,  wenn  in  einem  Fall  der 
Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatz verletzt wurde. 

im  Rahmen  eines 

Der normale Rechtsweg wäre eine Klage vor einem ordentlichen Gericht. Seit 2005 ist ein 
Gesetz in Kraft, das eine staatlich finanzierte Prozesskostenhilfe in Zivilverfahren regelt,109 
seine Wirksamkeit in der Praxis ist aber noch kaum untersucht. NROs können im Namen 
natürlicher  Personen,  die  Opfer  von  Diskriminierung  geworden  sind,  eine  Beschwerde 
einlegen oder klagen. Auch das Büro des Ombudsmanns kann Klagen einreichen. Allerdings 
ist  die  Beteiligung  an  Verfahren  vor  Berufungsgerichten,  auch  in  Diskriminierungsfällen, 
seit  einer  Reform  der  Zivilprozessordnung  im  Dezember  2013  auf  die  Opfer  und  deren 
Rechtsanwälte beschränkt, was NROs, den Ombudsmann und andere rechtliche Vertreter 
ausschließt. 

Das Arbeitsgesetz (Beschäftigung), das Verbraucherschutzgesetz und das Gesetz über das 
Verbot der Diskriminierung von natürlichen Personen – Wirtschaftsakteuren (die beide den 
Zugang  zu  Gütern  und  Dienstleistungen  betreffen)  sowie  das  Bildungsgesetz  und  das 
Gesetz  über  die  Unterstützung  von  Arbeitslosen  und  Arbeitssuchenden  sehen  eine 
Verlagerung der Beweislast vor.  

Beweislast 

In mehreren Fällen hat der Oberste Gerichtshof untergeordnete Gerichte gerügt, weil sie 
die 
die 
Verwaltungsverfahrensordnung fallen, gilt die Ausnahme für eine Untersuchung von Amts 
wegen. 

umgekehrt 

hatten.110 

Fälle, 

unter 

nicht 

Für 

die 

Das lettische Recht enthält keine Bestimmungen über Situationstests und die Verwendung 
statistischer Beweise. Es liegen keine Daten zu deren Verwendung und kein Fallrecht vor. 

Die in Diskriminierungsfällen zugesprochenen Schadenersatzbeträge sind im Schnitt relativ 
niedrig,  daher  ist  es  zweifelhaft,  ob  diese  Sanktionen  verhältnismäßig,  wirksam  und 
abschreckend sind. Zudem ist die Mehrzahl der Gerichtsurteile nicht öffentlich einsehbar. 
Die im Strafgesetzbuch vorgesehene Höchststrafe von bis zu drei Jahren Haft wurde noch 
nie verhängt. 

Die  meisten  der  vor  Gericht  verhandelten  Diskriminierungsfälle  betreffen  den  Bereich 
Beschäftigung  und  beziehen  sich  zum  größten  Teil  auf  Diskriminierung  aufgrund  des 
Geschlechts.  Zwischen  2005  und  Ende  2016  lagen  die  zugesprochenen  Beträge  in  den 
bekannten  Diskriminierungsfällen,  in  denen  die  Opfer  Recht  bekamen  (es  gab  über  ein 
Dutzend,  von  denen  zwei  Diskriminierung  aufgrund  des  Geschlechts  betrafen,  zwei 

109  Die staatliche Prozesskostenhilfe in Verwaltungsverfahren wurde 2009 abgeschafft.  
110  Lettland, Oberster Gerichtshof, Senat für Zivilsachen (Augstākās tiesas Civillietu tiesu palāta), R. S. gegen 

die neue evangelisch-lutherische Kirche St. Gertrude in Riga (R.S. v. Rīgas Jaunā Svētās Ģertrūdes 
evanģēliski luteriskā draudze); Lettland, Oberster Gerichtshof (Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesa), 
Rechtssache SKC-684/2012, E.L. gegen die Staatliche Aktiengesellschaft „Internationaler Flughafen Riga“ 
(E.L. v Valsts akciju sabiedrība „Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga“). 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
aufgrund von Behinderung,111 einer aufgrund der ethnischen Zugehörigkeit,112 einer wegen 
des Alters113 und einer betraf Viktimisierung), lagen die zugesprochenen Beträge zwischen 
428 Euro114  und  7142 Euro.  Der  höchste  Betrag  wurde  in  einem  Schlichtungsverfahren 
zugesprochen, das Schmerzensgeld lag im Schnitt bei 1500 Euro. 

Seit der Ratifizierung der UN-BRK wurden im Bereich Sozialschutz115 und beim Zugang zu 
öffentlichen  Gebäuden  des  Gesundheitswesens  mehrere  Klagen  eingereicht,  weil  keine 
angemessenen Vorkehrungen für Menschen mit Behinderungen getroffen worden waren.116  

Nach  der  Verwaltungsverfahrensordnung  kann  Personen,  denen  durch  einen 
Verwaltungsakt oder die Handlungen einer staatlichen Institution finanzielle Verluste und 
persönliche,  auch 
immaterielle,  Schäden  entstanden  sind,  eine  Entschädigung 
zugesprochen  werden.  Das  Gesetzbuch  über  Ordnungswidrigkeiten  sieht  für  Verstöße 
gegen  das  Diskriminierungsverbot  Geldbußen  zwischen  140 Euro  und  715 Euro  vor.  Die 
Staatliche Arbeitsinspektion hat bereits entsprechende Sanktionen verhängt, vorwiegend 
für  Diskriminierung  in  Stellenanzeigen  aufgrund  von  Geschlecht,  Alter  und  ethnischer 
Zugehörigkeit. Diese Sanktionen reichten von Verwarnungen bis zu Geldbußen in Höhe von 
70 bis 535 Euro, wobei diese geringen Beträge wohl kaum abschreckend wirken dürften. 
Der  Oberste  Gerichtshof  hat,  in  Übereinstimmung  mit  dem  Europäischen  Gerichtshof, 
verdeutlicht,  dass 
immaterielle  Schäden  nicht  speziell 
nachgewiesen  werden  müssen,  weil  schon  das  Bestehen  einer  Diskriminierung  im 
Beschäftigungsverhältnis einen ideellen Schaden glaubhaft macht.117 

in  Diskriminierungsfällen 

6. Gleichbehandlungsstellen 

Seit  März  2007  übt  das  Büro  des  Ombudsmanns  die  Funktion  der  nationalen 
Gleichbehandlungsstelle aus. Zu seinen Aufgaben gehört der Schutz der Menschenrechte, 
einschließlich  der  Förderung  des  Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatzes,  wobei  keine  speziellen 
Diskriminierungsgründe  aufgezählt  werden  und  damit  alle  Gründe  abgedeckt  sind. 
Außerdem  muss  das  Büro  individuelle  Beschwerden  wegen  Menschenrechtsverletzungen 
untersuchen,  gegebenenfalls  auf  eigene  Initiative  Untersuchungen  einleiten,  die 
Menschenrechtslage  analysieren,  Befragungen  durchführen  und  Berichte  erstellen.  Das 
Büro  ist  befugt,  Klagen  von  Einzelpersonen  zu  prüfen,  die  notwendigen  Informationen 
anzufordern  und  ein  Schlichtungsverfahren  durchzuführen.  Ist  die  Schlichtung  nicht 
erfolgreich,  kann  das  Büro  den  Parteien  seine  rechtliche  Stellungnahme  in  Form  von 
Empfehlungen  mitteilen  und  Empfehlungen  für  die  zuständige  Behörde  oder  den 
zuständigen Amtsträger erstellen; diese Empfehlungen sind jedoch nicht bindend und das 
Büro kann auch keine Geldbußen verhängen. Es ist berechtigt, vor dem Verfassungsgericht 
zu  klagen,  wenn  eine  Rechtsvorschrift  gegen  eine  höherrangige  Rechtsnorm  verstößt. 
Entsprechend  kann  das  Büro  bei  einem  Verwaltungsgericht  Klage  einreichen,  wenn  es 
dabei  öffentliche  Interessen  verfolgt,  oder  bei  einem  Zivilgericht,  wenn  das  Büro  einen 

111  Lettland, Oberster Gerichtshof, Senat für Zivilsachen (Augstākās tiesas Civillietu tiesu palāta), R. S. gegen 

die neue evangelisch-lutherische Kirche St. Gertrude in Riga (R.S. v. Rīgas Jaunā Svētās Ģertrūdes 
evanģēliski luteriskā draudze), 11.04.2007; Lettland, Bezirksgericht Kurzeme (Kurzemes apgabaltiesas 
Civillietu tiesas kolēģija), Rechtssache C40066110 (V.Trusēvičs v. SIA Bio-Venta (Bio-Venta Ltd)), 
21.09.2011. 

112  Lettland, Amtsgericht Jelgava (Jelgavas tiesa), S.Kozlovska gegen SIA Palso, Rechtssache C15066406, 

25.05.2006.  

113  Lettland, Oberster Gerichtshof (Augstākās tiesas Senāts), Rechtssache C32276312 (SKC-1702/2013), 

29.11.2013. 

114  Lettland hat zum 01.01.2014 die frühere Landeswährung, den Lats, durch den Euro ersetzt. 
115  Regionales Verwaltungsgericht (Administratīvā apgabaltiesa), Rechtssache A420528911, B. gegen die 

staatliche Sozialversicherungsagentur (B.V. pret Valsts Sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūru), 27.09.2013. 
116  Lettland, Bezirksverwaltungsgericht (Administratīvā rajona tiesa), Rechtssache A420571712, 02.12.2013; 
Lettland, Oberster Gerichtshof, Senat für Zivilsachen (Augstākās tiesas Civillietu tiesu palāta), R. S. gegen 
die neue evangelisch-lutherische Kirche St. Gertrude in Riga (R.S. v. Rīgas Jaunā Svētās Ģertrūdes 
evanģēliski luteriskā draudze). 

117  Lettland, Oberster Gerichtshof (Augstākās tiesas Senāts), Rechtssache C32276312 (SKC – 1702/2013), 

29.11.2013, abrufbar unter http://www.l2d.lv/v.php?i=82540. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Verstoß gegen das Diskriminierungsverbot festgestellt hat. Außerdem bietet das Büro eine 
Rechtsberatung für Diskriminierungsopfer an und unterstützt sie bei der Vorbereitung ihrer 
Klage. Der Ombudsmann hat noch nie ein Diskriminierungsopfer vor Gericht vertreten, hat 
aber zwei Schlichtungsverfahren erfolgreich durchgeführt. 

infolge  der  Wirtschaftskrise  haben  die 

Die  Mittelkürzungen 
Funktion  der 
Gleichbehandlungsstelle natürlich beeinträchtigt. 2010 wurde das Budget der Einrichtung 
im Vergleich zu 2008 um 57 % gekürzt. Dies führte zu personellen Einschnitten. Zeitweise 
verfügte  die  Einrichtung  über  ein  bis  drei  Mitarbeiter,  die  auf  Diskriminierungsfragen 
spezialisiert  waren.  2014  bestand  die  Abteilung  „Rechtliche  Gleichstellung“  aus  drei 
Mitarbeitern.118 Anfang 2015 wurde die Abteilung geschlossen und das Personal anderen 
Abteilungen  zugewiesen,119  was  die  Frage  aufwirft,  ob  die  Einrichtung  die 
Mindestanforderungen  der Antirassismusrichtlinie in der Praxis erfüllt. 2015 verfügte die 
Gleichbehandlungsstelle über ein Budget von 1 144 522 Euro, 2016 über 1 329 113 Euro, 
was im Vergleich zu 2015 einen Anstieg um fast 14 % bedeutete.120 Informationen über 
Beschwerden wegen Diskriminierung und deren Ausgang sind öffentlich nicht zugänglich, 
auf Anfrage jedoch erhältlich. 

7. Schlüsselprobleme 

Unterschiede  in  der  Behandlung  sind  in  der  beruflichen  Bildung  außerhalb  von 
Beschäftigungsverhältnissen nicht ausreichend verboten. 

Es gibt weiterhin keine nationale Koordination von Antidiskriminierungsmaßnahmen. Seit 
2004 gibt es nur ein äußerst begrenztes Fallrecht in Bezug auf die Diskriminierungsgründe 
Rasse  und  ethnische  Herkunft  (1),  Behinderung  (3),  Alter (2),  Religion  (0)  und  sexuelle 
Orientierung (0).  

Die  überarbeitete  Zivilprozessordnung  macht  es  NROs  unmöglich,  Opfer  von 
Diskriminierung  in  höheren  Instanzen  zu  vertreten  und  fällt  damit  hinter  das  von  den 
Gleichbehandlungsrichtlinien geforderte Schutzniveau zurück. 

118  Seit Anfang 2015 besteht diese Abteilung jedoch nicht mehr. Vgl.: Ombudsmann (LR Tiesībsargs), 

„Personnel“ (unter „About us“), abrufbar (auf Englisch) unter http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/par-
mums/darbinieki. 

119  LR Tiesībsargs (2015), „Personnel“, abrufbar unter http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/en/about-us/darbinieki.  
120  Ombudsmann der Republik Lettland (2016), Jahresbericht 2016, S. 261: „Tatsächliche Ausgaben für 2015 

und 2016 (niedriger als das von der Regierung genehmigte Budget)“. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
INTRODUCTION 

The national legal system 

Latvia’s legal system belongs to the continental (Romano-Germanic) law system. Latvia’s 
law was significantly influenced by German (and subsequently, Roman) law, especially in 
areas of civil, administrative and constitutional law. The Constitution (Satversme), adopted 
in 1922, was drafted using the Weimar Constitution, the constitutions of German states, 
and  the  Constitution  of  France  as  primary  models.  The  most  important  source  of  law  in 
Latvia  is  legal  acts,  which  can  be  divided  into  two  categories:  external  and  internal. 
External legal acts are universally binding. The main types of external legal acts are laws, 
regulations  of  the  Cabinet  of  Ministers,  and  binding  regulations  of  local  municipalities. 
Internal legal acts bind only the issuing state institution. Examples of internal legal acts 
are statutes, instructions and recommendations.  

The hierarchical system of legal acts in Latvia is the following: 1) the Constitution; 2) laws, 
3)  regulations  of  the  Cabinet  of  Ministers;  4)  binding  regulations  of  local  authorities. 
International  and  EU  legal  norms  are  applied  in  accordance  with  their  ranking  in  the 
hierarchy  of  external  regulatory  enactments.  In  cases  of  conflicts  between  Latvian  and 
international/EU statute of the same legal force, the international/EU law or provision must 
be applied.121  

Latvia  is  a  multi-ethnic  country,  although  the  proportion  of  the  different  ethnic  groups 
among  its  population  has  varied.  In  2011,  of  a  population  of  2 067 887,  62.1 %  were 
Latvians,  26.9 %  Russians,  3.3 %  Belarusians,  2.2 %  Ukrainians,  2.2 %  Poles;  1.2 % 
Lithuanians,  0.3 %  Jewish,  0.1 %  Estonians,  0.3 %  Roma,  0.1 %  Germans,  and  1.3 % 
others.122 Latvian citizens number 1 796 608 or 84.4 % of the population; of these, ethnic 
Latvians constitute 71.1 %. In addition, 11.4 % or 242 560 inhabitants are non-citizens,123 
of which ethnic Russians are the largest group. Therefore, issues relating to non-citizens 
are  often  treated  as  mainly  concerning  Russians  or  Russian-speakers,  and  the  rights  of 
citizens and non-citizens, as well as linguistic issues, remain sensitive. There are 73 863 
third country nationals; the largest group are citizens of Russia (55 440), many of whom 
are long term residents in Latvia, followed by citizens of Ukraine (6 442) and citizens of 
Belarus (3 034). There are also 176 stateless persons living in Latvia.124 

List of main legislation transposing and implementing the directives 

Latvian  anti-discrimination  law  remains  scattered  across  many  pieces  of  legislation. 
However, the main problem is that while most fields covered by the directives are covered 
in  Latvia,  the  law  often  does  not  apply  to  all  grounds  –  which  results  in  incomplete 
protection. The older laws containing an equality clause  never include all of the grounds 
required by the directives and not all of them leave the list of grounds open. Furthermore, 
the laws that are supposed to implement the directives leave some grounds uncovered.  

The main anti-discrimination laws transposing the directives are: 

121  Update: Guide to Latvian Legal System and Legal Research (2012), available at: 

http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Latvia1.html.  

122  2011 Population Census. 
123  Non-citizens are a special category of people - former USSR citizens who were resident in Latvia on 

01.07.1991 and have not obtained citizenship of any other country, thus this term does not encompass 
foreign citizens and stateless persons. Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs, Statistics of the Population 
Register (01.01.2017) Latvian population breakdown by nationality, available at: 
http://www.pmlp.gov.lv/lv/assets/documents/Iedzivotaju%20re%C4%A3istrs/07022017/ISVN_Latvija_pec
_TTB_VPD.pdf. 

124  Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs, Statistics of the Population Register. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Labour  Law125  –  adopted  20.06.2001,  in  force  01.06.2002,  latest  amendments 
12.05.2016,  grounds:  race,  skin  colour,  age,  disability,  religious,  political  or  other 
conviction, national and social origin, property and marital status, sexual orientation 
or  other  circumstances;  covers  employment  relationships  proper  (civil  service  and 
specialised civil service excepted); 
State Civil Service Law126 – adopted 07.09.2000, in force: 01.01.2001, grounds: not 
specified, latest amendments: 23.11.2016, civil service relationships; 
Law  on  Social  Security127  –  adopted:  07.09.1995,  in  force:  05.10.1995,  latest 
amendments:  26.11.2015,  grounds:  race,  colour,  gender,  age,  disability,  health 
condition, religious, political or other conviction, national or social origin, property or 
family status or other circumstances; covers social services (state, municipal); 
Consumer  Rights  Protection  Law128  –  adopted:  18.03.1999,  in  force:  15.04.1999, 
latest  amendments:  09.06.2016,  grounds:  gender,  race,  ethnic  origin,  disability, 
access to goods and services; 
Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination of Natural Persons-Economic Operators129 – 
adopted: 19.12.2012, in force: 02.01.2013, grounds covered: gender, age, religious, 
political  or  other  conviction,  sexual  orientation,  disability,  race  and  ethnic  origin, 
access to self-employment; access to goods and services; 
Law on Education – adopted: 29.10.1998, in force: 01.06.1999, latest amendments: 
23.11.2016;  grounds:  property  and  social  status,  race,  ethnic  origin,  gender, 
religious  and  political  belief,  state  of  health,  employment  and  place  of  residence; 
access to education;130  
Ombudsman  Law131  –  adopted  06.04.2006,  in  force:  01.01.2007,  grounds:  not 
specified,  latest  amendments:  25.09.2014,  grounds  covered:  not  specified,  legal 
status, functions and tasks of the Ombudsman, as well as the procedures by which 
the Ombudsman shall perform the functions and tasks specified by the law; 
Law  on  Organisations  and  Foundations132  –  adopted  30.10.2003,  in  force: 
01.04.2004,  latest  amendments:  01.01.2016,  grounds  covered:  not  specified, 
principles of the activity, organisational structure, liquidation and re-organisation of 
associations and foundations. 

125  Latvia, Labour Law (Darba likums), 20.06.2001, http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=26019. 
126  Latvia, State Civil Service Law (Valsts civildienesta likums), 07.07.2000, http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=10944. 
127  Latvia, Law on Social Security (Likums par sociālo drošību) 07.09.1995, http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=36850.  
128  Latvia, Consumer Rights Protection (Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības likums), 18.03.1999, 

http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=23309. 

129  Latvia, Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination of Natural Persons-Economic Operators (Fizisko personu – 

saimnieciskās darbības veicēju- diskriminācijas aizlieguma likums), 19.12.2012, 
http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=253547. 

130  Latvia, Law on Education (Izglītības likums), 29.10.1998, http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=50759. 
131  Latvia, Ombudsman Law (Tiesībsarga likums), 06.04.2006, http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=133535. 
132  Latvia, Law on Organisations and Foundations (Biedrību un nodibinājumu likums), 30.10.2003, 

http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=81050. 

29 

 
 
                                                 
1 

GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK  

Constitutional provisions on protection against discrimination and the promotion 
of equality  

Article 91 of the Satversme (the Latvian Constitution) deals with non-discrimination. 

The  principle  of  non-discrimination  is  enshrined  in  Article 91,  which  provides  that  ‘All 
persons  in  Latvia  shall  be  equal  before  the  law  and  the  courts.  Human  rights  shall  be 
observed without discrimination of any kind’. It refers to ‘discrimination of any kind’ without 
specifying the grounds and thus covers all possible grounds, including the grounds of the 
two directives – thus also discrimination based on sexual orientation in relation to fields 
other than employment. As the Constitution stands highest in the hierarchy of legal norms, 
this permits an argument that a non-exhaustive list of grounds also applies in the cases of 
laws that only contain an exhaustive list of grounds in their non-discrimination clauses,133 
although  in  practice  this  would  inevitably  complicate  matters  by  requiring  weighty 
arguments to counter the inclusion of the ‘one is the exclusion of another’ argument.  

The right to non-discrimination in the Constitution is also an autonomous right that may 
apply to any area regulated and protected by the state.  

In  addition  to  the  non-discrimination  clause  in  Article 91,  Article  89  of  the  Constitution 
states that ‘the state shall recognise and protect fundamental human rights in accordance 
with this Constitution, laws and international agreements binding upon Latvia’.  

While  this  recognises  the  binding  force  of  international  treaties  without  giving  express 
indication  as  to  the  place  of  international  treaties  in  the  hierarchy  of  norms,  the 
Constitutional Court has adopted the doctrine that the norms of the Constitution have to 
be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the  international  human  rights  standards  that  are  binding 
upon  Latvia.134  The  competence  of  the  court  to  review  the  compatibility  of  international 
treaties  signed  or  concluded  by  Latvia  with  the  Constitution,  as  well  as  to  review  the 
compatibility  of  national  legal  provisions  with  those  international  treaties  concluded  by 
Latvia that do not contradict the Constitution, must be noted in particular.  

This indicates the place of international treaties binding on Latvia in the hierarchy of norms: 
they  are  below  the  Constitution  yet  above  the  ordinary  laws,  and  ordinary  laws  and  all 
subordinate provisions must comply with these treaties.  

Moreover, in practice it has been accepted that international treaties can be relied upon, 
and applied directly – to the extent that direct application is possible and the treaties are 
self-executing  –  even  in  the  absence  of  any  implementing  legislation.  The  European 
Convention  on  Human  Rights  and  Fundamental  Freedoms  stands  out  as  particularly 
important,  as  the  Constitutional  Court  and  administrative  courts  use  international  legal 
instruments,  and  courts  of  general  jurisdiction  rely  on  ECHR,  or  at  least  refer  to  it. 

133

   For example, while Article 3 of the Education Law only guarantees equal rights to receive education to 

citizens of Latvia, Latvian non-citizens and citizens of the EU states regardless of ‘property and social status, 
race, ethnicity, gender, religious or political opinions, health condition, occupation and place of residence’, 
not mentioning, for example, sexual orientation or age, by referring to Article 91 of the Constitution it is 
possible to regard these grounds as non-exhaustive. 

134   Latvia, Constitutional Court (Satversmes Tiesa) judgment in case No.2000-03-01, 30.08.2000, 

http://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2000/03/2000-03-01_Spriedums_ENG.pdf. It has been 
argued that some international treaties, due to the subject they deal with, may even be at the same level as 
the Constitution. See Ineta Ziemele, ‘International Law in the Latvian Legal System’ in Ineta Ziemele, (ed) 
(1998), Realization of Human Rights in Latvia: Courts and Administrative Procedure (in Latvian), Riga, 
1998, pp.43-44. Mārtiņš Mits, for example, considers that the supremacy of international treaties is a 
general principle of law, even if it has not been included in a norm of constitutional rank (see Mārtiņš Mits 
(1999), ‘The Satversme in the Context of European Human Rights Standards’, Latvian Human Rights 
Quarterly, 7-10/1999, p.50). That position is no longer doubted and has been well established and affirmed 
by practice. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Claimants in the Constitutional Court rely not only on the non-discrimination clause of the 
Satversme, but also on the provisions of international treaties binding on Latvia – primarily 
the  ECHR.  In  certain  cases,  the  Constitutional  Court  has  examined,  inter  alia,  whether 
Article 14 of the ECHR has been violated.135 The reliance on the UN CRPD may increase in 
the  future,  as  several  cases  where  the  courts  have  referred  to  it  have  emerged.136 
Importantly, the Constitutional Court has held that, where the Constitution provides for a 
higher standard of protection than the one provided for by the international agreements 
binding on Latvia, the higher standard is applied. 

These  provisions  apply  to  all  areas  covered  by  the  directives.  Their  material  scope  is 
broader than those of the directives. 

These provisions are directly applicable. 

The  Constitution  is  generally  regarded  as  directly  applicable.  It  was  first  in  the 
‘compensation of losses’ case137 that the Constitutional Court held that constitutional norms 
can  be  applied  directly.  While  the  petitioner  argued  that  there  had  been  discrimination 
because a change in the law failed to provide for the compensation of losses in his case, 
the Constitutional Court held that Article 92 of the Constitution could be applied directly 
and  that  the  absence  of  an  implementing  law  cannot  serve  as  a  ground  for  the  court’s 
refusal to accept the claim. 

The provisions cannot be enforced against private actors (in addition to against the state). 
Specific laws and judicial interpretation are required.  

The main problem is that the Constitution is generally not regarded as directly applicable 
to actions by private individuals, and thus lacks horizontal effect; hence, while it would be 
possible  to  argue  the  applicability  of  the  principle  of  non-discrimination  to  the  public 
sphere, even in the absence of any implementing legislation, in the private sphere such 
legislation is crucial. The case law suggests that international norms – and probably also 
constitutional norms, although the courts generally still seem to be reluctant to refer to 
them, or to do more than just refer to them, going into the substance of cases instead – 
can  be  of  importance  when  interpreting  the  duties  contained  in  ordinary  legislation  and 
thus, in the combination of the two, can be relied on to impose duties on private parties 
that may not be obvious from just looking at the legislation; however, one has to keep in 
mind the need to comply with the requirement that the law be sufficiently precise to enable 
the individual to foresee the consequences of his actions.  

135  See, for example, the Constitutional Court judgments in cases No. 2000-03-01, 30.08.2000, 

http://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2000/03/2000-03-01_Spriedums_ENG.pdf and 2001-02-
0106, 26.06.2001, http://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2001/02/2001-02-
0106_Spriedums_ENG.pdf.  

136  Administrative District Court Case No.A420528911 (B. v. State Social Insurance Agency (B. pret Valsts 

Sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūru)), 27.09.2013, Administrative District Court Case No. A420571712 (B. v. 
Health Inspection (B. pret Veselības inspekciju)), 02.12.2013. 

137  Latvia, Constitutional Court, Case No. 2001-07-0103, 05.12.2001, available at 

http://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2001/07/2001-07-0103_Spriedums_ENG.pdf. In this 
particular case the petitioner complained of the unconstitutionality of the Law on the Compensation of 
Losses Suffered as the Result of Illegal or Unsubstantiated Actions of Bodies of Investigation, Prosecutor’s 
Office or Court because the law, allegedly in contradiction with Article 92 of the Constitution providing that 
‘Everyone, where their rights are violated without basis, has a right to commensurate compensation’, failed 
to provide for the compensation of losses in his case. While the law governed the compensation of losses to, 
inter alia, persons acquitted by the court, it did not apply to cases such as the petitioner’s case when the 
person found guilty had spent a longer time in pre-trial detention than the period of deprivation of liberty 
imposed on him by the sentence. The Constitutional Court held that the above-mentioned law only regulates 
certain cases of compensation, without purporting to be exhaustive, providing for a simplified procedure in 
those listed cases, whereas in all other cases the person can turn to the court of general jurisdiction basing 
his claim directly on Article 92 of the Constitution, the court having the duty to adjudicate the case. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Thus,  in  the  Steel  case,138  where  the  notion  of  ‘illegal  attack  on  dignity  and  honour’ 
contained  in  Article 2352  of  the  Civil  Law  was  at  issue,  the  court  relied  on,  inter  alia, 
Article 89 of the Constitution and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial 
Discrimination to conclude that the respondent’s actions had in fact been illegal. 

This certainly creates the potential for horizontally applying at least some of the provisions 
of the Constitution; however, this would need to be confirmed by case law.  

Similarly, in the Smagars case,139 the discrimination, even if nowhere expressly prohibited, 
was found ‘unacceptable in a democratic state based on the rule of law’ and was also held 
to constitute an attack on dignity and honour. In the Sants case,140 the court referred to 
the  constitutional  non-discrimination  clause  –  which  contains  no  listing  of  grounds  –  to 
infer that the Labour Law prohibits differential treatment based on sexual orientation, even 
if at the time of the adjudication of the  case at first instance this ground was not listed 
expressly. 

138  Latvia, Latgale District Court of Riga, Case No 29240503 (George Ronney Steel v. Brivibas partija (the 

Liberty party) and SIA Latvijas Televizija (Latvian Television Ltd)), 08.09.2003.  

139  Latvia, Riga Regional Court, Case No. C04386004, 11.07.2005, in Latvian at 
http://cilvektiesibas.org.lv/site/record/docs/2012/02/06/RS11julijs.pdf. 

140  Latvia, Riga City Ziemeļu district court, Case No. C32242904047505, 25.05.2005. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2 

THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION  

2.1  Grounds of unlawful discrimination explicitly covered  

The following grounds of discrimination are explicitly prohibited in national law:  

The grounds commonly referred to in Latvian legislation are: race, ethnicity, national origin 
(in  certain  cases  understood  as  ethnic  origin,  in  certain  cases  as  citizenship),  gender, 
language, party membership, religious or political ‘or other’ opinions – which encompasses 
belief  –  non-religious,  property  or  social  status,  position  occupied  and  origin,  and 
sometimes also health condition,141 place of residence and occupation. 

The  Labour  Law,  one  of  the  laws  transposing  the  directives  and  addressing  the issue  of 
discrimination systematically, lists ‘race, skin colour, age, disability, religious, political or 
other conviction, national or social origin, property or marital status, sexual orientation or 
other circumstances’ (Article 7(2)).142  

Article 78 of the Criminal Law protects against the instigation of national, ethnic, racial or 
religious hatred, and Article 150 protects against the instigation of social hatred based on 
a  person’s  gender,  age,  disability  or  any  other  features.  Article  149.1  provides  a  more 
general protection, making punishable discrimination on the basis of ethnic, national, racial 
or religious origin, as well as violations of prohibition of discrimination provided for in other 
legal acts (thus depending on the existence of such legal acts).143  

Since  2013,  the  Electronic  Mass  Media  Law  has  prohibited  incitement  to  hatred  and 
discrimination on the grounds of gender, age, religious, political and other belief, sexual 
orientation, disability, race or ethnic origin, nationality and other circumstances in audio 
and audio-visual commercial messages (Article 35).144 

The  Constitution  prohibits  any  kind  of  discrimination,  but  it  does  not  mention  specific 
grounds; moreover, it only applies directly in the public sector and generally does not have 
horizontal effect, which means that there is no prohibition of discrimination in the private 
sphere unless a specific law is in place. A number of  other laws contain the principle of 
non-discrimination,  but  only  the  Labour  Law  and  the  Law  on  the  Prohibition  of 
Discrimination  of  Natural  Persons-Economic  Operators  specifically  mention  all  of  the 
grounds covered by the two directives; moreover, some of these laws cover only specified 
grounds without leaving the list open. 

2.1.1  Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the directives 

Latvian  anti-discrimination  law  does  not  contain  any  definitions  of  the  grounds  of 
discrimination covered by the directives, except for disability, and they have not been at 
issue in any of the court cases decided so far. 

Disability is included in the Labour Law, the Law on Social Security, the Consumer Rights 
Protection  Law,  the  Law  on  Patients’  Rights,  and  the  Law  on  the  Prohibition  of 
Discrimination  of  Natural  Persons-Economic  Operators  (the  Latvian  term  being 
invaliditāte).  

141  Latvia, Law on Education, 29.10.1998; Law on Protection of the rights of the child (Bērna tiesību 

aizsardzības likums) http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=49096, 19.06.1998. 

142  Latvia, Ziemeļi District Court, Case No. C32242904047505 25.05.2005, the judgment indicated that, at 

least so far, sexual orientation had been considered to come under such ‘other circumstances’. 

143  Latvia, Criminal Law (Krimināllikums), 17.06.1998, http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=88966. 
144  Latvia, Electronic Mass Media Law (Elektronisko plašsaziņas līdzekļu likums), 12.07.2010, 

http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=214039. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
This is defined in the Disability Law; it is a long-term or non-transitional (permanent) very 
severe, severe or moderate level of limited functioning, which affects a person’s mental or 
physical abilities, ability to work, self-care and integration into society.145 It is divided into 
three possible degrees of disability, in accordance with the provisions of the law, depending 
on the gravity of the impairment. The law specifies moderate disability as the loss of 25-
59 % of the capacity to work, severe disability as the loss of 60-79 % of the capacity to 
work,  and  very  severe  disability  as  the  loss  of  80-100 %  of  the  capacity  to  work.  The 
purpose of the Disability Law is to determine the procedure for granting disability status 
and to provide for the necessary support services for persons with disabilities. The same 
definition  is  used  for  the  purposes  of  non-discrimination  legislation.  The  amendments 
specifying loss of capacity came into force on 1 January 2013. The definition in Latvian law 
(Article 5(1) of the Disability Law) is narrower than the concept of disability in  Skouboe 
Werge and Ring146 (based on Article 1 of the UN CRPD), as it refers only to those persons 
who  have  been  conferred  one  of  the  three  degrees  of  disability  by  the  State  Medical 
Commission for the Assessment of Health Condition and Working Ability. According to the 
law  a  status  of  predictable  disability  can  also  be  conferred.  This  is  a  status  of  limited 
functioning caused by disease or injury that has lasted for six months and that could be 
expected to result in disability should targeted medical treatment and rehabilitation not be 
provided in the next six-month period. This may include cases of de facto disability. It is 
not known how many cases of predictable disability status have been conferred. The issue 
of whether the term covers any de facto disability may arise, and the UN CRPD’s broader 
definition of ‘disability’ may provide guidance if a potential ‘de facto’ case reaches court. 

Race  

‘Race’  would  be  interpreted  using  the  definition  contained  in  the  Convention  on  the 
Elimination  of  All  Forms  of  Racial  Discrimination,  and  one  may  well  imagine  that,  when 
applying the non-discrimination provision of the Labour Law, the courts might in certain 
circumstances  have  difficulties  deciding  whether  the  discrimination  was  based  on  a 
person’s race or skin colour, since this law contains a reference to both. 

In  the  Criminal  Law  (Article  78  on  instigation  of  racial,  ethnic  and  national  hatred),  the 
Latvian legislator has introduced an autonomous division of terms by separating the terms 
‘race’, ‘national origin’ and ‘ethnic origin’,147 instead of using an encompassing definition of 
‘race’ provided by sources of international law, e.g. CERD. In court practice, the term ‘race’ 
is most often equated with a person’s skin colour. 

Ethnic origin 

In the case of ‘ethnic’ origin (tautība/etniskā piederība in Latvian), the use of the term is 
not  consistent.  In  criminal  cases,  ‘ethnic’  and  ‘national’  [hatred]  are  often  used  as 
synonyms.148 The confusion of terms is possibly related to the Russian word ‘natsionalnost’ 

145  Latvia, Disability Law (Invaliditātes likums) 25.05.2010, Article 5(1), at http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=88966. 
146  CJEU, joined cases C-335/11 and C-337/11, judgment of 11.04.2013. 
147  Incitement to national and racial hatred was introduced in Soviet legislation (including the Criminal Code of 
the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic) and then retained in the Latvian Criminal Code after the restoration of 
independence. Incitement to ethnic hatred was added through legislative changes in 2007. The explanatory 
note of the draft law refers to the Race Directive 2000/43/EC, which concludes that the Criminal Law is to 
be amended in line with the Directive, although changes to criminal legislation are not required by the 
Directive. The amendments were initially drafted in 2004, but then put on hold and revived in 2007 without 
any assessment. The explanatory note also refers to the UN CERD recommendations to Latvia dated 10 
December 2003 (CERD/C/63/CO/7, 8. § and 10.§). Earlier, in 2006, racist motivation was added as an 
aggravating factor. In 2014, the Parliament amended the Criminal Law before its 2nd reading at the request 
of the parliamentary Legal Commission, adding national/ethnic hatred among the aggravating 
circumstances.147 Adding the two motives in addition to racist motivation was recommended in the analyses 
of court cases under Article 78 to avoid different interpretations and to introduce the same terminology. 
148  Latvia, Supreme Court (2012). Court Practice in Criminal Cases Concerning Incitement to National Ethnic 

and National Hatred, in Latvian at http://at.gov.lv/lv/judikatura/tiesu-prakses-apkopojumi/kriminaltiesibas/. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
(национальность;  in  Latvian  –  ‘tautība’),  which  means  ‘ethnic  origin’  and  was  used  in 
Soviet identity documents.149 

This is also evident in the only ethnic discrimination case to date, Sanita Kozlovska v. SIA 
Palso in 2006, where the employer had indicated the accent (in Latvian) of the claimant – 
a Roma – as the reason for refusing to employ her, and the court held that the claimant 
had been discriminated against on the basis of her national origin (ethnicity). The decision 
refers to the claimant as having ‘Gypsy ethnicity.’150 

There is no definition of ‘age’ in the Latvian legislation. 

There is no definition of ‘religion or belief’ in the Latvian legislation.  

There is no definition of ‘sexual orientation’ in the Latvian legislation.  

2.1.2  Multiple discrimination 

In Latvia, the prohibition of multiple discrimination is not included in the law. 

In Latvia, the following case law deals with multiple discrimination. 

In the only case of multiple discrimination – the Stūriņa case151 – this was found at the 
court’s own initiative, and the line of reasoning was not well developed.  

In the Stūriņa case, decided by Cēsu district court on 05 July 2005, in which the court held 
that the claimant, who from 1997 to 2004 had regularly been employed by the municipality 
for the winter season at the heating plant, had been discriminated against on the basis of 
her gender and property status by not being employed again in the 2005 season, multiple 
discrimination was found at the court’s own initiative. The claimant had only argued gender 
discrimination, not property status-based discrimination. The municipality had, instead of 
employing the claimant, employed another person who had not even responded to the call 
for applications and was already employed by the municipality, the municipality arguing 
that ‘the remuneration of the employees of the municipality is low’, thus supposedly taking 
into account their low income (‘property status’). However, this line of reasoning is not well 
developed,  and  it  would  be  speculative  to  make  any  general  conclusions  about  how  the 
courts would handle multiple discrimination cases. In this particular case, although multiple 
discrimination was established, the court did not specifically mention that it had an impact 
on the amount of moral or material damages awarded. 

2.1.3  Assumed and associated discrimination 

a)  Discrimination by assumption 

In  Latvia, national law does not explicitly prohibit discrimination based on perception or 
assumption of what a person is.  

There is no case law concerning discrimination by assumption.   

b)  Discrimination by association 

149  A fifth line in Soviet passports was ‘natsionalnost’. In: Between Minority Rights and Civil Liberties: Russia’s 
Discourse Over ‘Nationality’ Registration and the Internal Passport, Nationalities Papers 33(2): 211–229 
(2005), at https://www.prio.org/Publications/Publication/?x=3202.  
150  Latvia, Jelgava Court. Case No. 15066406, 25.05.2006, available at 

http://cilvektiesibas.org.lv/media/attachments/29/01/2013/sk_palso.pdf. 

151  Latvia, Cēsu district court, Case No.C11019405 (Anga Stūriņa v. Straupe municipal council), 05.07.2005. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In Latvia, national law (including case law) does not expressly prohibit discrimination based 
on association with persons with particular characteristics.  

However, it might possibly be argued that protection against discrimination exists ‘based 
on other circumstances’ where the list of the grounds is left open. National law does not 
explicitly prohibit discrimination by association, with the exception of Article 3 of the Law 
on the Rights of the Child, which refers to the race etc. not only of the child, but also of 
their  parents,  guardians  and  family  members,  thus  protecting  against  discrimination  by 
association, although to a limited extent only.  

2.2  Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of direct discrimination 

In Latvia, direct discrimination is prohibited in national law. It is defined.  

Article 29(5) of the Labour Law states that ‘Direct discrimination exists if in a comparable 
situation the person,152 based on her gender, is, was or  may be treated less  favourably 
than another person’. Article 29(9) applies the protection against discrimination, including 
this  definition,  to  differential  treatment  on  grounds  of  race,  skin  colour,  age,  disability, 
religious, political or other conviction, national or social origin, property or family status, 
sexual  orientation  or  other  circumstances.  This  definition  (instead  of  the  reference  to 
gender  only  in  the  main  clause  directly  listing  the  same  grounds,  with  the  exception  of 
sexual orientation in an open-ended provision) is also used in the amended Law on Social 
Security.  The  same  definition  is  used  in  the  Law  on  the  Prohibition  of  Discrimination  of 
Natural Persons-Economic Operators (Article 4(2)) in relation to grounds of gender, age, 
religious, political or other conviction, sexual orientation, disability, race or ethnic origin. 

The  Consumer  Rights  Protection  Law  (Article  3.1(6))  limits  the  same  definition  to  the 
grounds  of  gender,  race,  ethnic  origin  and  disability,  while  the  Law  on  Support  to 
Unemployed Persons and Job Seekers limits it to gender, race and ethnic origin. The Law 
on  Education  (property  and  social  status,  race,  ethnicity,  gender,  religious  or  political 
opinions, health condition, occupation and place of residence) refers to the definitions used 
in the Consumer Rights Protection Law.  

While  technically  the  Labour  Law  applies  only  to  employment  relationships153  (including 
pre-contractual  relationships,  as  indicated  by  both  the  reference  in  Article 29(1)  to 
‘establishing  employment  relationship’  and  Article 34,  dealing  with  the  consequences  of 
violating  the  prohibition  of  differential  treatment  when  establishing  an  employment 
relationship)  and  to  employment-related  claims,  thus  by  definition  excluding  self-
employment  and  related  claims,  which  are  regulated  in  the  Law  on  the  Prohibition  of 
Discrimination of Natural Persons-Economic Operators, it is not inconceivable and, indeed, 
it is very likely, at least as long as there is no general anti-discrimination law or definitions 
in other laws apart from the Law on Social Security and the Consumer Rights Protection 
Law, that this definition could be used in other cases when the issue of direct discrimination 
is raised, especially since it would also follow from the international treaties that are binding 
on Latvia.  

The  Criminal  Law  does  not  contain  a  definition  of  discrimination,  but  instead  refers,  in 
Article 149.1,  to  ‘race  or  ethnic  discrimination  or  the  violation  of  the  prohibition  of 

152  The term ‘person’ cannot be interpreted as excluding protection from direct discrimination of a group. In 
these cases, argumentum a fortiori should be applied, i.e. if a person cannot be treated less favourably, 
then it can be assumed that nor can a group.  

153  It must be noted that, after the 02.11.2006 amendments to the State Civil Service Law, the provisions of 

the Labour Law concerning prohibition of differential treatment apply to civil service relationships, including 
specialised civil service relationships; the latter includes police, border guards, individuals in diplomatic or 
consular service and certain other institutions.  

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
discrimination provided for in other legal acts’ – thus de facto referring back to the Labour 
Law definitions. 

b) 

Justification of direct discrimination 

Provisions authorising justification of discrimination do not distinguish between direct and 
indirect  discrimination,  or  between  the  grounds  covered  by  the  directives  and  other 
grounds for differential treatment.  

Article 2.1(1) of the Law on Social Security refers to the non-exhaustive list of grounds of 
differential  treatment  (race,  ethnicity,  skin  colour,  age,  disability,  religious,  political  or 
other  conviction,  national  or  social  origin,  property  or  family  status,  or  other 
circumstances) without distinguishing those grounds covered by the directives. Article 2(6) 
provides  that  ‘differential  treatment  (excluding  harassment)  associated  with  any  of  the 
grounds  shall  only  be  acceptable  in  such  cases  if  such  treatment  is  objectively  justified 
with  a  legitimate  purpose,  for  the  achievement  of  which  the  selected  means  are 
proportionate’. 

The  amendments  to  the  laws  concerning  discrimination  (including  direct  discrimination) 
have been adopted with the purpose of transposing the directives into national law, but in 
separate instances they lack sufficient precision. In such cases, it remains for the courts 
to consult the text of the directives.  

It would appear that Latvian legislation provides for a wider range of exceptions for direct 
race  discrimination  than  the  Race  Equality  Directive,  extending  beyond  a  general 
occupational  requirement.  The  same  provisions  (an  exception  being  the  list  of  specific 
grounds) are reiterated in the Education Law (Article 3.1(1-2) – 11 grounds, closed list), in 
the  Law  on  Support  to  Unemployed  Persons  and  Job  Seekers  (Article  2.1(1-2)  on  race, 
ethnic origin and gender), in the Consumer Rights Protection Law (Article 3.1(1-2) on race, 
ethnic origin, gender and disability), and in the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination of 
Physical  Persons-Economic  Operators  (Article  3(1)1,2  –  no  reference  to  genuine 
occupational  requirement).  The  differential  treatment  of  economic  operators  who  are 
persons  with  disability  is  permissible  in  cases  of  an  unreasonable  burden  for  the  other 
party, and similarly in the context of goods and services (Article 3.1(2)). 

2.2.1  Situation testing 

a) 

Legal framework 

In Latvia, situation testing is not clearly permitted in national law. 

In  Latvia,  national  law  is  silent  on  the  issue  of  situation  testing,  thus  neither  expressly 
permitting nor prohibiting it, and there is no case law on it.  

To some extent it might be considered that in the Smagars case154 the claimant himself 
did  the  situation  testing,  as  after  the  first  instance  of  being  refused  admittance  to  the 
nightclub he returned with a TV team for ‘testing’, yet this does not reveal anything of how 
the  courts  would  react  to  a  test  carried  out  by  a  person  other  than  the  victim  of 
discrimination  himself.  The  crucial  issue  would  be  whether  the  court  would  consider 
situation testing as being of relevance to the case at hand, since, according to Article 94 
of the Civil Procedure Law, the court can only accept evidence which is of relevance to the 
case, and the defendant might conceivably argue that the situation tested is distinct from 
the  case  under  consideration.  In  the  absence  of  relevant  case  law,  it  is  not  possible  to 
predict how the courts would treat such testing, and the extent of the willingness of the 
courts to consider it as evidence based on the argument of experience of other countries 

154  Latvia, Riga Regional Court, Case No. C04386004, 11.07.2005. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
would  probably  depend  on  each  particular  court,  although  it  is  undeniable  that 
developments in other countries would certainly influence the Latvian courts and statute 
law. Thus, the means of proof in this case would be the testimonies of the witnesses, and 
the general rules concerning such testimonies (such as the prohibition of hearsay, rules on 
privileged witnesses etc.) would apply. 

b) 

Practice 

In Latvia, situation testing is rarely used in practice. 

The  Latvian  Centre  for  Human  Rights  (LCHR),  an  NGO,  conducted  situation  testing  at 
nightclubs during the night of 5-6 March 2011.155 This was the first such testing carried 
out in Latvia. The aim of this was to promote situation testing as a method for collecting 
information on the treatment of different groups, as well as to highlight the risks of racial 
and  ethnic  discrimination.  In  five  nightclubs  in  Riga,  no  discrimination  of  this  sort  was 
identified.  However,  the  event  led  to  media  reporting  and  to  awareness  raising  about 
situation  testing  as  a  method  of  proving  discrimination.  This  situation  testing  was 
conducted as part of a Europe-wide initiative, ‘the first Europe-wide testing night against 
racial  discrimination’,  coordinated  by  the  European  Grassroots  Antiracist  Movement 
(EGAM).156 The activists tested nightlife venues in the main cities of 14 European countries; 
35 venues in 15 cities were found to be carrying out discriminatory practices.  

There has not been any public, academic or parliamentary discussion on the adoption of 
situation testing into national law apart from the launch of a brochure on situation testing 
by the Latvian Centre for Human Rights in 2014.157 

2.3  Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of indirect discrimination 

In Latvia, indirect discrimination is prohibited in national law. It is defined.  

The  Labour  Law  contains  a  definition  of  indirect  discrimination  that  complies  with  the 
definition  used  by  the  directives.  Article 29(6)  of  this  law  provides  that:  ‘Indirect 
discrimination exists if an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice causes adverse 
consequences for persons belonging to one gender, except in cases where such provision, 
criterion  or  practice  is  objectively  justified  by  a  legitimate  aim,  the  means  for  attaining 
which are proportionate.’ Again, Article 29(9) applies the protection against discrimination, 
including  under  this  definition,  to  differential  treatment  on  grounds  of  race,  skin  colour, 
age, disability, religious, political or other conviction, national or social origin, property or 
family status, sexual orientation or other circumstances. The same definition is in the Law 
on the Prohibition of Discrimination of Natural Persons-Economic Operators (Article 4(2)) 
on gender, age, religious, political or other conviction, sexual orientation, disability, race 
or ethnic origin). This definition is also found in the Consumer Rights Protection Law (Article 
3.1(6) in relation to four grounds  – gender,  race, ethnic origin and disability) and in the 
Law on Support to Unemployed Persons and Job Seekers (Article 2.1(4)). 

155  Latvian Centre for Human Rights, Situācijas testēšanas eksperiments cīņā pret rasu diskrimināciju, 

http://cilvektiesibas.org.lv/lv/media-materials/situacijas-testesanas-eksperiments-cina-pret-rasu-/.  
156  Information about the first Europe-wide testing night is available in English at (accessed on 22.08.2016): 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55608978/First-European-Testing-Night-EGAM-Report. 

157  Latvian Centre for Human Rights (2014). The Use of Situation Testing in Proving Discrimination (Situācijas 

testēšanas izmantošana diskriminācijas pierādīšanai), in Latvian at 
http://cilvektiesibas.org.lv/site/attachments/04/06/2014/R08xx-Brosura64lpp-2dala.pdf. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
The  Education  Law  (Article  3.1(8)),158  refers  to  definitions  used  in  the  Consumer  Rights 
Protection Law.159  It is very likely that this definition would be used for  interpreting the 
notion of indirect discrimination in other laws that contain no definition of it. The Law on 
Social Security (Article 2.1(4)), however, retains the old definition: ‘indirect discrimination 
exists  if  in  a  comparable  situation  an  apparently  neutral  provision,  criterion  or  practice 
causes or may cause adverse consequences to persons in connection with grounds of race, 
ethnicity,  skin  colour,  age,  disability,  religious,  political  or  other  conviction,  national  or 
social origin, property or family status, or other circumstances.’ 

b) 

Justification test for indirect discrimination 

The provisions authorising justification of discrimination do not distinguish between direct 
and indirect discrimination, or between the grounds covered by the directives and other 
grounds for differential treatment. The test for justification is the same one as for direct 
discrimination: legitimate aim and proportionate means (‘where such provision, criterion 
or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim the means for attaining which are 
proportionate’). 

Article  2.1(4)  of  the  Law  on  Social  Security  should  be  implemented  in  conjunction  with 
2.1(1) which provides a non-exhaustive list of grounds of differential treatment which are 
considered to be discrimination (unjustified differential treatment on prohibited grounds). 
Thus,  the  justification  test  for  indirect  discrimination  of  Article  2.1(4)  consisting  of  a 
legitimate aim and the principle of proportionality is linked to the grounds listed in Article 
2.1(1).  

c) 

Comparison in relation to age discrimination 

There are no specific provisions specifying a comparison concerning the ground of age, and 
there is no case law either. 

2.3.1  Statistical evidence 

a) 

Legal framework 

In Latvia, there are national rules permitting data collection.  

The  main  law  regulating  data  collection  is  the  Law  on  the  Protection  of  Data  of  Natural 
Persons,160  which  defines  as  sensitive  data  the  data  on  a  person’s  race,  ethnic  origin, 
religious, philosophical or political conviction or trade union membership, as well as data 
which provide information on a person’s health (which would cover disability) or sexual life 
(apparently,  even  if  not  expressly,  covering  sexual  orientation).  Article 11  in  principle 
prohibits  the  processing  of  sensitive  data,  but  it  contains  a  range  of  exceptions,  among 
which,  in  addition  to  the  written  agreement  of  the  data  subject  that  their  data  may  be 
processed, are: when the legal norms governing an employment relationship provide for 
data processing without the agreement of the data subject; when the processing of data 
is necessary for the purposes of medical treatment; when processing the data is necessary 
for the provision of social aid and is performed by the aid providers; or when the processing 
of  data  is  needed  for  statistical  studies  performed  by  the  Central  Statistical  Bureau.  All 
data  processing  systems  need  to  be  registered  with  the  State  Data  Inspectorate,  which 
may refuse registration if the law is not complied with. 

158  Latvia, Law on Education, 29.10.1998. 
159  Latvia, Law on Support to Unemployed Persons and Job Seekers (Bezdarbnieku un darba meklētāju atbalsta 

likums), 09.05.2002, http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=62539. 

160  Latvia, Personal Data Protection Law (Fizisko personu datu aizsardzības likums), 23.03.2000, 

http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=4042. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Thus, in principle, employers are prohibited from keeping records in respect of ethnic or 
racial origin, disability, religion or belief or sexual orientation. However, there are obviously 
exceptions  in  professions  that  involve  work  with  people  where  a  medical  certificate  is 
needed,  and  in  cases  of  disability  in  so  far  as  special  accommodation  is  required. 
Theoretically, it might also be possible to keep a record of an employee’s religious affiliation 
in case the employer wanted to enable them to observe their particular religious holidays; 
however, this is not the practice in Latvia.  

In Latvia, national law is silent on the issue of the use of statistical evidence in order to 
establish indirect discrimination.  

The  gathering  of  evidence  for  the  purposes  of  civil  proceedings  is  governed  by  the  Civil 
Procedure Law, Articles 110-112 of which determine what written evidence encompasses 
information on facts of relevance to the case, including data showing a prima facie case of 
discrimination in any form. Article 111 enables a party to request to the court, by means 
of a motivated request, that certain evidence be provided, describing it and explaining why 
they  think  that  this  evidence  is  in  the  possession  of  the  person  concerned.  Article  112 
provides  for  the  right  of  the  judge,  at  the  request  of  one  of  the  parties,  to  require  that 
public  entities  or  other  legal  or  natural  persons  –  which  thus  includes  the  respondents, 
even  if  this is  not  expressly  mentioned  –  provide  the  necessary  evidence.  If  the  person 
concerned  does  not  provide  the  required  evidence,  while  not  denying  that  it  is  in  her 
possession, the court may hold that the fact for which this evidence was required as proof 
has been proved. However, if it is impossible for the person to provide this evidence, they 
must notify the court explaining the reasons why it is impossible. 

Since these provisions have not so far been used in the context of discrimination cases by 
the courts of general jurisdiction, it is difficult to predict what the difficulties might be in 
relation to such requests, for instance how specific the courts would require the description 
of  the  sought  evidence  to  be,  and  how  much  extra  effort  might  be  required  from  the 
respondent  to  prepare  evidence  for  the  presentation.  However,  the  legal  framework  for 
requiring that certain data be provided certainly exists.  

It  must  also  be  noted  that  one  court  that  regularly  makes  use  of  statistical  data  is  the 
Constitutional Court. Both in a case where there was a challenge regarding the age limit 
for occupying the post of university professor,161 and in another case where the age limit 
for  holding  a  position  in  the  civil  service162  was  challenged,  the  statistical  evidence  was 
important for the decision reached. In one case, it showed the inappropriate character of 
the  limitation,  namely  the  inability  to  attain  the  aim  sought,  and  in  the  other  case,  it 
demonstrated the lack of impact of the provision challenged. Hence also for the courts of 
general jurisdiction, the idea of using statistical evidence would not be a complete novelty, 
and the reference to the experience of other countries might play some role as well. 

b) 

Practice 

In  Latvia,  statistical  evidence  in  order  to  establish  indirect  discrimination  is  not  used  in 
practice. 

The general lack of case law precludes discussion of any reluctance to use statistical data 
concerning the Constitutional Court (see above, section a). 

There is no case law in this area. 

161  Latvia, Constitutional Court, Case No. 2002-21-01, at http://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-

content/uploads/2016/02/2002-21-01_Spriedums.pdf. 

162  Latvia, Constitutional Court, Case No. 2003-12-01, at http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=82289. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.4  Harassment (Article 2(3)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of harassment 

In Latvia, harassment is prohibited in national law. It is defined.  

The  Labour  Law  defines  harassment  as  the  ‘subjection  of  a  person163  to  such  conduct 
unwanted  by  this  person,  including  conduct  of  sexual  character,  which  is  related  to  the 
gender of the person, if the purpose or effect of this conduct is violating the dignity of the 
person  or  creating  an  intimidating,  hostile,  degrading  or  offensive  environment’ 
(Article 29(7)).  The  provision  covers  both  harassment  and  sexual  harassment.  Again, 
Article 29(9)  applies  protection  against  discrimination, including  under  this  definition,  to 
differential treatment on grounds of race, skin colour, age, disability, religious, political or 
other conviction, national or social origin, property or marital status, sexual orientation or 
other  circumstances.  This  definition  (with  reference  to  prohibited  grounds,  which  in  the 
case of the Law on Social Security do not expressly include sexual orientation) is further 
used in the  Law on Social Security (Article 2.1(5)), the  Consumer Rights Protection Law 
(Article  3.1(8)  on  gender,  race  and  ethnic  origin  and  disability),  the  Law  on  Support  to 
Unemployed Persons and Job Seekers (Article 2.1(6) on race, ethnicity and gender), and 
the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination of Natural Persons-Economic Operators (Article 
4(4)).  

In Latvia, harassment explicitly constitutes a form of discrimination.  

Various legal acts (listed below) prohibit harassment (as defined by Labour Law) against a 
person or a group of persons as a form of discrimination. Protection against discrimination 
is  provided  in  employment,  including  self-employment,  social  protection,  social 
advantages, access to goods and services and education. Article 29(4) of the Labour Law 
specifically  provides  that  harassment  shall  be  considered  as  discrimination  as  do  Article 
2.1(5) of the Law on Social Security, Article 3.1(7) of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, 
Article 2.1(5) of the Law on Support to Unemployed Persons and Job Seekers and Article 
4(3)  of  the  Law  on  the  Prohibition  of  Discrimination  of  Natural  Persons-Economic 
Operators. The Education Law refers to the definition and types of discrimination explained 
in Consumer Rights Protection Law, Article 3.1(8).  

One  may  argue  that,  because  harassment  is  qualified  by  these  laws  as  a  form  of 
discrimination,  the  prohibition  of  harassment  can  be  regarded  as  implied  in  those  anti-
discrimination provisions contained in other laws that do not expressly refer to harassment, 
yet,  in  the  absence  of  any  harassment-related  case  law,  this  remains  only  a  theoretical 
possibility. 

One may also argue that the gravest cases of harassment are also covered by Article 156 
of  the  Criminal  Law,  which  provides  for  the  punishment  of  intentional  violations  of  a 
person’s dignity or honour orally, in writing or by conduct, which could be applied to cases 
when the person’s dignity is offended by reason of membership of some group or particular 
characteristic,  for  example  sexual  orientation  or  gender.  However,  there  is  no  case  law 
confirming such an interpretation, and this thus remains only a theoretical possibility. 

b) 

Scope of liability for harassment 

Where harassment is perpetrated by an employee in Latvia, the employee is liable. Liability 
of the employer would require judicial interpretation.  

163  The term ‘person’ cannot be interpreted as excluding protection from direct discrimination of a group. In 
these cases, argumentum a fortiori should be applied, i.e. if a person cannot be treated less favourably, 
then it can be assumed that nor can a group. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  cases  of  harassment,  by  relying  on  the  definition  of  harassment  as  provided  by  the 
Labour Law, it could be argued that ‘subjection to unwanted conduct’ can also be carried 
out by the employer by failure to oppose such conduct by his employees, yet this is only a 
suggestion; it is not stated expressly in the law, nor is there any case law confirming the 
readiness of the courts to accept such an interpretation. 

In the case of employers, Article 1782 of the Civil Law could additionally be applied, stating 
that the employer has to exercise due care when selecting his employees and must verify 
their ability to fulfil their duties, otherwise they may be held liable for the damages caused 
by them; in cases where the employer is the state, municipality or some other public legal 
person covered by the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law, compensation for 
losses and for moral damages can be requested from the employer. The responsibility of 
the employer was at issue in the Smagars case,164 where the respondent argued that the 
employer can only be held responsible for pecuniary damages caused by its employees, 
not for moral damages; however, the court held that the anti-defamation provision of the 
Civil Law did not exclude legal persons from its scope. 

A co-worker or a client can be held liable according to the anti-defamation provision under 
Article 1635 of the Civil Law.  

However,  this  would  not  apply  to  trade/professional  associations,  nor  can  employers  be 
held responsible for the actions of third parties – there are no provisions to this effect in 
national law, nor is there any case law. 

2.5  Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) 

a) 

Prohibition of instructions to discriminate 

In Latvia, instructions to discriminate are prohibited in national law. Instructions are not 
defined. 

In Latvia, instructions constitute a form of discrimination. 

Article 29(4) of the Labour Law expressly states that ‘instruction to discriminate shall also 
be  considered  discrimination’.  Therefore,  the  relevant  provisions  on  prohibition  of 
discrimination are also applicable to instruction to discriminate.  

This position is adhered to in the Consumer Rights Protection Law (Article 3.1(7)) and the 
Law on Social Security (Article 4(3)), as well as in the amendments to the Law on Support 
to  Unemployed  Persons  and  Job  Seekers  (Article  2.1(5)),  in  the  Law  on  Patients’  Rights 
(Article 3.1(8)), in the Education Law (in Article 3.1(8)), reference is made to the definition 
of discrimination and forms of discrimination in the Consumer Rights Protection Law), and 
in  the  Law  on  the  Prohibition  of  Discrimination  of  Natural  Persons-Economic  Operators 
(Article 4(2)). While there is no comparable provision in any other law in force, due to the 
fact  that  instruction  to  discriminate  is  considered  under  the  Labour  Law  to  be 
discrimination,  one  may  argue  that  the  position  could  also  be  applied  to  other  laws 
containing anti-discrimination provisions but without express reference to instructions to 
discriminate.  

The term ‘instruction to discriminate’ is applied poorly in the case law, but nevertheless 
covers  all  cases  in  which  discrimination  took  place  based  on  a  hierarchy  in  relations  in 
every  sphere  where  discrimination  as  such  is  prohibited  (employment,  including  self-
employment,  education,  social  protection,  social  advantages,  access  to  goods  and 
services).  

164  Latvia, Riga Regional Court, Case No. C04386004, 11.07.2005. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Additionally,  Article 1491  of  the  Criminal  Law  refers  to  ‘violation  of  the  prohibition  of 
discrimination provided for in other legal acts’. Thus, by using the Labour Law definition, it 
could be argued that the instruction to discriminate is also covered. 

b) 

Scope of liability for instructions to discriminate 

In Latvia, the instructor and the discriminator are liable. 

Since the Labour Law (Article 29(4)) as well as the Law on Social Security (Article 2.1(2)), 
the Consumer Rights Protection Law (Article 3.1(7)), the Law on Support to Unemployed 
Persons and Job Seekers (Article 2.1(5)), and the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination 
of  Natural  Persons–Economic  Operators  (Article  2.1(5))  provide  for  instruction  to 
discriminate  as  a  separate  form  of  discrimination,  it  can  be  argued  that,  in  such  cases, 
both the instructor and the direct perpetrator would probably be held liable for two separate 
offences.  However,  there  is  no  case  law  to  confirm  this  interpretation.  Similarly,  in  the 
cases that might come under the Criminal Law provisions, there would be two offences of 
discrimination and of incitement. 

However,  this  would  not  apply  to  trade/professional  associations,  nor  can  employers  be 
held responsible for the actions of third parties – there are no provisions to this effect in 
national law, nor is there any case law. 

There are no specific provisions regarding the liability of legal persons for instructions to 
discriminate. 

2.6  Reasonable accommodation duties (Article 2(2)(b)(ii) and Article 5 

Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Implementation  of  the  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  for  people  with 
disabilities in the area of employment 

In  Latvia,  the  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  is  included  in  the  law.  It  is 
defined. 

Article 7(3) of the Labour Law provides that ‘To ensure implementation of the principle of 
equal rights in relation to persons with disabilities it is the duty of the employer to take 
measures  required  by  the  circumstances  in  order  to  adapt  the  working  environment, 
promote the possibilities of persons with disabilities to establish labour relationships, fulfil 
work  duties,  be  promoted  or  undergo  professional  training  to  the  extent  that  such 
measures do not create a disproportionate burden for the employer.’  

In 2010 Latvia ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which 
has  a  wider  applicability  as,  in  its  context,  the  concept  of  reasonable  accommodation 
applies to ‘all human rights and fundamental freedoms’. Given that it can be relied upon 
directly in the Latvian courts, the convention has potentially far-reaching consequences – 
perhaps less so in the context of labour relationships, as it is felt that EU legal acts  are 
‘closer’,  more  ‘user-friendly’  and  more  easily  enforceable,  but  in  other  contexts  it  can 
definitely be invaluable. 

b) 

Practice 

There are no further detailed provisions permitting assessment of the disproportionality of 
the  burden.  However,  according  to  Cabinet  of  Ministers  regulations  No.75,  the  costs  of 
providing reasonable accommodation: 

- 

for employers hiring unemployed persons with disabilities can be reimbursed up to 
EUR 711; 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 

- 

a contribution (of at least the amount of the official minimum salary) may be made 
to the salary of disabled person for up to 12 months; 
and  provision  may  be  made  to  cover  the  services  of  a  sign  language  interpreter 
(EUR 10.50 per hour, in proportion to the hours worked by the person with disability, 
but for no more than 40 hours per week), occupational therapists or other specialists 
whose services are provided to facilitate the employment of the disabled person, thus 
helping to alleviate the burden on the employer.165  

In 2011 a court ruled that the employer had breached the equality principle (under Article 
7(3)  of  the  Labour  Law)  by  failing  to  fulfil  the  obligation  to  provide  for  reasonable 
accommodation  (in  the  specific  case,  adjustment  of  the  workplace  and  the  provision  of 
parking space closer to the workplace could not be considered a disproportionate burden 
to the employer).166 

c) 

Definition of disability and non-discrimination protection 

The  very  concept  of  disability  may  be  problematic,  since  Latvian  law  requires  official 
recognition  of  disability,  and  hence  the  issue  may  arise  whether  it  covers  only  those 
disabilities that have received official qualification and as the result of which the person’s 
status  as  disabled  has  been  officially  recognised,  or  whether  it  covers  any  de  facto 
disability. This can be problematic and can amount to insufficient implementation unless 
the courts, when confronted with this issue, interpret the notion of disability in a compatible 
way.  

The  definition  issue,  of  course,  would  have  an  impact  on  the  issue  of  reasonable 
accommodation. Thus far, one court case on dismissal on grounds of disability,167 where it 
was established that the employer had breached the equality principle by failing to provide 
for reasonable accommodation, concerned an employee who had been officially conferred 
the status of a disabled person. 

d)  Duties  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  in  areas  other  than  employment  for 

people with disabilities 

In Latvia, there is no duty to provide reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities 
outside  the  employment  field.  However,  such  a  duty  may  arise  under  the  UN  CRPD 
obligations.  

The Law on Education, however, does mention special education adapted to the needs of 
persons with special needs or health problems (Article 42). 

Regulations No.710168 on the Provision of General Basic Education and General Secondary 
Education  Institutions  According  to  Special  Needs169  state  the  necessary  provisions  of 
general education institutions concerning the integration of students with special needs in 
mainstream  schools.  All  provisions  are  divided  into  institutional  facilities  (i.e.  additional 

165  Latvia, Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 75 on the procedure for the organisation and financing of active 
employment measures and preventive activities reducing unemployment and the selection principles of 
implementers of measures (Ministru kabineta noteikumi Nr.75 Noteikumi par aktīvo nodarbinātības 
pasākumu un preventīvo bezdarba samazināšanas pasākumu organizēšanas un finansēšanas kārtību un 
pasākumu īstenotāju izvēles principiem), 25.01.2011, available in Latvian at http://likumi.lv/ta/id/225425.  

166  Latvia, Kurzeme Regional Court, Case No. C40066110 (V. Trusēvičs v. SIA Bio-Venta [Bio-Venta Ltd]), 

21.09.2011. 

167  Latvia, Kurzeme Regional Court, Case No. C40066110 (V. Trusēvičs v. SIA Bio-Venta [Bio-Venta Ltd]), 

21.09.2011.  

168  Latvia, Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No.710 on the Provision of General Basic Education and General 

Secondary Education Institutions According to Special Needs (Ministru kabineta noteikumi Nr.710 Noteikumi 
par vispārējās pamatizglītības un vispārējās vidējās izglītības iestāžu nodrošinājumu atbilstoši izglītojamo 
speciālajām vajadzībām), 16.10.2012, available in Latvian at http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=252163.  

169  ‘Special needs’ is used in respect to education and, apart from children with disabilities, also covers some 

children who do not have a disability as defined by the Law on Disability.  

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
rehabilitation measures, provision of teaching assistants, additional pedagogical staff and 
educational programmes) and utilities of premises (accessible environment etc.). However, 
no concepts of reasonable accommodation or disproportionate burden are used. 

There  has  been  only  one  court  case  concerning  reasonable  accommodation  beyond 
employment. The individual concerned, who had a psychosocial disability, was prohibited 
from  receiving  the  old-age  pension  (vecuma  pensija)  due  to  the  late  submission  of 
documents. The court insisted that reasonable accommodation should be provided in the 
form of additional time for submitting the required documents; otherwise, the limitation 
on  the  person’s  social  guarantees  would  not  be  proportional  and  would  amount  to 
discrimination on the grounds of disability. The court referred to Article 28 of UN CRPD.170  

e) 

Failure to meet the duty of reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities 

In  Latvia,  failure  to  meet  the  duty  of  reasonable  accommodation  does  not  count  as 
discrimination. 

The Labour Law does not specifically provide for a shift in the burden of proof in relation 
to reasonable accommodation. While the issue of equal rights that is dealt with in Article 7, 
which  contains  reasonable  accommodation,  and  the  prohibition  of  differential  treatment 
dealt with in Article 29 (in which the provision on the shift in the burden of proof is included) 
are  undeniably  related,  it is  not immediately  obvious  that  a  shift in  the  burden  of  proof 
would also apply to claims of  reasonable accommodation. One might wish for this to be 
stated expressly in the law, and the lack of case law does not allow for a prediction of how 
the courts would treat such cases and this procedural issue in the absence of such express 
provision. 

f) 

Duties to provide reasonable accommodation in respect of other grounds 

In  Latvia,  there  is  no  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  in  respect  of  other 
grounds in the public and private sectors. 

It is not common practice to provide for reasonable accommodation on grounds other than 
disability in the public or private sectors. 

g) 

Accessibility of services, buildings and infrastructure  

In Latvia, national law requires services available to the public, buildings and infrastructure 
to be designed and built in a disability-accessible way.  

While  Latvian  law  (Construction  Law  Article  4(6))171  does  require  that  buildings  and 
infrastructures  meant  for  public  use  be  designed  in  a  way  that  facilitates  the  access  of 
persons with disabilities, this has never been viewed in the context of the directive.  The 
law  also  authorises  the  Cabinet  of  Ministers  to  issue  construction  standards  to  provide 
technical  requirements  for  the  environmental  accessibility  of  structures  (Article  2(1)3). 
This includes access to healthcare facilities.172  

170  Administrative Regional Court, Case No A420528911, B. v. State Social Insurance Agency (B.V. pret Valsts 

Sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūru), 27.09.2013.  

171  Latvia, Construction Law (Būvniecības likums), 09.07.2013, available at 

http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=258572; the principle of environmental accessibility is defined as one of the 
construction principles, according to which an environment is created during the construction process in 
which any person may move with comfort and use the structure according to its purpose of use.  

172  Detailed standards concerning accessibility of public buildings were adopted on 30.06.2015, Cabinet of 
Ministers Regulation No. 331 on Latvian construction standard LBN 208-15, ‘Public Buildings’ (Ministru 
kabineta noteikumi Nr. 331 Noteikumi par Latvijas būvnormatīvu LBN 208-15 ‘Publiskas būves’). Section 4 
of the regulations sets requirements concerning the environmental accessibility of public buildings, such as 
the provision of solid wheelchair ramps, entrances and corridors, elevators, toilets and showers or the 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Nevertheless, access to public buildings, including courts, often remains difficult. 

There is no monitoring mechanism for compliance with requirements concerning access to 
public  buildings  in  issuing  construction  permits  and  putting  buildings  into  service.  Local 
authorities  have  been  tasked  with  the  issuance  of  construction  permits  and  approving 
buildings as they are put into service. 

Article  1(3)  of  the  Medical  Treatment  Law  stipulates  that  medical  treatment  institutions 
may provide medical treatment only if they conform to the specific mandatory accessibility 
requirements as determined by the Cabinet of Ministers.173 Various deadlines to meet these 
requirements  were  fixed,  the  final  coming  into  force  in  2014.  However,  difficulties  were 
encountered in meeting them (technical difficulties, issues with historical buildings). 

Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No.60, on ‘Mandatory Requirements 
for  Medical  Treatment  Institutions  and  their  Structural  Units’,174  entered  into  force  on  1 
January 2014. The general requirement is that the healthcare institution shall be placed in 
a  suitable  building,  providing  accessibility  for  persons  with  functional  disabilities.  The 
amendments also provide that those institutions that are already registered at the Register 
of  Medical  Treatment  Institutions  and  that  do  not  yet  fully  comply  with  the  accessibility 
requirements  for  persons  with  functional  disabilities  shall  ensure  that  it  is  possible  for 
persons with functional disabilities to receive healthcare services (Paragraph 4.1), as well 
as  providing  brief  and  clear  information  about  how  healthcare  services  are  provided  for 
persons with functional disabilities at the institution (Paragraph 4.2). Healthcare centres 
and hospitals (i.e. large institutions) are required to ensure that persons with functional 
disabilities  have  independent  access  into  the  institution.  Healthcare  institutions  are 
required  to  publish  information  about  available  healthcare  services  and  accessibility  on 
their webpage (Paragraph 4.1).  

There has been one case with a positive outcome concerning physical access to healthcare 
facilities where courts have referred to domestic legislation and the UN CRPD.  

In 2013, a physically disabled person in a wheelchair with a new-born baby was unable to 
physically access several health institutions over a certain period of time and complained 
to  the  Health  Inspectorate,  which  in  most  cases  failed  to  establish  that  the  health 
institutions had violated the Construction Law. The complainant challenged the decisions 
of  the  Health  Inspectorate  before  the  administrative  district  court.  The  claimant  was 
awarded  moral  compensation  amounting  to  LVL 300  (EUR 427).  The  court  imposed  an 
obligation on the HI to issue a written apology to the claimant, along with an administrative 
act to oblige the health service provider to ensure access to persons with disabilities on 
the premises. The  case dealt with a violation  of domestic law; nevertheless, in order to 
interpret  the  domestic  law,  principles  of  the  UN CRPD  such  as  the  reasonable 
accommodation principle were used as interpretative guidelines and rationale for domestic 
law requirements on physical access to premises by disabled persons.175  

According  to  Cabinet  of  Ministers  Regulations  No.  599  On  Providing  Public  Transport 
Services and the Order of their Use, a public transport vehicle must be adjusted to meet 
specific  technical  requirements,  as  stipulated  by  legislative  acts,  to  enable  persons  with 
functional disabilities, pregnant women and persons with small children (including prams) 

availability of information for persons with hearing and visual impairments – available in Latvian at 
https://www.vestnesis.lv/ta/id/274995-noteikumi-par-latvijas-buvnormativu-lbn-208-15-publiskas-buves-. 

173  Latvia, Medical Treatment Law (Ārstniecības likums), Article 55, 12.06.1997, available in Latvian at: 

http://likumi.lv/ta/id/44108. 

174  Latvia, Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 1463, Amendments to Cabinet of Ministers 20.01.2009 

Regulations No. 60, Mandatory Requirements for Medical Treatment Institutions and their Structural Units 
(Ministru kabineta noteikumi Nr.1463 Grozījumi Ministru kabineta 2009.gada 20.janvāra noteikumos Nr.60 
"Noteikumi par obligātajām prasībām ārstniecības iestādēm un to struktūrvienībām"), 10.12.2013, available 
in Latvian at: http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=263208.  

175  Latvia, Administrative District Court, Case No A420571712, 02.12.2013.  

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
to enter a public transport vehicle and to ensure the transportation of passengers. If the 
carrier  has  not  adjusted  a  public  transport  vehicle  according  to  these  requirements,  the 
carrier must provide an adequately equipped transport vehicle for the above persons. The 
transport vehicle can be ordered 72 hours prior to travel by calling the carrier. Each stop 
and bus terminal must have information displayed with the relevant phone number.176  

In 2012, the Ombudsman’s Office conducted a survey of 26 banks about access to client 
service halls for disabled persons in wheelchairs with a visual or hearing impairment and 
about  the  availability  of  special  services  for  persons  with  disabilities  according  to  their 
needs. Most banks have entrances to premises or client service centres, with ATMs inside 
banks accessible to people in wheelchairs, whereas ATMs outside banks are generally not 
accessible to wheelchair users. Banks reported varying practices. Rented premises which 
cannot be rebuilt (because of their technical, historical or architectural characteristics) were 
cited as the main reason why some client service centres are not accessible for people in 
wheelchairs.  

The  office  also  conducted  a  survey  about  the  accessibility  of  healthcare  institutions  for 
persons with long-term physical, psychosocial, intellectual or sensory disabilities in Riga. 
It  received written responses from 86 institutions included in the Registry  of Healthcare 
Institutions.177 According to the survey, the premises of 79 out of 86 healthcare institutions 
(92 %)  are  accessible  according  to  the  accessibility  requirements  of  persons  with  long-
term  physical,  psychosocial,  intellectual  or  sensory  disabilities,  while  seven  of  them 
acknowledged accessibility problems due to specific features of their buildings. 87 % of the 
surveyed  institutions  made  some  improvements  after  the  entry  into  force  of  the  UN 
Disability Convention.  

In  Latvia,  national  law  does  not  contain  a  general  duty  to  provide  accessibility  by 
anticipation for persons with disabilities. 

h) 

Accessibility of public documents 

National law does not require public services to translate some or all of their documents 
into  Braille,  although  the  guidelines  developed  by  the  Liepaja  Society  of  the  Blind  in 
cooperation  with  the  Ministry  of  Welfare  through  an  EU-funded  project  encourage  the 
increased  use  of  Braille.178  There  are  no  legislative  acts  requiring  information  to  be 
published in easy-to-read language. The Easy Language Agency, an NGO, has run several 
projects since 2001 involving state institutions including the Central Election Commission 
and the Saeima (the Latvian Parliament). However, most initiatives are project based and 
few state institutions offer information in easy-to-read language. 

176  Latvia, Cabinet of Ministers Regulations no 599 On Providing Public Transport Services and the Order of 
their Use (Ministru kabineta noteikumi Nr. 599 “Sabiedriskā transporta pakalpojumu sniegšanas un 
izmantošanas kārtība”), Section 17, 18, 28.08.2012, in Latvian at http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=251480. 

177  Ombudsman’s Office, Accessibility of healthcare institutions, summary of 2012 survey (Tiesibsargs, 

Ārstniecības iestāžu pieejamība, 2012.gadā veiktās aptaujas apkopojums).  

178  Latvia, Liepāja Association of Blind Persons (Liepājas Neredzīgo biedrība) (2012), ‘Guidelines on 

Environmental Accessibility of Persons with Functional Disabilities’ (‘Vides pieejamības vadlīnijas personām 
ar funkcionāliem traucējumiem’), in Latvian at 
http://redzigaismu.lv/files/VIDES%20PIEEJAMIBA%20Liepaja%20Gala%20Produkts%202012-33.pdf. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3 

PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE  

3.1  Personal scope 

3.1.1  EU and non-EU nationals (Recital 13 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/43 

and Recital 12 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/78) 

In  Latvia,  there  are  no  residency  or  citizenship/nationality  requirements  for  protection 
under the relevant national laws transposing the directives. 

Since  the  main  law  transposing  the  directives  -  the  Labour  Law  -  does  not  refer  to 
citizenship requirements, it can generally be said that the protection against discrimination 
applies to all persons regardless of their citizenship.  

However, there are some laws where citizenship or status in Latvia is a precondition for 
the  guarantee  of  equal  rights  or  access  to  certain  services,  notably  the  Education  Law, 
which restricts its protection to citizens and non-citizens of the Republic of Latvia as well 
as to different categories of persons to whom residence permits have been issued. In the 
case  of  illegal  migrants,  the  right  to  education  exists  during  the  period  for  voluntary 
repatriation,  as  well  as  during  detention.  Access  to  social  security  is  limited  to  Latvian 
citizens, non-citizens, third-country nationals and stateless persons to whom a personal ID 
number  has  been  issued;  persons  in  possession  of  temporary  residence  permits  only 
(Article 3  of  the  Law  on  Social  Services  and  Social  Assistance)  are  excepted.  A  similar 
provision on the possession of a permanent residence permit as a precondition for acquiring 
the status of an unemployed person was invalidated by the Constitutional Court in relation 
to the spouses of Latvian citizens, who can only obtain a permanent residence permit after 
a certain number of years, when the intention of the spouses is clearly to stay permanently, 
which  thus  differs  from  the  cases  of  other  persons  who  receive  a  temporary  residence 
permit.179 The Law on the Ombudsman provides that a person with dual nationality cannot 
be appointed as ombudsman; the same prohibition applies to the President of the State. 

3.1.2  Natural and legal persons (Recital 16 Directive 2000/43) 

a) 

Protection against discrimination 

In  Latvia,  the  personal  scope  of  anti-discrimination  law  covers  natural  persons  for  the 
purpose of protection against discrimination.  

The Latvian laws dealing with discrimination do not specifically distinguish between natural 
and legal persons as far as protection and liability are concerned. 

Article 91 of the Constitution does not distinguish between legal and natural persons when 
it  comes  to  protection  against  discrimination.  The  personal  scope  of  the  Labour  Law 
(Articles  3,  29(1),  29(9)),  the  Law  on  Education  (Articles  1(12),  2,  3,  3.1))  and  the 
Consumer  Rights  Protection  Law  cover  natural  persons  for  the  purpose  of  protection 
against discrimination. 

b) 

Liability for discrimination 

In Latvia, the personal scope of anti-discrimination law covers natural or legal persons for 
the purpose of liability for discrimination.  

179  Latvia, Constitutional Court, Case No 2001-11-0106, 25.02.2002, available at 

http://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2001/09/2001-11-0106_Spriedums_ENG.pdf. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The personal scope of the Labour Law covers natural or legal persons for the purpose of 
liability for discrimination, following Article 7.1 and 7.2, which does not divide or separate 
subjects and Article 4.1, which allows an employer to be a natural or legal person. 

3.1.3  Private and public sector including public bodies (Article 3(1)) 

a) 

Protection against discrimination 

In Latvia, the personal scope of national legislation covers the private sector (to different 
degrees) and the public sector, including public bodies for the purpose of protection against 
discrimination. 

National law covers the public sector and the private sector to different degrees, depending 
on  the  field.  The  Labour  Law  (on  access  to  employment)  applies  to  both  the  public  and 
private sectors. The guarantees in the Law on Social Security cover social protection in the 
public  sphere,  but  not  services  provided  in  the  private  sphere  (e.g.  the  private  medical 
sphere). Social advantages, for example those provided by private foundations outside the 
framework  of  an  employment  relationship,  are  not  explicitly  covered,  although  they  are 
covered by the Consumer Rights Protection Law, to the extent that they can be considered 
to be a service that is publicly offered. The Law on Education applies to both the public and 
private spheres.  

b) 

Liability for discrimination 

In  Latvia,  the  personal  scope  of  anti-discrimination  law  covers  the  private  sector  (to 
different degrees) and the public sector, including public bodies for the purpose of liability 
for discrimination.  

National law covers the public sector and the private sector to different degrees, depending 
on  the  field.  The  Labour  Law  (on  access  to  employment)  applies  to  both  the  public  and 
private sectors. The guarantees in the Law on Social Security cover social protection in the 
public  sphere,  but  not  services  provided  in  the  private  sphere  (e.g.  the  private  medical 
sphere). Social advantages, for example those provided by private foundations outside the 
framework  of  an  employment  relationship,  are  not  explicitly  covered,  although  they  are 
covered by the Consumer Rights Protection Law, to the extent that they can be considered 
a  service  that  is  publicly  offered.  The  Law  on  Education  applies  to  both  the  public  and 
private spheres.  

3.2  Material scope 

3.2.1  Employment, self-employment and occupation  

In Latvia, national legislation applies to all sectors of private and public employment, self-
employment and occupation, including contract work and holding statutory office, for the 
five grounds. This legislation does not apply to military service. 

All  aspects  of  access  to  employment  are  governed  by  the  Labour  Law,  which  regulates 
employment  relationships,  including  access  to  employment,  trial  periods,  working 
conditions,  pay,  promotion  and  dismissals.  The  law  prohibits  differential  treatment, 
providing  protection  against  it,  as  required  by  the  directives,  and  covering  all  fields 
mentioned therein. It applies to both the public and private sectors, including – by virtue 
of Article 2(4) of the State Civil Service Law180 – the state civil service and specialised civil 
service, but excluding military service and contract work by self-employed persons, as self-
employment does not qualify as an employment relationship and is based on the provisions 
of the Civil Law. The Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination of Natural Persons-Economic 

180   Latvia, State Civil Service Law, 07.09.2000.  

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Operators applies to discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, gender, disability, 
age, religion and sexual orientation in relation to access to self-employment and covers all 
types  of  professions  which  are  not  practised  within  the  framework  of  an  employment 
contract, e.g. legal professions, artists, consultants, etc.  

Article 2(4) of the State Civil Service Law provides that, in the state  civil service, those 
provisions that regulate employment relationships with regard to, inter alia, the principle 
of equal rights, the prohibition of differential treatment and the prohibition against causing 
adverse consequences (prohibition of victimisation) apply. 

National legislation applies to holding statutory office in line with  Court of Justice of the 
European Union jurisprudence in the case of D Danosa, whereby the concept of ‘worker’ 
for the purposes of Directive 92/85 may not be interpreted differently according to each 
national law and must be defined in accordance with objective criteria which distinguish 
the  employment  relationship  by  reference  to  the  rights  and  duties  of  the  persons 
concerned. The essential feature of an employment relationship is that, for a certain period 
of time, a person performs services for and under the direction of another person, in return 
for which he receives remuneration.181 

3.2.2  Conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to 

occupation, including selection criteria, recruitment conditions and 
promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the 
professional hierarchy (Article 3(1)(a))  

In Latvia, national legislation prohibits discrimination in the following areas: conditions for 
access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, including selection criteria, 
recruitment conditions and promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of 
the  professional  hierarchy,  for  the  five  grounds,  in  both  private  and  public  sectors,  as 
described in the directives. 

The anti-discrimination provision in Article 29(1) of the Labour Law specifically mentions 
establishing  an  employment  relationship  and  promotion.  Article  29(9)  explicitly  protects 
against  differential  treatment  based  on  the  grounds  of  race,  age,  religious  conviction, 
disability and sexual orientation. The Labour Law - and hence its guarantees - applies to 
both  the  public  and  private  sectors,  including the  state  civil  service  and  specialised  civil 
service.  An  equality  guarantee  also  applies  in  relation  to  access  to  self-employment  or 
contract work  on the grounds of race  or ethnic origin, gender,  religious conviction, age, 
disability or sexual orientation, as provided for by Article 4(4) of the Law on the Prohibition 
of Discrimination of Natural Persons-Economic Operators. 

There  is  no  explicit  equality  guarantee,  other  than  the  general  constitutional  equality 
clause, related to any of the grounds concerning access to employment and promotion in 
the military service. 

3.2.3  Employment and working conditions, including pay and dismissals 

(Article 3(1)(c)) 

In  Latvia,  national  legislation  prohibits  discrimination  in  the  following  areas:  working 
conditions including pay and dismissals, for all five grounds and for both private and public 
employment, but excluding self-employment.  

Article  29(1)  of  the  Labour  Law  specifically  mentions  working  conditions,  remuneration, 
and  giving  notice  of  termination  of  an  employment  contract.  The  protection  against 
differential  treatment  based  on  grounds  of  race,  age,  religious  conviction,  sexual 

181  CJEU, Dita Danosa v. LKB Līzings SIA, Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11.11.2010 Case 

C-232/09, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0232. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
orientation  or  disability  is  explicit,  the  list  being  left  open  by  mention  of  ‘other 
circumstances’, and it also applies to civil service relationships (including for the specialised 
civil service). No explicit guarantee concerning working conditions, pay or dismissals - to 
the  extent  that  they  apply  to  a  particular  sphere  -  exists  within  the  sphere  of  military 
service.  The  Law  on  the  Prohibition  of  Discrimination  of  Natural  Persons-Economic 
Operators applies to discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, gender, disability, 
age, religious conviction and sexual orientation, and does not cover working conditions or 
pay. 

3.2.3.1  Occupational pensions constituting part of pay 

Occupational pension schemes are a new phenomenon in Latvia, and a very limited one; 
hence,  occupational  pension  schemes  have  never  been  an  issue  and  there  is  also  no 
information available on their arrangements. Article 11(3) of the Law  on Private Pension 
Funds182  prohibits  the  employer  –  once  it  has  decided  to  contribute  to  a  pension  plan  – 
from  discriminating  on  the  basis  of  an  exhaustive  listing  of  grounds  including  origin, 
property status, racial or ethnic origin, gender or attitude towards religion (this being the 
traditional Latvian wording regarding religion or belief). The list does not include disability 
or sexual orientation, which may be a breach of the Employment Directive. Additionally, 
the references to working conditions and remuneration in Article 29(1) of the Labour Law 
could be interpreted as also covering occupational pensions, which would thus be in line 
with the Court of Justice of the European Union judgment in the Maruko case, and therefore 
also grounds not covered by the Law on Private Pension Funds.  

However, it may be noted that the Law on Private Pension Funds is a lex specialis in relation 
to the Labour Law. Furthermore, the situation is somewhat complicated by the reference 
in the provisions to a prohibition of differential treatment in ‘establishing the employment 
relationship,  as  well  as  during  the  period  of  existence  of  employment  relationship’ 
(emphasis added). This might be a problem, and possibly a breach of the directive, if a 
person attempted to challenge a discriminatory arrangement in the pension scheme after 
the  end  of  the  employment  relationship  –  even  if  one  could  argue  that  the  differential 
treatment was already present during the existence of the labour relationship. It remains 
to  be  seen  whether  the  courts  will  interpret  the  relevant  provisions  in  a  way  that  is 
compatible with the requirements of the directives – as they ought to. 

3.2.4  Access to all types and to all levels of vocational guidance, vocational 

training, advanced vocational training and retraining, including practical 
work experience (Article 3(1)(b)) 

In  Latvia,  national  legislation  does  not  clearly  apply  to  vocational  training  outside  the 
employment  relationship,  such  as  that  provided  by  technical  schools  or  universities,  or 
such as adult lifelong learning courses.  

Access to vocational guidance and training in both the public and private sectors (with the 
exception  of  military  service  as  described  above)  in  the  context  of  employment 
relationships is covered by Article 29(1) of the Labour Law with reference to ‘occupational 
training’.  Race,  age,  religious  conviction,  disability  and  sexual  orientation  are  explicitly 
covered.  

No  explicit  guarantee  concerning  access  to  vocational  guidance,  vocational  training  or 
education exists specifically within the spheres of military service, self-employment183 or 
contract work; however, to the extent that the Law on Education184 applies – and it applies 
also to vocational training, which is regarded as a form of education  – it applies to both 

182  Latvia, Law on Private Pension Funds (Likums par privātajiem pensiju fondiem), 05.06.1997. 
183  There is no explicit reference to vocational guidance and training for self-employed persons under the 2012 

Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination of Natural Persons-Economic Operators.  

184  Latvia, Law on Education, 29.10.1998, Article 3.  

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the public and private sectors, and also to vocational training provided by, for example, 
technical schools and universities. The problem, however, is that this law contains a closed 
list  of  grounds  which  does  not  include  age,  disability  or  sexual  orientation,  but  only 
‘property and social status, race,  ethnicity, gender, religious or political opinions, health 
condition,185  occupation  and  place  of  residence.’  To  some  extent,  however,  it  could  be 
argued that the protection against disability-based discrimination can be subsumed under 
the heading of ‘health condition’.  

As far as the application of the Education Law in the public sector is concerned, a reference 
to  Article  91  of  the  Constitution  can  resolve  the  deficiency  of  the  lack  of  reference  to 
particular grounds, even if this is somewhat complicated, especially since, in cases where 
the particular ground for discrimination is not  expressly mentioned, the burden  of proof 
which  rests  on  the  claimant  is  clearly  even  more  significant,  as  they  must  also  argue 
against the ‘inclusion of the one is the exclusion of another’ principle. There is nothing to 
make up for these missing grounds in the private sphere. Moreover, this means there is 
no  implementation  mechanism  in  this  law  and,  naturally,  no  shared  burden  of  proof. 
Similarly,  amendments  to  the  Law  on  Support  to  Unemployed  Persons  and  Job  Seekers 
covering  access  to  vocational  retraining  apply  to  only  three  grounds,  gender,  race  and 
ethnic origin, completely ignoring Directive 2000/78. 

The  conclusion,  therefore,  is  that,  in  relation  to  vocational  training  outside  employment 
relationships, differential treatment is not adequately prohibited. 

3.2.5  Membership of, and involvement in, an organisation of workers or 

employers, or any organisation whose members carry on a particular 
profession, including the benefits provided for by such organisations 
(Article 3(1)(d)) 

In Latvia, national legislation prohibits discrimination in the following areas:  membership 
of, and involvement in, workers’ or employers’ organisations as formulated in the directives 
for all five grounds and for both private and public employment. 

A new Law  on Trade Unions was adopted on  6 March 2014, which emphasises the non-
discrimination aspect: the right of anyone to establish and join a trade union without any 
discrimination, trade union membership and the wish to join or not to join a trade union 
may not serve as a basis for restricting a person’s rights (Article 4).186 

Article 2(2) of the Law  on Organisations of Employers and their Associations187 provides 
that a natural or legal person who employs at least one person on the basis of a contract 
can  become  a  member  of  an  employers’  organisation,  but  it  does  not  contain  any  non-
discrimination clause.  

Article 8(1) of the Labour Law reiterates the right of employees and  employers to freely 
create and join organisations to protect their interests and specifically provides for these 
rights ‘without any direct or indirect discrimination related to any of the grounds referred 
to in Article 7(2) of this law’. Article 7(2), among others, refers to race, religious conviction, 
age, disability and sexual orientation, as well as to ‘other circumstances’.  

As regards professional organisations, the Law on the Bar188 does not contain any equality 
clause at all, but Latvian citizenship is a condition for access to the Bar.  

185   In the autumn of 2002 there was a case in which a teacher, following the instructions of her superior, did 

not let an HIV-positive pupil enter a class. The case was well-publicised, raising, inter alia, the issue of the 
protection of sensitive data, and disciplinary action was taken against the teacher. 

186  Latvia, Law on Trade Unions (Arodbiedrību likums), 06.03.2014, http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=265207. 
187   Latvia, Law on Organisations of Employers and their Associations (Darba devēju organizāciju un to apvienību 

likums), 29.04.1999, http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=24467. 

188   Latvia, Law on the Bar (Advokatūras likums), 27.04.1993, http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=59283. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.6  Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 3(1)(e) 

Directive 2000/43) 

In  Latvia,  national  legislation  prohibits  discrimination  in  the  following  areas:  social 
protection,  including  social  security  and  healthcare  as  formulated  in  the  Racial  Equality 
Directive. 

In addition to constitutional guarantees of equality, Article 109 of the Constitution provides 
that  everyone  has  the  right  to  social  security  in  old  age,  for  work  disability,  for 
unemployment  and  in  other  cases  provided  for  by  law,  while  Article 111  states  that  the 
state shall protect human health and guarantee a basic level of medical care for everyone. 
Article 2 of the Law on Social Security189 refers to ‘prohibition of differential treatment’ as 
one of the principles of the provision of social services, and Article 2.1 specifies that, in the 
provision of social services, differential treatment based on a person’s race, colour, gender, 
age, disability, health condition, religious, political or other conviction, national or social 
origin, property or family status or other circumstances is prohibited. Sexual orientation is 
not specified as a prohibited ground in this law, but it could be argued that it comes under 
‘other  circumstances’.  The  law  states:  ‘Social  services  in  the  meaning  of  this  law  are 
measures  ensured  by  state  or  municipality  as  monetary  or  material  support  or  other 
services to promote the full realisation of a person’s social rights’ (Article 13). 

Article 16 of the Medical Care Law190 provides that everyone has the right to receive urgent 
medical care as provided for by the Cabinet of Ministers, while Article 17 of that law states 
that the right to medical care guaranteed by the state is enjoyed by Latvian citizens, non-
citizens, foreign citizens and stateless persons who are registered in the population register 
and have received a personal ID number, as well as by imprisoned and detained persons. 
There is no express guarantee of equality. However, given the definition of social services, 
it appears that the equality guarantee contained in the Law on Social Security applies also 
in the sphere covered by this law.  

Thus,  it  can  be  observed  that,  while  in  some  cases  the  explicit  guarantee  of  equality  is 
missing  in  particular  laws,  and  in  other  cases  it  might  not  encompass  all  grounds,  the 
guarantee contained in the Law on Social Security, which is not limited to racial or ethnic 
origin, but extends to other grounds in an open-ended way, covers the whole field of social 
protection  as  long  as  it  relates  to  the  public  sphere.  However,  services  provided  by  the 
private sector (private medical care, for example) are not covered by the wording of the 
Law on Social Security, nor does the constitutional guarantee apply to it. 

3.2.6.1  Article 3.3 exception (Directive 2000/78) 

There is no Article 3.3 exception in Latvian national legislation.  

3.2.7  Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43) 

In  Latvia,  national  legislation  prohibits  discrimination  in  the  following  area:  social 
advantages as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive. 

In  addition  to  the  constitutional  guarantee  of  equality,  Article  3  of  the  Law  on  Social 
Services  and  Social  Assistance191  provides  that  Latvian  citizens,  non-citizens,  foreign 
citizens and stateless persons who have received a personal ID number, except persons 
who  have  received  temporary  residence  permits,  but  including  persons  with  subsidiary 
status, have the right to social services and social security.  

189   Latvia, Law on Social Security, 07.09.1995. 
190   Latvia, Medical Treatment Law, 12.06.1997. 
191   Latvia, Law on Social Services and Social Assistance, 31.10.2002. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Article 2.1 of the Law on Social Security provides that social services – broadly defined as 
‘measures  ensured  by  state  or  municipality  as  monetary  or  material  support  or  other 
services  to  promote  the  full  realisation  of  a  person’s  social  rights’  –  shall  be  provided 
without discrimination on the basis of a person’s race, colour, gender, age, disability, health 
condition, religious, political or other conviction, national or social origin, property or family 
status  or  other  circumstances,  as  long  as  they  are  provided  by  state  or  municipal 
institutions.  

In addition, to the extent that provision of such services and security is a public function, 
the constitutional guarantee of equality applies. What falls outside social security and social 
services and is provided by private actors, perhaps with the exception of employers, seems 
more  problematic;  it  could  be  argued  that  the  broad  equality  guarantee  contained  in 
Article 29(1)  of  the  Labour  Law  prohibiting  differential  treatment  generally  ‘during  the 
period of existence of legal employment relationships’ applies also to any social advantages 
provided  by  the  employer.  Those  social  advantages  provided,  for  example,  by  private 
foundations  outside  the  framework  of  an  employment  relationship  are  not  explicitly 
covered,  although,  to  the  extent  that  they  can  be  considered  a  service  that  is  publicly 
offered, they are covered by the Consumer Rights Protection Law in relation to race, ethnic 
origin, gender and disability (Article 3.1(1)) 

3.2.8  Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43) 

In Latvia, national legislation prohibits discrimination in the following area:  education as 
formulated in the Racial Equality Directive. 

The Law on Education applies to both the public and private spheres and contains a closed-
list  non-discrimination  clause,  which  does  not  include  all  the  grounds  listed  by  the 
directives,192 specifically: age, disability and sexual orientation. Disability, however, may 
be subsumed under ‘health condition’, although this would require judicial interpretation. 
In reality, the access of disabled children and adults to education remains a problem.  

In 2016, the Parliament amended Sections 30(4) and 48(5) of the Education Law to specify 
that  for  a  person  to  be  allowed  to  work  as  the  head  of  an  educational  institution  or  a 
teacher they must not violate the prohibition of discrimination.193 The explanatory report 
of  the  amendments194  does  not  provide  information  about  the  rationale  for  such 
amendments, which were drafted in conjunction with the controversial teacher ‘loyalty’ (to 
the Constitution and the state of Latvia),195 requirements that are predominantly aimed at 
minority  teachers  working  in  bilingual  schools.196  The  new  amendments  concerning 

192  Article 3 of the Law on Education provides: ‘Every citizen of the Republic of Latvia and every person who 

has the right to a non-citizen passport issued by Latvia, or person to whom a permanent residence permit 
has been issued, as well as citizens of the European Union states to whom temporary residence permits 
have been issued and their children have equal rights to receive education independently from property and 
social status, race, ethnicity, gender, religious or political opinions, health condition, occupation and place of 
residence.’ 

193  Latvia, Amendments to the Education Law (Grozījumi Izglītības likumā), 23 November 2016, available in 

Latvian at http://likumi.lv/ta/id/287247-grozijumi-izglitibas-likuma. The amendments state that the person 
must not discriminate against others - this can refer not only to court decisions (criminal, civil, 
administrative), but also to disciplinary decisions by an administrative body that have not been appealed or 
annulled. There have been no such decisions against teachers made by either administrative bodies or 
courts.  

194  Cabinet of Ministers (2016), ‘Letter to the Saeima concerning Proposals to the Education Law for the 2nd 

Reading’, p.48, available at: 
http://titania.saeima.lv/LIVS12/saeimalivs12.nsf/0/AC0F4589AC2AAEE4C225806E003CC83F?OpenDocumen
t.  

195  LETA (Latvian Information Agency) (2016), ‘Saeima endorses controversial teacher loyalty amendments to 
the Education Law’, 23/11/2016. Available at: http://www.leta.lv/eng/home/important/4AF60C80-AFB1-
4C4C-A8A0-B59C56A0DE0C/.  

196  LSM.LV (2016), ‘Russian Teachers fear Witch Hunt Over Loyalty Law’, 20 October 2016, 

http://www.lsm.lv/en/article/societ/society/russian-teachers-fear-witch-hunt-over-loyalty-law.a206305/  

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
potential  discrimination  by  educational  workers  replicate  those  in  Article  3.1 (7)  of  the 
Education Law. 

Migrants who have a legal ground to stay in Latvia have the same right to  free primary 
and secondary education as Latvian citizens and non-citizens. They may choose between 
schools that have Latvian as the language of instruction or schools that implement bilingual 
education  programmes  (Latvian  and  Russian  or  another  minority  language).197  Third 
country nationals have to pay for studies in higher education programmes according to the 
contract  entered  into  with  the  respective  educational  institution.  There  is  no  anti-
discrimination case law concerning migrants in education and there are no major policies 
that aim to address discrimination against migrants in education. 

a) 

Pupils with disabilities 

In  Latvia,  the  general  approach  to  education  for  pupils  with  disabilities  gives  rise  to 
problems. 

Many  schools  and  university  buildings  remain  inadequately  accessible  for  a  person  in  a 
wheelchair, so, in many cases, physically disabled children may be offered instruction at 
home  instead  of  integration  in  mainstream  education,  despite  the  official  theoretical 
preference for integration. The same applies to people with intellectual disabilities in cases 
where specialised education and instruction at home is, de facto, the clear preference. In 
2011, 13.7 % of children and young people with intellectual disabilities had never been in 
a school.198 

According to the State Centre for Special Education (Valsts speciālās izglītības centrs), in 
the academic year 2015/2016, the number of pupils with special needs was 11 846 (11 135 
in 2012/13, 10 865 in 2013-14). Of the total number of pupils with special needs, half were 
attending special schools.199 The decision about which school to attend theoretically rests 
with the parents, who are given recommendations from state and municipal pedagogical-
medical commissions. In practice, it is difficult to fight their recommendations. Parents can 
appeal  the  municipal  commission’s  recommendations  to  the  state  commission,  but  the 
possibilities of obtaining a different  outcome are  slim. Concerns have  been  raised about 
the quality of the decisions of these commissions.200  

The funding to support integration in mainstream education is the responsibility of the local 
authorities.  Theoretically,  parents  can  apply  for  such  funding,  but  even  in  the  more 
prosperous  municipalities  it  is  difficult  to  obtain.  Nevertheless,  the  number  of  children 
integrated  in  mainstream  schools  has  increased  from  575  in  2009/2010  to  4 587  in 
2015/2016.201 

b) 

Trends and patterns regarding Roma pupils 

In Latvia, there are no specific patterns in the education of Roma pupils such as segregation 
at class level. However, the rate of Roma enrolment in special education programmes is 
disproportionally higher than the national average.  

197  The only exception is asylum seekers who are minors, who according to the Asylum Law are required to 

gain their education in Latvian. 

198  Latvian Movement for Independent Living (2010), Children and Young Persons with Intellectual Disabilities 

in Latvia, p.11. 

199  Latvia, Education Department (Izglītības departaments). The number of pupils in general basic and 

secondary schools at 27.05.2015, at 
http://www.izm.gov.lv/images/statistika/izglitiba/IDstatist_izglit_skaits_27052015_IZM_majas_lapa.pdf. 

200  LVPORTALS.LV (2016), ‘Long Awaited Changes for Special Education’, 5 May, at 

http://m.lvportals.lv/visi/likumi-prakse/278771-speciala-izglitiba-jau-sen-gaida-parmainas/. 

201  LVPORTALS.LV (2016), ‘Long Awaited Changes for Special Education’, 5 May, at 

http://m.lvportals.lv/visi/likumi-prakse/278771-speciala-izglitiba-jau-sen-gaida-parmainas/. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
In  2016,  there  were  no  longer  specialised  Roma  classes  in  Latvia.  Seven  educational 
institutions had Roma classes in 2003-4, but these were gradually closed by 2014-15. The 
precise reasons for the closure of ‘Roma classes’ are not known, although, according to the 
Centre for Education Initiatives (an NGO), Roma classes have been closed allegedly due to 
a shortage of students – most children have emigrated with their parents, and the Roma 
community favours sending children to general education schools.202 

According to the Ministry of Education, in 2016-17, 900 Roma children attended school.203 
The  share  of  Roma  with  special  education  needs  is  disproportionally  higher  than  the 
national share. In 2016-17, the drop-out rate of Roma children from schools was 7.5 %,204 
while in 2013/2014 it was 15.9 %.205 In 2013-2014, 26 % of Roma children were involved 
in  special  primary  education206  programmes;  in  2016-2017,  the  share  has  increased  to 
34 %.207 There is no information available as to the number of Roma children of mandatory 
school age who are not attending school.  

Data from the  Population Census 2011 shows that only 9.3 %  of Roma have secondary 
education, and only 0.8 % or 40 Roma have university education. Among 4 888 Roma over 
the age of 15, 31.7 % had primary education and 23.3 % had elementary education (four 
years  of  school),  while  18.5  %  had  less  than  elementary-level  (four  years  of  school) 
education.208  

There are no complete data on illiteracy in the Roma community. 

3.2.9  Access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the 

public (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) 

In Latvia, national legislation prohibits discrimination in the following area: access to and 
supply of goods and services as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive. 

Consumer Rights Protection Law prohibits discrimination in relation to access to and supply 
of  goods  and  services  based  on  a  person’s  gender,  race  or  ethnic  origin  or  disability. 
Although, on 19 June 2012, the Government approved amendments to the law adding age, 
religious  conviction  and  sexual  orientation  to  the  prohibited  discrimination  grounds,  the 
amendments were stalled in the Parliament (Article 3.1(1)). However, as far as consumer 
rights protection is concerned, reference to Article 91 of the Constitution209 can resolve the 
deficiency of the lack of reference to specific grounds.  

Article 2.1 of the Law on Social Security specifies that, in the provision of social services 
[by State and municipal services], differential treatment based on a person’s race, colour, 
gender, age, disability, health condition, religious, political or other conviction, national or 
social  origin,  property  or  family  status  or  other  circumstances  is  prohibited.  Sexual 
orientation is not specified as a prohibited ground in this law, but it could be argued that 
it comes under ‘other circumstances’.  

202  Latvian Centre for Human Rights (2012), FRANET National Focal Point, Social thematic study, The Situation 

of Roma, p.11, at http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/situation-of-roma-2012-lv.pdf.  

203  Ministry of Education (2017), ‘Monitoring of Educational Attainment of Roma Children in 2016/2017 from the 

period 2013/2014’, presentation by Olita Arkle, Expert, Education Department, 12.04.2016.  
204  The main reasons cited are: families have emigrated and children have reached the age of 18.  
205  Ministry of Education and Science (2014), ‘Monitoring of the Quality of Education of Roma Children 

Conducted by the Ministry of Education and Science in Co-operation with Regional and City Education 
Boards in 2013-2014’ (Izglītības un zinātnes ministrijas sadarbībā ar novadu un pilsētu izglītības pārvaldēm 
veiktais romu skolēnu izglītības kvalitātes monitorings 2013./2014.mācību gadā). 

206  Primary education is mandatory in Latvia.  
207  Ministry of Education (2017), ‘Monitoring of Educational Attainment of Roma Children in 2016/2017 from the 

period 2013/2014’, presentation by Olita Arkle, Expert, Education Department, 12.04.2016.  

208  Letter from the Central Statistical Bureau to the Latvian Centre for Human Rights No 0708-10/222, 

10.02.2012. 

209  Latvia (1996), Latvijas Republikas satversme. [Rīga, Latvia]: Latvijas Vēstnesis. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
The  Law  on  the  Prohibition  of  Discrimination  of  Natural  Persons-Economic  Operators 
prohibits discrimination in the public and private spheres in relation to the supply of goods 
and services necessary for the performance of self-employed activities on the basis of a 
person’s gender, age, religious, political or other conviction, sexual orientation, disability, 
race or ethnic origin (Article 2.1(1)). 

On 4 June 2015 the Saeima (Parliament) amended the Latvian Administrative Violations 
Code (Grozījumi Latvijas Administratīvo pārkāpumu kodeksā).210 Article 155.14 (Failure to 
Observe  the  Rights  of  Air  Transport  Passengers)  was  supplemented  with  a  provision 
whereby, in the event of any violation of the right of persons with disabilities or persons 
with reduced mobility to use air transportation services, a warning shall be issued or a fine 
of EUR 450 to EUR 3 000 shall be imposed on the legal persons concerned.  

3.2.9.1  Distinction between goods and services available publicly or privately 

In Latvia, national law does not distinguish between goods and services available to the 
public (e.g. in shops, restaurants and banks) and those only available privately (e.g. those 
limited to members of a private association).  

The law does not distinguish between the goods and services available to the public and 
those available privately, thus it should apply to both categories. There is as yet no case 
law in this regard. 

3.2.10  Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) 

In  Latvia,  national  legislation  prohibits  discrimination  in  the  following  area:  housing  as 
formulated in the Racial Equality Directive. 

The  Law  on  Housing  does  not  contain  a  non-discrimination  clause,  but  this  sphere  is 
covered by the Consumer Rights Protection Law, which prohibits discrimination in access 
to and the supply of goods and services, but only in relation to the grounds of race, ethnic 
origin, gender and disability (Article 3.1).  

In addition to that, it can be argued that the amended Law on Social Security (Article2.1, 
see  under  3.2.6.),  which  contains  a  more  extensive  and  open-ended  list  of  grounds 
(i.e. race,  colour,  gender,  age,  disability,  health  condition,  religious,  political  or  other 
conviction, national or social origin, property or family status or other circumstances) for 
social services that are provided by state or municipal institutions and that are intended to 
promote the enjoyment of social rights, also covers access to housing, even if it does not 
refer to it expressly. Access to private housing is thus covered only to the extent that it 
comes under the Consumer Rights Protection Law. This law does not specifically promote 
or require housing that is accessible to people with disabilities and to older people. 

There are no new legislative developments, policies or case law concerning discrimination 
against migrants in housing. Foreigners with temporary residence permits are not eligible 
for the State-guaranteed social assistance and services, including a social apartment or a 
social shelter.  

3.2.10.1  Trends and patterns regarding housing segregation for Roma 

In Latvia, there are patterns of Roma having their access to better housing restricted.  

According to a comprehensive Roma survey in 2015, fewer Roma (42.5 %) own a dwelling 
than the national average (58.8 %); rental is used by 18.6 % of Roma (national average 

210  Latvia, Amendments to the Administrative Violations Code (Grozījumi Administratīvo pārkāpumu kodeksā), 

04.06.2015, http://likumi.lv/ta/id/274748-grozijumi-latvijas-administrativo-parkapumu-kodeksa. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
12.6 %);  and  35.6 %  of  Roma  reside  in  municipal  or  state  housing.  A  range  of  factors 
restrict Roma access to better housing, including low and irregular income, as well as an 
absence of savings – only 9.4 % have savings exceeding EUR 250. Prejudice against Roma 
as  tenants  and  neighbours  and  various  other  factors  also  play  a  role.  Roma  housing  is 
unsatisfactory and worse than that of other residents of Latvia. The majority of Roma live 
in  households  that  lack  one  of  the  basic  amenities  (e.g.  plumbing,  a  flushing  toilet,  a 
shower  or  a  bathroom)  and  the  state  of  the  dwellings is  poor,  sanitation  being  the  key 
problem.  In  55.9 %  of  the  housing  where  Roma  live,  there  is  no  shower  or  bathroom, 
42.1 % of the housing does not have flushing toilets, and a quarter of the Roma surveyed 
(26 %) do not have access to any water supply at home. At the same time, Roma actively 
use  the  support  offered  by  municipalities  and  NGOs,  predominantly  municipal  housing 
benefit.211 

211  Latvijas Fakti Market and Social Research Centre (2015), Romi Latvijā (Roma in Latvia), pp.95-122. The 

research was conducted as part of the file 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/files/summaries_selected_2013_ag_prog_ad_en.pdf. “Different 
people. Diverse experience. One Latvia II” project Nr. JUST/2013/PROG/AG/4978/AD. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4 

EXCEPTIONS 

4.1  Genuine and determining occupational requirements (Article 4) 

In  Latvia,  national  legislation  provides  for  an  exception  for  genuine  and  determining 
occupational requirements. 

The only statute that refers to occupational requirements is the Labour Law. Article 29(2) 
provides that ‘differential treatment based on the gender of employees is permitted only 
in  cases  where  a  particular  gender  is  an  objective  and  substantiated  precondition  for 
performance  of the  relevant work or for the relevant  employment’. Article 29(9) applies 
this also to differential treatment based on a person’s race, colour, age, disability, religious, 
political  or  other  opinions,  national  or  social  origin,  property  or  family  status,  sexual 
orientation and other circumstances. There is no further explanation of such preconditions. 
In the only case – the case of Kozlovska v. SIA Palso212 – where the court does refer to an 
‘objective precondition’, there is no real discussion of it, since the employer claimed that 
he had indicated that the person’s ‘accent’ determined the refusal to employ at the request 
of the claimant, and that the real reasons behind this had been a lack of required secondary 
education  and  an  appearance  that  was  unsuitable  for  the  available  position.  Thus,  the 
employer did not actually argue that the absence of a certain accent was an objective and 
substantiated  precondition.  The  court  concluded  that  there  was  no  dispute  as  to  the 
claimant’s  knowledge  of  the  Latvian  language  –  which  would  have  been  an  objective 
precondition – and that the respondent had not shown that the absence of an accent was 
such a precondition. 

The current solution, permitting individual tailoring depending on the tasks of the particular 
position, is preferable. However, the way in which the courts will interpret ‘objective and 
substantiated requirements’ in cases of dispute is critical. 

4.2  Employers with an ethos based on religion or belief (Article 4(2) Directive 

2000/78) 

In Latvia, national legislation provides for an exception for employers with an ethos based 
on religion or belief. 

The  Labour  Law  includes  a  provision  stating  that  ‘in  a  religious  organisation  differential 
treatment based on a person’s religious belief is admissible where, taking into account the 
ethos  of  the  organisation,  a  particular  religious  belief  is  an  objective  and  substantiated 
precondition for the work or activity in question’ (Article 29(10)). According to the wording 
of the law, this only applies to a religious organisation, thus excluding other beliefs, and 
the measures seem to create a broader exception than the one provided for in Article 4(2) 
of Directive 2000/78, yet it remains to be seen how this will be interpreted by the courts. 
This provision is a counterpart of Article 14(1) of the Law on Religious Organisations, which 
provides that religious organisations elect or appoint their religious personnel in accordance 
with their regulations,213 while other employees are employed and dismissed in accordance 
with  the  law  regulating  employment.  In  other  aspects  of  employment,  the  Labour  Law 
applies. 

212  Latvia, Jelgava court, Case No.15066406, 25.05.2006. 
213  The Law on Religious Organisations does not contain any other provision whereby this exception cannot lead 

to discrimination on a ground other than religion/belief.  

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.3  Armed forces and other specific occupations (Article 3(4) and Recital 18 

Directive 2000/78) 

In  Latvia,  national  legislation  does  not  explicitly  provide  for  an  exception  for  the  armed 
forces  in  relation  to  age  or  disability  discrimination  (Article  3(4),  Directive  2000/78). 
However, it does maintain age and capability requirements.  

Article 12(2) of the Military Service Law,214 which concerns the right of the military to work, 
states that legislative provisions governing legal labour relations are not applicable in the 
case  of  the  military,  except  for  those  measures  that  prohibit  differential  treatment  and 
rights  being  accorded  to  pregnant  women,  women  breast-feeding  a  child  and  women 
during a post-natal period of up to one year, in so far as they do not contravene the law. 
Persons who do not comply with health requirements cannot be recruited and employed in 
the military service. (Article 16(2)5). 

The  Military  Service  Law215  provides  for  age  limits  of  27,  35  or  40  years,  depending  on 
seniority, for admission to military education establishments. The maximum age limits for 
professional military service range from 36 to 60 years, depending on seniority in active 
service,  and  from  55  to  65  in  the  case  of  reserves  (limited  extensions  are  possible), 
whereas a person can be admitted to professional military service if they are able to serve 
at least five years before reaching the prescribed age limit.  

None of the laws regulating employment in the police, prisons or the emergency services 
contains an equality guarantee, and hence this provides for no exceptions. 

On the State Civil Service Law, the equality guarantees contained in the Labour Law apply 
also to the civil service and specialised civil service. Access to all of these occupations is 
restricted  to  Latvian  citizens.  Article 28  of  the  Law  on  Fire  Safety  and  Fire-fighting216 
provides  that  only  persons  aged  18-40  are  accepted  into  the  state  fire  safety  and  fire-
fighting service. A person may perform their service until the age of 50, although this can 
be extended until the age of 60 if the person so wishes, and following an evaluation of their 
physical  and  professional  abilities.  The  law  also  requires  that  the  applicant’s  physical 
condition and state of health meet the requirements of the service. The Law on the Police 
sets 50 years as the maximum age for service in the police and allows unlimited extensions 
for  the  higher  echelons,  as  well  as  limiting  the  age  range  for  entering  police  service  to 
between 18 and 35. The physical and health requirements allowing persons to fulfil police 
duties are also contained in the law. 

4.4  Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) 

a)  Discrimination on the ground of nationality 

In Latvia, national law does not include exceptions relating to difference of treatment based 
on nationality.  

There  are  no  provisions  in  national  laws  that  would  rely  specifically  on  the  exception 
contained in Article 3(2) of the directives yet, in a number of cases, nationality – usually 
in relation to the person’s status in Latvia and the requirement that persons be issued an 
ID number, which sometimes excludes persons in possession only of a temporary residence 
permit – is a condition for access to certain professions or benefits. Thus, all employment 
in the civil service and specialised civil service, as well as in military service, is restricted 
to Latvian citizens. Furthermore, the Law on the Bar restricts access to practice in the legal 
profession to Latvian citizens and – since 2004 – to EU nationals who have been admitted 

214  Latvia, Military Service Law (Militārā dienesta likums), 30.05.2002, available in Latvian at 

http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=155885. 
215  Latvia, Military Service Law, 30.05.2002. 
216  Latvia, Fire Safety and Fire-fighting Law (Ugunsdrošības un ugunsdzēsības likums) 24.10.2002. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
to the bar in other EU member states. In some cases, however, a difference of treatment 
exists which may be hard to justify. Thus, Article 1 of the transition provisions of the Law 
on State Pensions provides for different calculations of pensions for Latvian citizens and 
Latvian non-citizens, as well as for foreigners and stateless persons who worked outside 
Latvia before 1991: for citizens, the years worked are taken into account when calculating 
their  pensions,  but  this  is  not  the  case  for  persons  in  other  categories.  This  issue  is 
particularly important for Latvian non-citizens, yet, unfortunately, when this provision was 
challenged  in  the  Constitutional  Court,217  the  court,  based  on  the  fact  that  non-citizens 
were not mentioned in this provision, which only expressly deals with citizens, foreigners 
and stateless persons, considered it as a legislative omission that it could not decide upon. 
The  issue  was  later  addressed  through  the  ECtHR  case  Andrejeva  v.  Latvia,  which 
concluded that the differential treatment of a specific non-citizen compared with citizens 
was discrimination by nationality.218 On 17 February 2011, the Constitutional Court of the 
Republic of Latvia adopted a judgment dismissing the claim of five non-citizens regarding 
their  complaint  about  the  allegedly  discriminatory  old-age  state  pension  system  of 
Latvia.219 The case concerned a provision in the amended Law on State Pensions, dating 
from 2008, concerning the working period and length of obligatory military service accrued 
outside the territory of Latvia before 31 December 1990 not having been included into the 
length  of  insurance,  which  has  had  a  considerable  effect  on  the  amount  of  people’s 
pensions.  

The  court  pointed  out,  first,  that  the  state  enjoys  a  wide  margin  of  discretion  when 
establishing its social security system, including the pension system. It concluded that the 
context of state continuity is the determining factor and serves as a crucial aspect when 
dealing with differences in the procedure for calculating the pensions of citizens and non-
citizens.  Finally,  the  court  drew  attention  to  the  fact  that,  when  solving  the  problem  of 
cross-border pensions, bilateral international agreements regarding cooperation must be 
used. The court thus regarded the differential treatment as proportional and in compliance 
with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights in conjunction with Article 1 
of Protocol No. 1, as well as with Article 91 of the Latvian Constitution. 

In Latvia, nationality (as citizenship) is not explicitly mentioned as a protected ground in 
national  anti-discrimination  law.  It  may  be  subsumed  under  ‘other  circumstances’  in 
various laws that leave an open-ended list of prohibited discrimination grounds, but this 
would require judicial interpretation. 

b) 

Relationship between nationality and ‘race or ethnic origin’ 

Given the ethnic composition of Latvia, there may be cases of overlapping nationality and 
ethnic discrimination.  

In 2008, the Ombudsman addressed Ryanair concerning the impossibility, at that point, 
for persons who were not EU/EEA citizens to register for flights online, thus entailing an 
additional fee for registering at the airport. The Ombudsman considered it to be indirect 
ethnic  discrimination,  as  the  requirement  affected  Latvia’s  non-citizens,  who  formed  a 
significant  part  of  the  population  and  were  predominantly  representatives  of  ethnic 
minorities. The Ombudsman referred to EU directive 2000/43 and to the Consumer Rights 
Protection Law, which prohibit indirect discrimination on the ground of ethnicity in access 
to goods and  services.  Later, the Ombudsman’s Office announced it had terminated the 
investigation,  because  Ryanair  admitted  that  its  services  violated  the  principle  of  equal 

217  Latvia, Constitutional Court, Case No. 2001-02-0106, 26.06.2001, available at 

http://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2001/02/2001-02-0106_Spriedums_ENG.pdf. 
218  European Court of Human Rights, Andrejeva v. Latvia, Application No 55707/00, 18.02.2009, at 

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-91388.  

219  Latvia, Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia, Case No. 2010-20-0106, 17.02.2011,available at 

http://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/2010-20-0106_Spriedums_ENG.pdf. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
treatment  and  informed  the  office  about  undertaking  measures  to  ensure  non-
discrimination in the immediate future.220 

The  use  of  the  terms  ‘nationality’,  ‘ethnic  origin’  and  ‘national  origin’  is  not  always 
consistent. In court practice, ‘ethnic’ and ‘national origin’ have been used as synonyms in 
criminal cases, with ‘national origin’ being understood as referring to nationality.221 Given 
the widespread Soviet practice of using ‘nationality’ (‘natsionalnost’ in Russian) in identity 
documents,222 the term may also sometimes be equated with ‘ethnic origin.’ 

4.5  Work-related family benefits (Recital 22 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Benefits for married employees 

In Latvia, it would probably constitute unlawful discrimination in national law if an employer 
only provides benefits to those employees who are married, but judicial interpretation may 
be required. 

Latvian law  provides  for  no  family-related  benefits,  hence  there  is  neither  exclusion  nor 
inclusion  of  non-married  couples.  On  the  other  hand,  the  broad  equality  guarantee 
contained in Article 29(1) of the  Labour Law,  prohibiting differential treatment generally 
‘during the period of existence of legal employment relationships’, would presumably also 
apply to work-related family benefits provided by the employer.  

Furthermore, Article 29 of the Labour Law provides for family status (ģimenes stāvoklis) 
as  one  of  the  prohibited  grounds  for  differential  treatment,  which  presumably  might 
prohibit  the  provision  of  any  benefits  to  married  couples  only  as  opposed  to  unmarried 
couples.  

At  the  same  time,  Latvia  does  not  recognise  any  type  of  partnership  for  heterosexual 
couples other than marriage. This has led to contradictory court judgments concerning the 
recognition of unmarried partnerships in cases of the loss of a common-law spouse while 
a person has been on professional duty as a member of the emergency services. In a case 
decided in 2014, the civil wife could not claim part of the state benefit after the death of 
her partner, a fire-fighter, as their co-habitation had not been registered as marriage. On 
4 November 2014, Latgale District Court dismissed the request of I.W. to recognise a civil 
marriage  with  fire-fighter  E.F.,  who  was  killed  during  rescue  operations  following  a 
supermarket collapse, which killed 54 persons. In a separate case concerning the common-
law wife of a police officer, the partnership was recognised, and she was able to claim the 
relevant state benefit.223 

b) 

Benefits for employees with opposite-sex partners 

In Latvia, it would probably constitute unlawful discrimination in national law if an employer 
provided benefits only to those employees with opposite-sex partners. 

220  The opinion of the Ombudsman is available at 

http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/img/content/atzinums_par_aviokompanijas_ryanair_pakalpojumu_sniegsanas_no
teikumu_atbistibu_diskriminacijas_aizlieguma_principam.pdf (in Latvian). 

221  Latvia, Supreme Court (2012), Court Practice in Criminal Cases Concerning Incitement to Ethnic and 

National Hatred, in Latvian at http://at.gov.lv/lv/judikatura/tiesu-prakses-apkopojumi/kriminaltiesibas/. 
222  A fifth line in Soviet passports was ‘natsionalnost’. See: Simonsen, Sven Gunnar (2005), ‘Between Minority 
Rights and Civil Liberties: Russia’s Discourse Over ‘Nationality’ Registration and the Internal Passport’, 
Nationalities Papers, 33(2), pp. 211–229, at https://www.prio.org/Publications/Publication/?x=3202.  
223  LSM.LV (2014), ‘Court turns down the request of a spouse of an emergency worker to recognise their civil 

marriage’ (Tiesa noraida Zolitūdē bojāgājušā glābēja dzīvesbiedres lūgumu atzīt civillaulību), 04.11.2014, at 
https://www.lsm.lv/lv/raksts/latvija/zinas/tiesa-noraida-zolitude-bojagajusha-glabeja-dziivesbiedres-
lugumu.a105058/. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Unjustified differential treatment on the ground of sexual orientation is prohibited in Latvia 
within  legal  employment  relationships,  independently  of  whether  or  not  the  same-sex 
partnership is officially recognised. 

However, the situation seems to be more complicated as far as same-sex partnerships are 
concerned.  Although  the  phrase  ‘ģimenes  stāvoklis’  literally  means  ‘family  status’,  in 
practice it is taken to mean ‘marital status’, as evidenced by various administrative forms. 
The possibility of interpreting it as ‘family status’ has been essential after the constitutional 
amendment of 15 December 2005 (adopted on the same day as amendments to the Labour 
Law explicitly prohibiting discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation in employment 
relations), which explicitly provides that marriage is a union of a man and a woman (Article 
110).  Thus,  reading  ‘ģimenes  stāvoklis’  as  ‘marital  status’  would  exclude  same-sex 
partnerships from the express protection accorded by the Labour Law, even if one might 
still refer to sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for differential treatment.  

However, this can only be tested by case law, which currently does not exist, so at this 
point it can only be said that the law does not explicitly protect same-sex relationships, 
nor does it explicitly limit work-related family benefits to opposite-sex partners. 

The  law  does  not  forbid  employers  from  providing  benefits  in  a  way  that  is  limited  to 
employees with opposite-sex partners, although one could refer to sexual orientation as a 
prohibited ground for differential treatment.  

Such a case could also lead to multiple discrimination in legal employment relationships, 
since the person may be discriminated against not only on the ground of sexual orientation, 
but also on the ground of family status.   

4.6  Health and safety (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78) 

In  Latvia,  there  are  no  exceptions  in  relation  to  disability  and  health and  safety  (Article 
7(2), Directive 2000/78). There is no case law in this regard. 

4.7  Exceptions related to discrimination on the ground of age (Article 6 

Directive 2000/78) 

4.7.1  Direct discrimination 

In Latvia, national law probably provides a limited exception for direct discrimination on 
age.  

a) 

Justification of direct discrimination on the ground of age 

In Latvia, it is probably possible, generally, or in specified circumstances, to justify direct 
discrimination on the ground of age.  

There  is  no  special  test  in  Latvian  legislation  for  the  justification  of  age-based 
discrimination;  the  general  ‘objective  and  substantiated  precondition’  test  contained  in 
Article 29(2)  of  the  Labour  Law  applies  also  to  age-based  differential  treatment  in 
employment  relationships  covered  by  this  law.  Article 37  of  the  Labour  Law  sets  out 
restrictions on work by minors, while Article 32(3) prohibits the indication of age limitations 
in a job advertisement, except in cases where, in accordance with the law, persons of a 
certain age may not perform the particular job. However, there is no relevant case law yet, 
and thus there has been no interpretation of the ‘objective and substantiated precondition’ 
test by the courts. 

b) 

Permitted differences of treatment based on age 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  Latvia,  national  law  does  permit  some  differences  of  treatment  based  on  age  for 
activities within the material scope of Directive 2000/78. 

Age-based restrictions apply to access to certain professions including the military or police 
service (age restricted to between 18-35 years; see under 4.7.3 below), to membership of 
the judiciary (30 years), and to membership of the bar (25 years). On retirement ages and 
Constitutional Court cases where age limits were challenged, see under 4.7.4 below. 

Similarly, age restrictions apply to certain training programmes, for example military and 
police training programmes. However, generally, there is no evidence of discrimination in 
access to training. 

c) 

Fixing  of  ages  for  admission  or  entitlements  to  benefits  of  occupational  pension 
schemes 

In  Latvia,  national  law  does  not  allow  occupational  pension  schemes  to  fix  ages  for 
admission to the scheme or entitlement to benefits, taking up the possibility provided for 
by Article 6(2). 

Article 11.(3) of the Law on Private Pension Funds prohibits employers – once they have 
decided  to  contribute  to  a  pension  plan  –  from  discriminating  on  the  basis  of  origin, 
property status, racial or ethnic origin, gender or attitude towards religion. Age is not listed 
among  these  criteria,  nor  are  disability  and  sexual  orientation;  however,  during  the 
employment relationship, this deficiency might be remedied by reference to Article 29 of 
the  Labour  Law  (see  under  3.2.3  b).  The  beneficiary  can  accede  to  the  benefits  of  the 
pension plan after reaching the age provided for by the plan; however, that age cannot be 
under  55  years,  with  the  exception  of  certain  professions  as  decided  by  the  Cabinet  of 
Ministers. 

4.7.2  Special conditions for young people, older workers and persons with 

caring responsibilities  

In  Latvia,  there  are  certain  special  conditions  set  by  law  for  older  workers  in  order  to 
promote their vocational integration, and for persons with caring responsibilities to ensure 
their protection.  

There are no special conditions for the integration of such persons or their protection, with 
the exception provided in Article 108 of the Labour Law: in cases of redundancies, one of 
the groups of persons who are prioritised to remain employed includes those raising a child 
up  to  the  age  of  14  or  a  disabled  child  up  to  the  age  of  16,  or  those  with  at  least  two 
dependant persons. Another such group is persons for whom less than five years remain 
until reaching the age of retirement. 

4.7.3  Minimum and maximum age requirements 

In Latvia, there are no exceptions permitting minimum and/or maximum age requirements 
in relation to access to employment (notably in the public sector) and training. 

However, there are some age limits in place. In certain training programmes, for example 
military or police training programmes, age restrictions apply. The Military Service Law 224 
provides  for  age  limits  of  27,  35  or  40  years,  depending  on  seniority,  for  admission  to 
military education establishments; the maximum age limits for professional military service 
range from 36 to 60 years, depending on seniority, in active service, and from 55 to 65 in 
the case of reserves (limited extensions are possible), whereas a person can be admitted 
to professional military service if they are able to serve at least five years before reaching 

224  Latvia, Military Service Law, 30.05.2002. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the prescribed age limit. There are no other maximum age limits outside the military forces 
and the  Law on the Police  (under Article 8.2 citizens can be assistants of police officers 
until they reach the age of 65).  

Article 7 of the Law on career service levels of officials of the Ministry of Interior and prison 
administration  provides  for  access  to  employment  by  certain  services  (police  service, 
prison staff, border guards, etc.) from 18 to 40 years, however, persons over 40 may also 
be hired provided they have a 10-year service in the military, prison service or Ministry of 
Interior.225 

The State Civil Service Law does not provide for a minimum age, although it contains an 
equivalent  higher  education  requirement.  The  maximum  age  for  the  civil  service  is  the 
retirement age (see below – section 4.7.4. ‘Retirement’). The Law on the Judiciary sets a 
minimum age of 30 years, while the law regulating advocates sets a minimum age of 25 
years  for  access  to  this  profession.  The  Law  on  the  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  sets  the 
minimum age at 25. 

Generally, however, there is no indication of age limitations in access to training, and there 
has been no discussion as to whether these age limits comply with the requirements of the 
directive. 

4.7.4  Retirement  

a) 

State pension age 

In  Latvia,  there  is  no  state  pension  age  at  which  individuals  must  begin  to  collect  their 
state pensions.  

In Latvia, an individual can collect a pension and still work. 

According to Article 11 of the Law on State Pensions,226 the right to a state pension applies 
when  a  person  has  reached  62  years  of  age.  From  1  January  2014,  the  pension  age  is 
gradually being raised to 65, to be completed by 2025. In certain professions, for example 
in the military or in certain services of the Ministry of the Interior, depending on the term 
of service, the right to a pension begins earlier. However, it is not mandatory for a worker 
who  has  reached  the  state  pension  age  to  receive  the  pension.  Indeed,  the  person  can 
both work and receive the full amount of the state pension,227 so there is no reason not to 
collect the pension. 

b)  Occupational pension schemes 

In  Latvia,  there  is  no  normal  age  when  people  can  begin  to  receive  payments  from 
occupational pension schemes and other employer-funded pension arrangements.  

Occupational  pension  schemes  are  a  new  and  still  rather  limited  phenomenon  in  Latvia, 
hence occupational pension schemes have never been an issue and there is no information 
available on the arrangements governing them. Article 11(5) of the Law on Private Pension 

225  Latvia, Law on career service levels of officials of the Ministry of Interior and prison administration (Iekšlietu 
ministrijas sistēmas iestāžu un ieslodzījuma vietu pārvaldes amatpersonu ar speciālajām dienesta pakāpēm 
dienesta gaitas likums), 15.06.2006.  

226  Latvia, Law on State Pensions (Par valsts pensijām), 02.11.1995. 
227  Prior to the judgment of the Constitutional Court invalidating the relevant norm the person who continued to 

work could only receive part (around EUR 100 at that time) of her pension. A second similar case No. 2009-
43-01 was decided by the Constitutional Court on 21.12.2009, invalidating - albeit not on the basis of the 
anti-discrimination article of the constitution - the provision of the ‘crisis law’ providing that persons who 
continued to work could only receive 30 % of the amount of the state pension; the judgment is available 
electronically at http://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/2009-43-
01_Spriedums_ENG.pdf. 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Funds provides that the beneficiary can accede to the benefits of the pension plan after 
reaching the age provided for by the plan; however, that age cannot be under 55 years, 
with  the  exception  of  certain  professions  as  decided  by  the  Cabinet  of  Ministers.  After 
reaching the required age, the person has to choose whether to receive the pension or to 
continue  membership  in  the  plan.  According  to  the  formulation  of  the  law,  these  two 
possibilities seem to be mutually exclusive. 

In Latvia, if an individual wishes to work longer, payments from such occupational pension 
schemes can be deferred. 

In Latvia, in case of an occupational pension scheme an individual most likely cannot 
collect a pension and still work. 

c) 

State imposed mandatory retirement ages 

In Latvia, there are some state-imposed mandatory retirement age(s), mainly in the civil 
service.  

While there are generally no mandatory retirement ages requiring a person to retire upon 
reaching the pension age, access to certain positions, for example in the civil service, is 
conditional  upon  the  person  not  having  reached  the  pension  age;  upon  reaching  the 
pension  age  the  person  must  retire  from  the  civil  service  unless  their  superior  decides 
otherwise (Article 41(1)(f) of the State Civil Service Law).  

These provisions of the State Civil Service Law were challenged in the Constitutional Court. 
The  court  held,  however,  that  they  did  not  violate  the  prohibition  of  differential 
treatment.228  Since  this  seems  to  be  established  practice  in  other  member  states,  no 
significant further debate on the compatibility of this arrangement with the directives has 
followed. In a case in 2014, where a civil servant was dismissed upon reaching the civil 
service retirement age, the Supreme Court Senate again reiterated the conclusions of a 
2003 Constitutional Court decision, which established that the relevant article of the law 
has  a  legitimate  aim  –  to  facilitate  access  to  the  civil  service  by  young  people  (such  a 
legitimate aim being supported by Court of Justice of the European Union jurisprudence). 
The court also referred to recital 25 of the preamble to Directive 2007/78/EC and to Article 
6 of the directive, establishing a distinction between differences in treatment and prohibited 
discrimination on grounds of age.229 

The age limit of 65 for occupying the post of university professor or associated professor, 
as well as the highest administrative positions in universities and scientific institutions, was 
invalidated  as  discriminatory  by  the  Constitutional  Court’s  decision230  of  20  May  2003 
although, even in this case, the prohibition upon occupying the posts concerned was not 
absolute:  the  Law  on  Higher  Educational  Establishments  provided  for  the  possibility  of 
continuing to work on the basis of an individual contract, to be concluded at the discretion 
of  the  university  rector,  or  to  receive  the  status  of  professor  emeritus.  Following  the 
Constitutional Court decision, the age limit thus does not apply any more. 

A similar provision establishing a retirement age of 50, which can be extended to 60, is 
contained in Article 35 of the Law on Fire Safety and Fire-fighting. 

d) 

Retirement ages imposed by employers 

228  Latvia, Constitutional Court. Case No. 2003-12-01, 18.12.2003, available electronically at 
http://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2003-12-01_Spriedums.pdf. 

229  Supreme Court of Latvia Administrative Case Department, B. v. State Revenue Service (B. pret Valsts 

ieņēmumu dienestu), Case No A420322813, 27.08.2014.  

230

  Constitutional Court. Case No 2002-21-01, 20.05.2003, available at:http://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-

content/uploads/2016/02/2002-21-01_Spriedums.pdf. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In Latvia, national law does not permit employers to set retirement ages (or ages at which 
the  termination  of  an  employment  contract  is  possible)  by  contract  and/or  collective 
bargaining and/or unilaterally.  

The setting of retirement ages by an employer has never been an issue either. Since there 
is generally no state-imposed retirement age, it seems safe to argue that the guarantee 
contained in Article 6 of the Labour Law stating that ‘provisions of a collective agreement, 
working procedure regulations, as well as the provisions of an employment contract and 
orders of an employer which, contrary to regulatory enactments [that is, laws or secondary 
legislation], erode the legal status of an employee, are void and can be declared as such 
by  courts  of  general  jurisdiction’  would  apply  to  any  retirement  age  or  age  when  the 
termination  of  the  employment  contract  becomes  possible,  as  set  out  by  contract  or 
collective bargaining or unilaterally by the employer.  

e) 

Employment rights applicable to all workers irrespective of age 

The Labour Law does not provide for the right of the employer to give notice to the person 
who  has  reached  retirement  age.  Hence,  the  protection  against  age-based  differential 
treatment and against dismissal is not limited to pre-retirement age, but continues after 
its  attainment  and  indeed  applies  independently  of  age,  although  in  practice  there  is  a 
widespread feeling that those persons who have reached retirement age would be the first 
targets for dismissal based on considerations of social justice. 

f) 

Compliance of national law with CJEU case law 

In Latvia, national legislation is in line with the CJEU case law on age regarding compulsory 
retirement. 

As  there  is  no  state-imposed  retirement  age,  national  legislation  would  seem  to  be 
compliant with the CJEU case law. Although some laws fix maximum age limits for certain 
professions, e.g. prosecutors and judges, this would require the domestic courts to decide 
whether such provisions are justified or not. 

4.7.5  Redundancy 

a) 

Age and seniority taken into account for redundancy selection 

In Latvia, national law does not permit age or seniority to be taken into account in selecting 
workers for redundancy.  

The  Labour  Law  does  not  provide  for  an  order  of  preference  for  selecting  persons  for 
redundancy,  and  Article 108  of  this  law  only  sets  the  criteria  for  priority  for  staying  in 
employment in cases of selection for redundancy, thus tipping the balance in their favour. 
These criteria, in cases where performance, results and qualifications do not substantially 
differ, include seniority (employees who have worked for the relevant employer for a longer 
time, such that seniority is an asset) and employees for whom less than five years remain 
until reaching the age of retirement. All in all, there are 10 such grounds for priority, and 
none of them has automatic priority over the others. 

b) 

Age taken into account for redundancy compensation 

In Latvia, national legislation provides compensation for redundancy. This is not affected 
by the age of the worker.  

Compensation for redundancy ranges from one to four months’ salary, depending on the 
person’s  length  of  employment  by  the  particular  employer,  so,  in  the  context  of 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
compensation, seniority matters but age does not – although, admittedly, the two can be 
related. 

4.8  Public security, public order, criminal offences, protection of health, 

protection of the rights and freedoms of others (Article 2(5), Directive 
2000/78) 

In Latvia, national law does not include exceptions that seek to rely on Article 2(5) of the 
Employment Equality Directive. 

4.9  Any other exceptions 

In  Latvia,  no  other  exceptions  to  the  prohibition  of  discrimination  (on  any  ground)  are 
provided for in national law. 

As  there  is  no  comprehensive  prohibition  of  discrimination  in  national  law,  there  are  no 
other exceptions. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 

POSITIVE ACTION (Article 5 Directive 2000/43, Article 7 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Scope for positive action measures 

In Latvia, positive action in respect of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, 
age or sexual orientation is neither permitted nor prohibited in national law.  

Positive action has so far been largely foreign to the Latvian legal system, and there are 
no  specific  measures  aimed  at  ensuring  or  promoting  full  equality  or  to  compensate  for 
disadvantages linked with religion or belief or sexual orientation.  

b)  Main positive action measures in place on national level 

There is no indication that the Government might be considering adopting such measures; 
in fact, in the absence of any reference in national legislation to the possibility of positive 
action, it is also highly doubtful that such measures, if adopted by a particular employer, 
would be considered legal.  

However, the State Employment Service runs a project on active employment measures 
for certain groups of unemployed persons. Among the eligible categories are persons aged 
over 55 years and persons belonging to ethnic minorities, who need to consolidate their 
knowledge  of  the  state  language,  professional  knowledge  or  professional  experience  in 
order to increase their chances of obtaining a permanent job. Within the framework of the 
project, 50 % (up to the official minimum salary) of the salary of the person is paid by the 
state for up to 12 months. Similarly, there is a traineeship project for unemployed young 
people aged 18-29, with a monthly wage contributed for up to six months and a monthly 
subsidy of 50 % of the official minimum salary paid to the supervisor of two unemployed 
youths. 

There  is  also  a  project  run  by  the  State  Employment  Service  aimed  at  the  creation  of 
subsidised work placements specifically for persons with disabilities.  

According to Cabinet of Ministers regulations No.75, employers hiring unemployed persons 
with disabilities can be reimbursed: 

- 
- 

- 

- 

- 

by up to EUR 711; 
through a contribution (at least of the amount of the official minimum salary) to the 
salary of a disabled person for up to 12 months; 
to  cover  the  services  of  a  sign  language  interpreter  (EUR 10.50  per  hour, 
proportionate to the hours worked by the person with disability, but for no more than 
40 hours per week); 
through  occupational  therapists  or  other  specialists  being  provided  for  the 
employment of the disabled person; 
through  a  monthly  subsidy  of  50 %  of  the  official  minimum  salary,  paid  to  the 
supervisor  of  the  disabled  employee,  thus  helping  to  alleviate  the  burden  on  the 
employer.231  

There are no quotas for access by disabled persons to the labour market, and no relevant 
case law. 

The  Government  report  ‘Information  on  Roma  integration  policy  measures  in  Latvia’ 
(hereafter – ‘the report’), produced by the Ministry of Culture in 2011, describes a series 

231  Latvia, Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 75 on the procedure for the organisation and financing of active 
employment measures and preventive activities reducing unemployment and the selection principles of 
implementers of measures (Ministru kabineta noteikumi Nr.75 Noteikumi par aktīvo nodarbinātības 
pasākumu un preventīvo bezdarba samazināšanas pasākumu organizēšanas un finansēšanas kārtību un 
pasākumu īstenotāju izvēles principiem), 25.01.2011, available in Latvian at http://likumi.lv/ta/id/225425.  

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
of national Roma integration tasks and measures, which have been included in the policy 
planning document ‘National Identity, Civil Society and Integration Policy Guidelines 2012-
2018’, as approved by the Cabinet of Ministers on 20 October 2011. The report describes 
the  current  situation  of  Roma  in  Latvia  and  identifies  challenges  to  the  socio-economic 
integration of Roma in education, employment, housing and healthcare, as well as their 
general  enjoyment  of  human  rights,  civic  participation  and  tolerance.  Some  of  the 
measures could be considered as ‘positive action’ measures. However, the report does not 
use  the  notion  of  ‘positive  action’  and  uses  the  wording  of  ‘targeted  approach’  instead, 
applying it to a broader range of activities.  

In accordance with the EU framework on national Roma integration strategies, Latvia has 
developed  a  set  of  national  Roma  integration  policy  measures  for  2012  to  2018,  which 
have been included in the above guidelines. 

Implementation of the measures is planned for 2012-2017, but this remains dependant on 
funding. 

There are no quotas or narrowly tailored preferential treatment in Latvia. 

There  are  no  major  positive  action  measures  related  to  migrants  to  promote  their 
integration  in  employment,  with  the  exception  of  Latvian  language  training  for  asylum 
seekers.232  

232  According to a survey of third-country nationals, mainly with temporary residence permits, a lack of Latvian 
language proficiency (70 %) and high Latvian language requirements (24 %) were mentioned as some of 
the key barriers to finding a job. In: BISS (2015), Trešo valstu pilsoņu portrets Latvijā, p.38 
http://www.sif.gov.lv/images/files/SIF/tres-valst-pils-port/Gramata_pilsonu_290615_web.pdf 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6 

REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT  

6.1  Judicial and/or administrative procedures (Article 7 Directive 2000/43, 

Article 9 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Available procedures for enforcing the principle of equal treatment 

In Latvia, the procedures that exist for enforcing the principle of equal treatment include 
judicial  and  administrative  measures,  as  well  as  forms  of  alternative  dispute  resolution 
such as mediation (conciliation).  

A  number  of  remedies  are  available  to  persons  who  consider  themselves  wronged  by 
differential  treatment;  however,  none  of  them  is  specifically  aimed  at  ensuring  equal 
treatment. All procedures are binding, except for those of the Ombudsman, who can issue 
non-binding recommendations. The institutions to which such persons can turn are: 

- 

In cases of discriminatory practices by public institutions - the same public institution 
that has treated the person differently, or a higher institution, administrative court 
or public prosecutor’s office 

Article 76(2) of the Administrative Procedure Law allows an administrative act or factual 
action  to  be  challenged  –  including  discriminatory  acts  and  behaviour  in  civil  service 
relationships in the public sector – before a higher institution, and then, if no such higher 
institution  exists  or  if  it  fails  to  notify  the  applicant  of  the  outcome  of  their  submission 
directly, before the administrative court. 

The Administrative Procedure Law sets out the principle of objective investigation by the 
court  and  the  possibility  to  opt  for  a  written  procedure  if  both  parties  agree.  All  three 
instances of administrative courts are located in Riga, however first-instance administrative 
courts also operate in four other regions. 

According to Article 38 of this law, any person, not only a lawyer, may be a representative 
in  an  administrative  procedure.  Article  16  of  the  Law  on  the  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office 
provides for the prosecutor’s involvement in the protection of the rights and lawful interests 
of  disabled  persons,  minors  and  other  persons  who  have  limited  possibilities  to  protect 
their own rights. The result of the prosecutor’s involvement is not limited to a warning to 
the culprit or to the opening of a criminal case, but it may also lead to initiating a civil case.  

- 

Courts of general jurisdiction 

The provisions of Article 92 of the Constitution, which state that ‘Everyone has the right to 
defend their rights and lawful interests in an impartial court’, have been further elaborated 
by the Judicial Powers Law. Article 5 provides that, in civil cases, the court shall hear cases 
related to the protection of civil rights, labour rights, family rights, and other rights and 
lawful  interests  of  individuals  and  legal  entities.  The  procedure  for  adjudicating  non-
administrative cases, which includes cases arising from labour relationships in the private 
sector and in the public sector outside the civil service, is determined by the Civil Procedure 
Law. 

The payment of court expenses, as well as of the state levy, is waived in cases based on 
an employment relationship and in cases that have been initiated by the prosecutor (Article 
43(1), paragraphs 1 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Law, Article 218 of the Labour Law). This 
does  not  include  lawyers’  fees,  however,  as,  since  the  adoption  of  the  law  on  legal  aid 
provided for by the state233 in 2005, a mechanism exists whereby persons in need can be 
granted free legal assistance in criminal and civil cases.  Cabinet of Ministers Regulations 

233  Latvia, State-insured Legal Aid Law (Valsts nodrošinātās juridiskās palīdzības likums), 17.03.2005. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
No 558 set out conditions for receiving legal aid, according to which the person’s particular 
situation, property status and income level do not suffice for partial or full protection of 
their  rights.  Free  legal  aid is  to  be  provided  to  persons  whose  status  is  defined  as  low-
income  or  indigent,  and  a  person  who  seeks  such  aid  is  required  to  submit  documents 
attesting to their income level, property status and special situation. 

The Ombudsman’s Office may, upon termination of an investigation procedure and upon 
establishment of a violation, decide to defend the rights and interests of a private individual 
in an administrative court, if necessary for the public interest, as well as bringing a civil 
claim in cases of a violation of the prohibition of differential treatment. 

- 

State Labour Inspectorate 

The State Labour  Inspectorate  was  established by the Law reinstating the legal force of 
the statute of 28 April 1939 On Labour Inspection,234 and its work is regulated by the State 
Labour  Inspectorate  Law.235  Among  its  functions  is  the  monitoring  of  compliance  with 
legislation  regulating  the  sphere  of  employment  and  the  observance  of  the  rights  of 
employees.  Employees  can  turn  to  the  inspectorate  with  their  complaints,  which  the 
inspectorate  investigates.  The  SLI  is  mandated  to  investigate  administrative  offences  in 
employment  relations,  as  envisaged  by  Article  204.17  (Violation  of  Prohibition  of 
Discrimination  in  the  Code  of  Administrative  Offences),  and  can  impose  fines  from 
EUR 142 to EUR 714 (LVL 100 to LVL 500) in respect of physical persons. Thus, employers 
who  discriminate  against  a  person  on  the  grounds  of  that  person’s  race,  ethnic  origin, 
gender,  age,  disability,  sexual  orientation  or  religion  or  belief  in  refusing  to  conclude  a 
labour contract, in dismissing the person or during the term of the person’s contract can 
be punished according to this article.  

In  addition  to  these  ordinary  avenues  for  addressing  discrimination,  two  ‘extraordinary’ 
institutions need to be noted. 

- 

Ombudsman (the Ombudsman’s Office) 

In  March  2007,  the  Ombudsman’s  Office  replaced  its  predecessor,  the  National  Human 
Rights Office, which had been established in 1995. The office is an independent institution 
entrusted with the task of promoting the observance of human rights and the principle of 
good  governance.  It  can,  inter  alia,  examine  and  review  complaints  concerning  human 
rights violations, and can respond to such violations.  

The Ombudsman then has to attempt to resolve conflicts through conciliation. If this fails, 
the  Ombudsman  advises  the  parties  of  his  opinion  and  proposals  in  the  form  of 
recommendations,  and  also  presents  his  suggestions  and  recommendations  for  the 
prevention of human rights violations to the relevant institution or official; however, the 
Ombudsman’s  Office  cannot  enforce  its  recommendations,236  nor  can  it  apply  any  fines. 
After the examination of the complaint it can bring a case in an administrative court if this 
is in the public interest. Given its mandate, it could be presumed that resolving any cases 
of discrimination would be in the public interest – or subject to a civil case – only in cases 
where differential treatment is at issue. 

234

235

236

  Latvia, Law on the restoration of the force of the Republic of Latvia 28.04.1939 Law on Labour Inspection 

(Par Latvijas Republikas 1939. gada 28. aprīļa likuma «Par darba inspekciju» spēka atjaunošanu), 
04.05.1993. Available at: http://m.likumi.lv/doc.php?id=60213. 

  Latvia, State Labour Inspection Law (Valsts darba inspekcijas likums) 13.12.2001. Available at: 

http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=177910. 

  This was amply demonstrated by a 1997 case, in which a person was forced to leave the police service 
because of their sexual orientation. Although the National Human Rights Office was of the opinion that 
discrimination based on sexual orientation had occurred, the matter was not resolved, as the authorities 
involved disagreed with the findings of the office. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  Ombudsman  also  has  the  authority  to  initiate  an  abstract  review  case  in  the 
Constitutional  Court  concerning  the  conformity  of  legal  provisions  with  norms  of  higher 
force and the conformity of national legal provisions with the international treaties that are 
binding on Latvia; it has no authority to bring concrete review cases where the rights of a 
specific  individual  have  been  violated.  For  more  information,  see  under  Section  7 
(Specialised bodies). 

- 

The Constitutional Court 

The Constitutional Court was established in 1996. It examines the compliance of laws and 
other  legal  norms  with  the  Constitution,  as  well  as  considering  other  cases  under  its 
jurisdiction. It has the right to declare provisions that are found not to be in compliance 
with a higher legal norm to be null and void.  

According  to  Article  17  of  the  Constitutional  Court  Law,  the  following  have  the  legal 
standing  to  apply  to  the  Constitutional  Court  regarding  the  compliance  of  laws  and 
international treaties signed or ratified by Latvia with the Constitution, the compliance of 
other legal acts with legal norms (acts) of higher legal force, as well as the compliance of 
Latvian national legal norms with the international agreements that have been entered into 
by Latvia: the  President; the Parliament; not less than 20 members  of the  Saeima; the 
Cabinet of Ministers; the Prosecutor General; the Council of State Control; the council of a 
municipality; the National Human Rights Office; a court, when reviewing an administrative, 
civil  or  criminal  case;  a  judge  of  the  Land  Registry  when  entering  real  estate  -  or  thus 
confirming property rights on it - in the Land Book; and an individual whose fundamental 
rights as established by the Constitution have been violated. Constitutional complaints and 
judicial  referral  mechanisms  were  established  by  the  amendments  adopted  in  2000.  A 
constitutional complaint can be submitted by a person who considers that their basic rights 
have been violated by a legal norm that contradicts a higher norm. The complaint may be 
submitted  only  after  all  other  remedies  have  been  exhausted  (in  exceptional  cases  the 
court may decide to accept the complaint even if this has not been done) and within six 
months of the final decision in the case.  

Constitutional  complaints  remain  widely  used,  but  there  have  been  few  discrimination 
cases. There have been no complaints of discrimination on the grounds of gender, racial 
or ethnic origin, sexual orientation or disability, in two cases age discrimination has been 
alleged  and  in  one  case  discrimination  on  grounds  of  nationality.  In  the  first  case,  the 
provisions of the Law on Higher Educational Establishments and of the Law on Scientific 
Activity,  which  set  an  age  limit  for  occupying  administrative  positions  in  scientific 
institutions,  higher  educational  establishments  and  higher  academic  positions,  were 
successfully  challenged,  although  the  court  did  not  decide  the  case  based  on  a 
discrimination argument,237 while in the second case a similar challenge to the age limit in 
the civil service failed.238 

b) 

Barriers and other deterrents faced by litigants seeking redress 

The payment of court expenses and the state levy are waived in cases that are based on 
an employment relationship and in those that have been initiated by the prosecutor (Article 
43(1),  paragraphs  1  and  5  of  the  Civil  Procedure  Law,  Article  218  of  the  Labour  Law). 
However, this does not include lawyers’ fees because, under the law on legal aid provided 
for by the state239 that was adopted in 2005, a mechanism has existed whereby persons in 
need can be granted free legal assistance in criminal and civil cases. Cabinet of Ministers 
Regulations No. 558 set conditions for receiving legal aid, according to which the person’s 
particular  situation,  property  status  and  income  level  do  not  suffice  for  partial  or  full 

237  Constitutional Court, Case No 2002-21-01, 20.05.2003, available at: http://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-

content/uploads/2016/02/2002-21-01_Spriedums.pdf.  
238  Constitutional Court. Case No 2003-12-23, 18.12.2003. 
239  Latvia, State-insured Legal Aid Law (Valsts nodrošinātās juridiskās palīdzības likums), 17.03.2005. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
protection of their rights. Free legal aid is to be provided to persons whose status is defined 
as  low-income  or  indigent,  and  the  person  who  seeks  such  aid  is  required  to  submit 
documents attesting to their income level, property status and special situation. However, 
the wide gap between those who can claim state legal aid and those who can afford to pay 
private  lawyer’s  fees  may  be  one  of  the  key  reasons  why  few  cases  are  brought  to  the 
court,  and  those  that  are  heard  are  brought  predominantly  by  NGOs  and  selected  legal 
professionals.  

An  issue  that  needs  to  be  addressed  is  that  of  disability-related  accessibility  to  these 
remedies.  The  absolute  majority  of  central  and  local  government  institutions  remain 
physically inaccessible.240 Although those buildings that have been built recently have had 
to  address  the  accessibility  issue,  ‘accessibility’  often  stops  at  getting  into  the  building, 
with  movement  within  the  building  remaining  a  problem.  There  are  no  rules  on  the 
provision  of  information  in  Braille,  and  the  only  context  within  which  sign  language 
interpretation must be provided by the state is that of court proceedings. 

c) 

Number of discrimination cases brought to justice 

In Latvia, there are no available statistics on the number of cases related to discrimination 
brought to justice. 

d) 

Registration of discrimination cases by national courts 

In Latvia, discrimination cases are not registered as such by the national courts.  

The  exception  is  the  Supreme  Court  database  on  case  law  concerning  the  Labour  Law, 
which  includes  discrimination  cases.  These  are  not  classified  by  ground.241  There  were 
several cases before the Supreme Court on gender discrimination in 2012,242 and on gender 
discrimination and age discrimination in 2013.243 There has been no case law in 2014, 2015 
or 2016.244 

There have been no cases registered based on the anti-discrimination aspect of Article 149 
of the Administrative Offences Code. 

6.2  Legal standing and associations (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/43, Article 

9(2) Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Engaging on behalf of victims of discrimination (representing them) 

In  Latvia,  associations,  organisations  and  trade  unions  are  entitled  to  act  on  behalf  of 
victims of discrimination. 

According to Article 10(3) of the Law on Associations and Foundations, those organisations 
and foundations whose aims are the protection of human rights and individual rights have 
the  right  to  bring  a  case  before  state  institutions  and  courts  on  behalf  of  a  victim (with 

240  Latvia, Ombudsman (2010). According to the 2010 Report of the Ombudsman’s Office, local authorities 

indicated that their services were accessible to persons with disability in only 26 % of cases. – Tiesībsarga 
2010. gada ziņojums, at 
http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/files/content/Tiesibsarga%20gada%20zinojums_2010.pdf, p. 74. 

241  Latvia, Supreme Court. Case Law (Judikatūra), at http://at.gov.lv/lv/judikatura/judikaturas-nolemumu-

arhivs/senata-civillietu-departaments/tezes-darba-lietas-2003-2012/3darba-likums/.  

242  Latvia, Supreme Court Senate, Case No. SKC-684/2012 (E.L. v. State Joint Stock Company International 

Airport Riga (E.L. v. Valsts akciju sabiedrība „Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga”); Supreme Court Senate, Case No. 
SKC-684/2012), at http://at.gov.lv/en/court-proceedings-in-the-supreme-court/archive-of-case-law-
decisions/senate/chronological-order/2012/.  

243  Latvia, Supreme Court Senate, Case No. SKC-2504/2013, 06.12.2013. 
244  Latvia, Supreme Court Case Law database, at http://at.gov.lv/lv/judikatura/judikaturas-nolemumu-

arhivs/?q=diskrimin%C4%81cija#filesSearch. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
their consent) in matters related to discrimination.245 These include civil and administrative 
cases.  

Until  early  2014,  associations  were  entitled  to  represent  a  victim  or  victims  of 
discrimination before all three court instances. 

However, according to the amendments to the Civil Procedure Law (in force since 4 January 
2014),246 the right to legal representation at the instance of cassation is reserved to the 
person participating in the case or to their advocate (defence counsel). This excludes the 
possibility of legal representation by other persons with a law degree (e.g. NGO staff), who 
are not participants in the case and do not have the status of an advocate, including in civil 
claims  relating  to  discrimination  cases.  The  amendments  were  adopted  allegedly  to 
strengthen the role of advocates in civil cases to ensure the quality of claims.  However, 
they  may  impact  on  access  to  justice  for  certain  vulnerable  groups,  including  victims  of 
discrimination,  as  cases  of  discrimination  have  predominantly  been  brought  before  the 
courts  by  NGOs  or  legal  practitioners  who  are  not  advocates.  These  amendments 
contravene the non-regression clauses of the equality directives.  

This contravenes an earlier Constitutional Court judgment. In 2003 the court ruled on the 
constitutionality of several provisions of Civil Procedure Law requiring parties before court 
of  cassation  to  be  represented  by  an  advocate.  The  applicant  claimed  that  she,  like  the 
majority  of  people,  could  not  afford  to  pay  for  the  services  of  an  advocate.  The 
Constitutional Court recognised that, aside from advocates, there were other persons with 
sufficient skills to provide qualified legal representation, such as judges and prosecutors 
(in the cases determined by law), holders of a PhD in Law, specialist NGOs providing legal 
assistance, and state-funded institutions providing legal assistance free of charge, as well 
as persons with a university education in law who have passed the examinations for the 
relevant knowledge and skills, etc. Thus, the court believed that there were other, more 
lenient means for achieving the legitimate aim, especially in the provision of qualified legal 
representation in the cassation court. It also ruled that the measures in relevant laws on 
the recognition of a person as needy were insufficient to provide legal assistance to those 
who need it free of charge. 

According to Article 12(4) of the Law on Trade Unions, trade unions have the right ‘within 
their  competence  to  represent  and  protect  the  rights  and  interests  of  their  members 
without specific authorisation.’ 

b) 

Engaging in support of victims of discrimination 

In  Latvia,  associations,  organisations  and  trade  unions  are  entitled  to  act  in  support  of 
victims of discrimination, by providing opinions. 

Article  183  of  the  Administrative  Procedure  Law  provides  for  amicus  curiae  (Views  of 
Associations  of  Persons):  an  association  of  persons  which  is  considered  a  recognised 
representative  of  interests  in  some  sectors  and  from  which  expert  opinions  may  be 
expected, which may petition the court in writing to permit it to submit its opinion regarding 
the facts or rights in the relevant sector. This procedure applies to administrative courts. 
If the court considers that the opinion of the relevant association of persons may assist the 
court in taking an objective decision in the matter, it shall determine questions on which 
the association of persons may submit its opinion. Such questions must relate to the matter 
to be adjudicated. The association of persons may not give a factual or legal assessment 
in the specific administrative case.247 

245  Latvia, Law on Associations and Foundations, 30.10.2003, Article 10(3).  
246  Latvia, Amendments to the Civil Procedure Law (Grozījumi Civilprocesa likumā), 19.12.2013, available in 

Latvian at: http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=263490. 

247  Latvia, Administrative Procedure Law (Administratīvā procesa likums), 25.10.2001, at 

http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=55567.  

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
c) 

Actio popularis 

In Latvia, national law does not allow associations / organisations / trade unions to act in 
the public interest on their own behalf, without a specific victim to support or represent 
(actio popularis).  

The law is silent on this issue, and currently it does not seem possible that an attempt to 
bring an actio popularis would be accepted. 

d) 

Class action 

In Latvia, national law does not allow associations / organisations / trade unions to act in 
the interest of more than one individual victim (class action) for claims arising from the 
same event.  

While there is nothing to prevent engagement on behalf of several complaints, there is also 
nothing to specifically authorise them, thus the law is silent on this issue and the issue of 
possible class actions remains unresolved; since class actions have so far been foreign to 
the Latvian legal system, it seems safe to state that, in the absence of legislative action, 
they remain impossible. 

6.3  Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78) 

In Latvia, national legislation requires a shift of the burden of proof from the complainant 
to the respondent. 

Article 29(3) of the Labour Law provides for a shift (or sharing) of the burden of proof in 
cases of all types of discrimination related to an employment relationship covered by this 
law. It reads as follows: ‘if in the case of a dispute an employee indicates conditions which 
may serve as a basis for his or her direct or indirect discrimination based on gender, the 
employer  has  a  duty  to  prove  that  the  differential  treatment  is  based  on  objective 
circumstances  not  related  to  the  gender  of  the  employee,  or  also  that  belonging  to  a 
particular gender is an objective and substantiated precondition for the performance of the 
relevant work or the relevant employment’, thus complying with the requirements of the 
respective articles of the two directives and Directive 97/80/EC in so far as employment 
relationships are concerned. Article 29(9) provides that the provisions of the article (thus 
including  those  on  the  burden  of  proof)  also  apply  to  the  prohibition  of  differential 
treatment  based  on  the  race,  skin  colour,  age,  disability,  religious,  political  or  other 
conviction, national or social origin, property or family status, sexual orientation or other 
circumstances of an employee. Article 9 specifically applies the shared burden of proof to 
victimisation cases, while harassment and instructions to discriminate come under Article 
29.  

The  shift  of  the  burden  of  proof  is  also  provided  for  by  the  Law  on  the  Prohibition  of 
Discrimination of Natural Persons-Economic Operators (Article 4(1)) in relation to gender, 
age,  religious,  political  or  other  conviction,  sexual  orientation,  disability,  race  or  ethnic 
origin  (regarding  access  to  self-employment  and  access  to  goods  and  services  by  self-
employed persons); by the Consumer Rights Protection Law (Article 3.1(5)) in the sphere 
of access to goods and services in relation to gender, race, ethnic origin and disability; by 
the  Law  on  Education  (regarding  access  to  education);  and  by  the  Law  on  Support  to 
Unemployed Persons and Job Seekers (regarding access to active employment measures 
and measures to reduce unemployment). However, the provisions in the Law on Support 
to  Unemployed  Persons  and  Job  Seekers  only  apply  to  gender,  race  and  ethnic  origin  – 
thus  leaving  the  other  Directive  2000/78  grounds  without  protection.  The  Law  on 
Education’s list of grounds does not include age, disability (which may be interpreted as 
coming under health condition) or sexual orientation.  

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  Administrative  Procedure  Law,  which  has  been  in  force  since  1  February  2004, 
introduces the principle of ‘objective examination’ in an administrative procedure. Article 
103(2) provides that ‘within the course of administrative proceedings, while performing its 
duties, a court shall itself (ex officio) objectively determine the facts of the case and provide 
a  legal  assessment  of  these,  adjudicating  the  matter  within  a  reasonable  time’,  thus 
corresponding  to  the  exception  from  the  requirement  of  a  shift  in  the  burden  of  proof 
contained  in  Article  8(5)  of  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  and  Article  10(5)  of  the 
Employment Equality Directive.  

Additionally, Article 150, on the burden of proof, provides that the institution has to prove 
the facts on which it is relying as the grounds for its objections, that the claimant, to the 
extent  possible,  shall  participate  in  the  collecting  of  evidence,  and  that,  if  the  evidence 
submitted by the parties is not sufficient, the court shall collect it on its own initiative. Five 
discrimination cases (on gender and the calculation of unemployment benefits) have been 
brought under this law. The law also applies in those civil service cases to which the Labour 
Law does not apply. 

The shift in the burden of proof does not apply in any other sphere. The Civil Procedure 
Law requires that each party prove the facts that he or she is referring to. The Criminal 
Procedure Law (Article 19.1) provides that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and 
that any doubts are interpreted to the benefit of the accused. The Constitutional Court Law 
does  not  make  any  exception  from  the  requirement  that  both  parties  substantiate  their 
views,  nor  does  it  permit  the  court  to  make  its  own  assessment  in  cases  where 
discrimination is alleged. It is true that, in one such case – a case on the requirement on 
persons wishing to acquire the  status  of unemployed to possess a permanent residence 
permit  –  the  Constitutional  Court,  while  refusing  to  satisfy  the  complaint  as  it  was, 
nevertheless  distinguished  a  particular  category  of  persons  (spouses  of  Latvian  citizens 
whose presence in Latvia may be presumed not to be intended to be temporary) and found 
that such a requirement was unconstitutional in relation to them. It should be noted that 
the  claimant  had  not  referred  separately  to  this  category  of  persons,  and  this  had  only 
been referred to by the respondent. This shows that, to some extent, the court might act 
on its own initiative, but it cannot be required or relied upon to do so, and there is certainly 
no provision on a shift in the burden of proof in cases alleging discrimination. 

So far, the shift in the burden of proof has been applied in a number of cases involving 
access to employment and coming under the terms of the Labour Law – in three gender-
based  discrimination  cases,  one  race-based  discrimination  case  and  one  case  on  sexual 
orientation.  

In practice, it is not infrequent that, in court hearings, claimants must themselves prove 
that  they  have  been  discriminated  against, in accordance  with  the  general  procedure  of 
adversarial argumentation.  This is  evidenced  by Supreme  Court judgments  where  lower 
courts have been criticised for failing to shift the burden of proof in discrimination cases 
(2007 - employment, disability;248 2012 – employment, gender).249 There have also been 
cases where the court has formally referred to the provision on the burden of proof, yet 
the claimant was still required to prove the claim. 

It can be concluded that the requirements of the two directives concerning the burden of 
proof are currently complied with in relation to all grounds in cases related to employment 
relationships,  including  civil  service  relationships,  access  to  goods  and  services  and 
education, and are generally complied with in administrative cases, which would include 
state-provided  social  security  cases,  however,  how  effective  the  principle  of  ‘objective 
investigation’ is in discrimination cases will only become apparent with case law. 

248  Latvia, Supreme Court Civil Case Department, R. S. v. Riga New St Gertrude Evangelical Lutheran Church 

(R.S. v. Rīgas Jaunā Svētās Ģertrūdes evanģēliski luteriskā draudze), 11.04.2007. 

249  Latvia, Supreme Court Senate, No. SKC-684/2012, E.L. v. State Joint Stock Company International Airport 

Riga, (E.L. v. Valsts akciju sabiedrība „Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga”). 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6.4  Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) 

In Latvia, there are legal measures of protection against victimisation. 

Article 9 of the Labour Law provides for protection against victimisation:  

‘Infliction of a punishment on an employee250 as well as creation of direct or indirect 
unfavourable consequences to the employee, due to the fact that the employee within 
the  framework  of  a  labour  relationship  avails himself  of  his  rights in a  permissible 
manner, shall be prohibited.’  

This would include cases of  victimisation on the grounds of a person’s complaints about 
the violation of the principle of equal treatment. Since the 5 July 2004 amendments, part 
2 of this Article has applied the sharing of the burden of proof to victimisation cases.  

Even  if  Article  9(2)  does  not  expressly  mention  discrimination  or  differential  treatment, 
only the ‘adverse consequences’, the Abramova case251, decided before the entry into force 
of the new Labour Law, gives grounds to think that the courts might be prepared to view 
victimisation  in  the  context  of  discrimination,  and  the  provision  of  Article  29(8)  of  the 
Labour Law establishing the right to compensation refers both to differential treatment and 
to the creation of adverse consequences.  

Protection against victimisation is contained in Article 34(2) of the Law on Social Security, 
which provides that:  

‘Infliction of a punishment on a person as well as the creation directly or indirectly of 
adverse consequences to him/her because of the fact that the person avails himself 
or herself, in a permissible manner, of the protection of his/her rights in relation to 
the prohibition of differential treatment shall be prohibited’. 

Such protection is also contained in Article 3.1(10) of the Consumer Rights Protection Law. 

It must be noted that, both under the Labour Law and under the amendments to the Law 
on  Social  Security,  the  wording  of  the  victimisation  clause,  by  referring  to  ‘his  (or  her) 
rights’, seems to confine the prohibition against discrimination to the actual victim of the 
discrimination,  with  witnesses  and  other  persons  assisting  the  complainant  thus  being 
excluded.  Similarly,  victimisation  is  prohibited  by  the  Law  on  the  Prohibition  of 
Discrimination  of  Natural  Persons-Economic  Operators  (Article  6),  the  Consumer  Rights 
Protection  Law  (Article  3.1(10)),  the  Law  on  Support  to  Unemployed  Persons  and  Job 
Seekers (Article 2.1(8)), the Education Law (Article 3.1(4)), and the Law on Patients’ Rights 
(Article 3(4)).  

Another  instance  of  protection  against  victimisation  is  that  provided  by  the  Law  on  the 
Ombudsman: Article 23(3) of this law provides that ‘the applicant may not be punished 
and  no  direct  or  indirect  adverse  consequences  may  be  caused  to  him  because  of 
submitting  an  application,  complaint  or  proposal  to  the  Ombudsman’s  Office  or  for 
cooperating with the Office’; this, however, obviously applies only to cases that are being 
investigated by the office.  

250 The term ‘person’ cannot be interpreted as excluding protection from direct discrimination of a group. In 
these cases, argumentum a fortiori should be applied, i.e. if a person cannot be treated less favourably, 
then it follows that nor can a group. 

251  Latvia, Latgale regional court, Case No.2-268 A/01.11.2000 (Abramova v. ‘Latgales druka’), 01.11.2000. 

Discrimination was found to be on the grounds of victimisation due to the fact of defence of her rights, even 
if this ground was not listed in the exhaustive list of grounds prohibiting discrimination in Article 1 of the old 
Labour Code. 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
All the areas included in Directives 2000/43 and 2000/78 are covered by the laws listed 
above that prohibit victimisation and by Article 92 of the Constitution, which provides for 
‘the  right  to  commensurate  compensation  to  persons  whose  rights  have  been  infringed 
without a basis’. 

Another case on victimisation, R.K. v. Valsts Mežu dienests, was decided in 2005 (at first 
and second instance) and in 2006 (by the Supreme Court Senate). The claimant had been 
subjected to various disciplinary measures, all of which were repealed by the State Civil 
Service  Office  or by a court. Since, unlike his colleagues performing the  same job, R.K. 
was  not  paid  the  regular  premiums,  he  considered  he  had  been  victimised  because  of 
defending his rights. The court held for the claimant, and awarded him moral damages. 

It  can  be  concluded  that  a  prohibition  of  victimisation  exists  in  the  framework  of 
employment  relationships,  including  civil  service  relationships,  under  the  terms  of  the 
Labour  Law,  the  Law  on  the  Prohibition  of  Discrimination  of  Natural  Persons-Economic 
Operators covering self-employment, the Law on Support to Unemployed Persons and Job 
Seekers. Similarly, prohibition of victimisation is prohibited in relation to social protection 
(the Law on Social Security), access to goods and services (the Consumer Rights Protection 
Law), education (the Law on Education), and in the Law on Patients’ Rights. There is also 
protection from victimisation in relation to a complaint to the Ombudsman’s Office, within 
the  respective  spheres  of  application  and  in  relation  to  the  grounds  covered  (which  are 
incomplete). 

6.5  Sanctions and remedies (Article 15 Directive 2000/43, Article 17 Directive 

2000/78) 

a) 

Applicable sanctions in cases of discrimination – in law and in practice 

In the context of anti-discrimination,  specific sanctions are contained in the Labour Law, 
the Consumer Rights Protection Law, the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination of Natural 
Persons-Economic  Operators,  the  Law  on  Education,  the  Criminal  Law  and  the 
Administrative Offences Code. 

Criminal sanctions  

On 25 September 2014, the Parliament amended the Criminal Law. 

Article 48, lists aggravating circumstances of a criminal offence, including ‘racist, national, 
ethnic or religious’ motivation (Paragraph 1, Clause 14).  

Article  78(1)  envisages  criminal  liability  for  ‘incitement  of  national,  ethnic,  racial  and 
religious hatred’ and deals exclusively with ‘incitement’ (i.e. no violence and no group or 
institutional  aspect)  and  lays  out  the  options  of  a  fine,  community  service,  short  term 
custody or imprisonment for up to three years  

Article  78(2)  covers  acts  committed  by  ‘a  group  of  persons,  or  a  state  official  or  a 
responsible  employee  of  a  company  or  an  organisation’  or  using  an  ‘automated  data 
processing system’ (i.e. – the internet), and provides for a punishment of deprivation of 
liberty  for  up  to  five  years,  community  service  or  a  fine.  Paragraph  3  covers  the  same 
crime  of  incitement  if  it  is  ‘associated  with  violence  or  threats’  or  is  committed  by  an 
‘organised  group’  and  provides  for  up  to  10  years’  imprisonment,  with  or  without 
probationary supervision for a term of up to three years.  

Article 149.1 provides: 

1) 

for acts of racial, national, ethnic or religious discrimination or the violation of another 
type of discrimination, if considerable harm has been caused or if they are associated 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
with violence, fraud or threats, or where they are committed by a group of persons, 
a  state  official  or  a  responsible  employee  of  an  undertaking  (company)  or 
organisation, or if they have been committed by using an automated system of data 
processing, the applicable sentence is deprivation of liberty for a term not exceeding 
one year, short-term custody, community service or a fine; 
for the same activities, if committed by a state official or a responsible employee of 
a company or an organisation or ‘a group of persons’, or using an ‘automated data 
processing  system’  (i.e.  –  the  internet),  the  applicable  sentence  is  deprivation  of 
liberty for a term not exceeding three years, short-term custody, community service 
or a fine. 

2) 

Article 150 criminalises ‘Incitement of social hatred and enmity’:  

(1)   acts  aimed  to  incite  hatred  or  enmity  on  the  grounds  of  a  person’s  gender,  age, 
disability or any other feature, if substantial harm was caused by such act, shall be 
punished with short-term imprisonment, community service or a fine; 

(2)   the  same  acts,  if  committed  by  a  state  official,  or  a  responsible  employee  of  an 
undertaking  (company)  or  organisation,  or  a  group  of  persons,  or  if  they  are 
committed  using  automated  data  processing  systems,  shall  be  punished  with 
imprisonment of up to three years, short-term imprisonment, community service or 
a fine;  

(3)   the same acts, if associated with violence or threats, or if committed by an organised 
group,  shall  be  punished  with  imprisonment  of  up  to  four  years,  short-term 
imprisonment, community service or a fine. 

Administrative sanctions 

Various specialised public bodies with powers in relation to labour or consumer protection 
can  impose  administrative  sanctions,  such  as  fines.  The  State  Labour  Inspectorate  can 
impose fines from EUR 124 to EUR 714 for violations of the prohibition of discrimination in 
employment  relationships  (Article  204.17  of  the  Administrative  Offences  Code).  The 
outcome  of  the  proceedings  can  also  result  in  a  halt  to  the  discrimination  and  the 
restoration of equality.  

According to the Administrative Offences Code (Article 166.13), the Centre for Consumer 
Rights Protection can impose fines for the violation of the Advertising Law, which prohibits 
discriminatory advertising on grounds of race, skin colour, gender, age, religious, political 
or  other  convictions,  national  or  social  origin,  financial  status  or  other  circumstances 
(Article 4(2)1).  

On 4 June 2015, the Saeima (Parliament) amended the  Latvian Administrative  Offences 
Code (Grozījumi Latvijas Administratīvo pārkāpumu kodeksā).252 Article 155.14 (Failure to 
Observe  the  Rights  of  Air  Transport  Passengers)  was  supplemented  with  a  provision 
whereby, in the event of any violation of the right of persons with disabilities or persons 
with reduced mobility to use air transportation services, a warning shall be issued or a fine 
of EUR 450 to EUR 3 000 shall be imposed on the legal persons concerned.  

Civil remedies 

Article 29(8) of the Labour Law provides that: 

‘If the prohibition of differential treatment and prohibition to cause adverse consequences 
is violated, the employee, in addition to other rights provided for by this law, has the right 
to request compensation for damages and compensation for moral damages. In the case 

252  Latvia, Amendments to the Latvian Administrative Offences Code (Grozījumi Latvijas Administratīvo 
pārkāpumu kodeksā), 26.09.2013, available in Latvian at http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=260957. 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
of a dispute the amount of compensation for moral damages shall be determined by the 
court at its discretion’.  

The  possibility  to  claim  moral  damages  is  also  expressly  provided  for  in  the  Consumer 
Rights  Protection  Law  (Article  3.1(11)),  the  Law  on  the  Prohibition  of  Discrimination  of 
Natural Persons-Economic Operators (Article 5) and the Law on Education (Article 3.1(6)) 

Similarly,  Article  92  of  the  Administrative  Procedure  Code  provides  that  ‘Everyone  is 
entitled to claim compensation for financial loss or personal harm, including moral harm, 
which has been caused to him or her by an administrative act or an actual action of an 
institution’. The amount of compensation for financial loss caused by an administrative act 
of  an  institution  is  set  out  in  the  Law  on  Reparation  of  Damages  caused  by  State 
Administrative Institutions.253 

Generally, non-pecuniary damages is a field under development in Latvian law; until the 
adoption of the Law on Reparation of Damages caused by State Administrative Institutions, 
the only case when Latvian law allowed for non-pecuniary damages was that provided for 
in  Article  1635  of  the  Civil  Law  in  cases  of  mutilation,  unlawful  deprivation  of  liberty, 
defamation254 and rape.  

Individuals may seek a halt to the discriminatory practices (of either a representative of 
the public authorities or a private person) before the court, as well as restoration of their 
violated  rights  or  status,  etc.  Potentially,  an  individual  might  request  that  a  reasonable 
accommodation is made as well. 

Individuals may also complain to the Ombudsman’s Office in cases where the outcome can 
be a friendly settlement. 

As  far  as  disciplinary  liability  of  civil  servants  is  concerned,  there  are  no  provisions 
specifically relating to cases of discrimination. For discriminatory activities, a civil servant 
may  be  punished  on  the  basis  of  general  provisions,  e.g.  Article  17  of  the  Cabinet  of 
Ministers Regulations on Disciplinary Punishments of Civil Servants provides for liability for 
unreasonably failing in the obligations of a civil servant.  

If  this  has  caused  substantial  detriment  to  the  civil  service  or  to  an  individual,  the  civil 
servant may be punished by dismissal from the civil service.  

Another article related to cases of discrimination is Article 30, allowing for the punishment 
of  a  civil  servant  for  impolite  or  intolerant  attitudes  towards  individuals  or  colleagues. 
However,  the  disciplinary  punishment  in  this  case  can  be  a  reprimand.  Thus,  the 
punishment of a civil servant for acts of discrimination is subject to the interpretation of 
the respective disciplinary provisions and, in order to apply them effectively, the awareness 
of civil servants, including those who can impose punishments, must be raised. 

b) 

Ceiling and amount of compensation 

There is no maximum amount for damages under the Civil Law, yet Article 14 of the Law 
on Reparation of Damages caused by State Administrative Institutions sets the maximum 
amount of non-pecuniary damages for personal harm at EUR 7 114, or EUR 9 960 in cases 
of grave personal harm, and EUR 28 457 if harm has been caused to life or grave harm 

253  Latvia, Law on Reparation of Damages caused by State Administrative Institutions (Valsts pārvaldes iestāžu 

nodarīto zaudējumu atlīdzināšanas likums), 02.06.2005. at http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=110746. 

254   In the Muhina case (Latvia, Supreme Court Senate case No.SKC-297, Muhina v. Central Prison, 

08.02.2002), the court was not prepared to award moral damages to Muhina based on Article 2352.a 
(defamation), as the provisions of the Labour Code then in force, in the opinion of the Senate, were lex 
specialis in the field of equal treatment in labour relationships, and the refusal to employ Muhina could not 
be regarded as an injury to her honour or dignity, as Article 2352.a only applies to cases where untrue 
information has been disseminated. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
has been  caused to health. The maximum amount of damages for moral harm is set at 
EUR 4 268 or EUR 7 114 in cases of grave moral harm and at EUR 28 457 if harm has been 
caused to life or grave harm has been caused to health. 

It is difficult to predict, in the absence of any case law, whether, in cases of discrimination 
by the state institutions at final instance, the courts would be ready to award damages for 
both personal harm and moral harm. The definitions of personal harm and moral harm in 
the law allow cases of discrimination to come under the terms of both of them, and the 
law itself permits applications for several kinds of damages at the same time. It has to be 
noted that Latvian law does not provide for punitive damages. 

In the two defamation cases brought under the Civil Law and related to defamation and 
incitement to racial discrimination, the damages awarded were EUR 4 800 (LVL 3 000) to 
each of the claimants in the Los Amigos case,255 and a symbolic EUR 50 (LVL 30) in the 
Steel case.256 In the Smagars case,257 on disability-based discrimination in providing access 
to a public place, the amount of damages awarded was around EUR 4 800 (LVL 3 000).  

Between 2005 and 2015, there were over a dozen known discrimination cases before the 
courts  which  have  resulted  in  a  favourable  outcome  for  the  victim  (11  concerning 
discrimination on the ground of gender, two on the ground of disability, one on age and 
one on race discrimination). The overwhelming majority of those cases have related to the 
realm of employment. In 2005 (on employment, gender and property status), the court 
awarded  EUR 1 500  (LVL 1 000).258  Three  of  the  cases  were  conciliation  agreements 
confirmed  by  the  courts.  In  2008,  the  claimants  were  awarded  EUR 7 142  (LVL 5 000) 
(relating  to  gender  (pregnancy,  dismissal)),  and  EUR 1 142  (LVL 800)  (on  gender  in 
relation  to  a  job  interview).  In  one  case  in  2007,  the  claimant  was  awarded  EUR 4 285 
(LVL 3 000)  (on  disability  and  dismissal).  In  2010,  a  claimant  was  awarded  EUR 428 
(LVL 300)  (on  gender  and  recruitment).  In  2011,  one  claimant  was  awarded  EUR 1 428 
(LVL 1 000) (on employment and disability) as compensation for non-material damages by 
the  appeal  court.  Five  cases  in  2010-2011  (on  gender)  concerned  a  recalculation  of 
unemployment  benefits,  and  were  tried  by  administrative  courts.  Although  the  courts 
established indirect discrimination, leading to recalculation of unemployment benefits, it is 
not known whether the claimants also sought moral compensation. In 2013, in a gender 
discrimination  case,  the  court  awarded  compensation  for  non-material  damages  of 
EUR 2 845  (LVL 2 000).259  In  2014,  in  a  gender  discrimination  case,  the  appeal  court 
awarded  the  claimant  EUR 1 000  (LVL 702.65),  and  in  an  age  discrimination  case  – 
EUR 1 422.87  (LVL 1 000).260  In  2015,  in  a  discrimination  case  on  grounds  of  disability 
(dismissal)  the  claimant  was  awarded  EUR  1  422.261  There  is  no  publicly  available 
information on discrimination cases decided in 2016. 

There  have  been  several  court  cases  where,  upon  the  establishment  of  the  fact  of 
discrimination, the court has nevertheless required proof of damages by the claimant to 
seek moral damages. In 2013, the Supreme Court Senate, referring to Court of Justice of 
the European Union jurisprudence, underlined that there is no need to specifically prove 
the  existence  of  moral  damage  in  cases  of  age  discrimination,  as  moral  damage  is 
presumed from the very fact of age discrimination in the employment relationship.262  

255  Latvia, Supreme Court, Case PAC-244, 09.04.2003. 
256  Latvia, Latgale District Court of Riga, Case No C29240503, 08.09.2003, 

http://providus.lv/article/spriedums-civillieta-sakara-ar-dzordza-stila-prasibu-pret-politisko-organizaciju-
brivibas-partija-un-valsts-bezpelnas-sia-latvijas-televizija. 
257  Latvia, Riga regional court, Case No C04386004, 11.07.2005, 

http://cilvektiesibas.org.lv/site/record/docs/2012/02/06/RS11julijs.pdf. 

258  Latvia, Cēsu district court, Case no C11019405, A.S. v. Straupe Parish Council (Straupes pagasta padome), 

05.07.2005, http://cilvektiesibas.org.lv/site/record/docs/2012/02/06/Spriedums_Cesis.pdf. 

259  Latvia, Supreme Court Senate, Case No. SKC-2846-13, 18.12.2013.  
260  Latvia, Latgale Regional Court, Case No. C12102213 (archive No. CA-0121-1), 30.04.2014.  
261  Latvia, Liepāja Court, Case No. C20 2558 14, Pāvilosta Regional Local Government v. [anonymized], 

22.10.2015. 

262  Latvia, Supreme Court Senate, Case No. C32276312 (SKC – 1702/2013), 29.11.2013.  

82 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
c) 

Assessment of the sanctions 

The  number  of  court  cases  concerning  discrimination  on  grounds  of  ethnicity,  religion, 
disability,  age  or  sexual  orientation  resulting  in  compensation  for  the  victim  remains 
limited. The majority of cases concern gender discrimination in the sphere of employment. 
The  average  moral  compensation  awarded  in  known  discrimination  cases  is  EUR 1 428 
(LVL 1 000).  The  highest  compensation  awarded  through  a  conciliation  agreement  was 
EUR 7 142,  in  2008.  Such  a  small  amount  of  compensation  can  hardly  be  considered 
effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Cases of forward-looking remedies, e.g. ordering 
the  Health  Inspectorate  to  issue  an  administrative  act  to  order  certain  health  service 
providers to ensure access to persons with disabilities to the premises, remain few. 

To date, there has been no case when Article 149.1 of the Criminal Law has been applied.  
In the case of administrative sanctions, the State Labour Inspectorate has imposed fines 
mostly  in  cases  of  discriminatory  job  ads  indicating  preferences  for  a  specific  gender  or 
age.  One  advertisement  specifically  indicated  a  preference  for  a  certain  ethnicity.  The 
sanctions imposed have ranged from a warning to a fine of EUR 70 to EUR 535. However, 
the  majority  of  fines  range  from  EUR 200  to  EUR 300,  which  cannot  be  considered 
dissuasive. The Consumer Rights Protection Centre has imposed  fines for discriminatory 
advertising  (relating  to  race/ethnic  origin  and  sexual  orientation)  in  several  cases  –  of 
EUR 2 250,263 EUR 8 000264 and EUR 2 278.  

263  Latvia, Consumer Rights Protection Centre, (Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs), Decision No. E04-DAU- 

154, 14.08.2007, at cilvektiesibas.org.lv/media/record/docs/2012/02/06/reklama.pdf. 
264  Latvia, Consumer Rights Protection Centre , Decision No. E03-RIG 132, 17.04.2007, at 

cilvektiesibas.org.lv/media/attachments/29/01/2013/FAMARDESI1.pdf. 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7 

a) 

BODIES FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUAL TREATMENT (Article 13 Directive 
2000/43) 

Body/bodies  designated  for  the  promotion  of  equal  treatment  irrespective  of 
racial/ethnic origin according to Article 13 of the Racial Equality Directive 

The Ombudsman (Tiesībsargs) is the body designated for the promotion of equal treatment 
according to Article 13 of the Race Equality Directive. The mandate of the office is more 
general: the protection of human rights and ensuring that the principle of good governance 
is observed, thus the promotion of equal treatment is only one of its tasks. According to 
Article 11(2) of the Law on the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman promotes the observance of 
the principle of equal treatment and the elimination of all kinds of discrimination, without 
specifying the grounds. 

b) 

Status of the designated body/bodies – general independence 

The  Ombudsman is appointed by the  Saeima (the Parliament) for a period of five  years 
following a proposition by five MPs. They can be dismissed from office following a conviction 
or – by a vote of the Parliament – for acts incompatible with the status of an ombudsman 
or  for  failing  to  carry  out  their  duties.  The  work  of  the  office  is  financed  from  the  state 
budget,  and  it  has  to  report  to  the  Parliament  and  the  President  of  the  State  about  its 
activities once a year. The ombudsman is independent in their activities, and is governed 
only by law. 

The general financial crisis from 2009 to 2012 and the office’s weakness due to internal 
conflict inevitably affected the Ombudsman’s Office and its effectiveness. Its budget was 
significantly  cut  from  LVL 1 257 384  (EUR 1 797 626)  in  2008  to  EUR 1 157 884  in 
2014.265  In  2015  the  office’s  budget  was  EUR 1 144 522;  in  2016  the  budget  was 
EUR 1 329 113.266 The number of employees went down from 51 at the end of 2008 to 35 
in  2012.  At  the  end  of  2014,  the  number  of  employees  was  42,  and  there  were  three 
members of staff working in the Legal Equality Department, one of whom was a consultant 
on  Roma  issues,  specifically  issues  of  discrimination.  In  March  2015,  the  Legal  Equality 
Department was closed down, and the staff were assigned to other departments,267 which 
raises the question whether the Ombudsman’s Office now fulfils the minimum race equality 
directive requirements in practice.  The argument  made by the  office is that the  right to 
non-discrimination is free-standing and therefore non-discrimination has been integrated 
in  other  departments.  In  2016,  the  number  of  staff  was  45,  and  as  of  1  January  2017, 
there is no longer a consultant on Roma issues.  

In 2015 the Ombudsman’s Office received ‘A’ status accreditation by the International Co-
ordinating  Committee  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  Sub-Committee  on 
Accreditation.268  

The  Equality Body rarely deals with  issues  of  migrants in practice, apart from  being the 
designated body to monitor the forced return of illegal migrants.  

c)  Grounds covered by the designated body/bodies 

265  Latvia, Ministry of Finance (2014). Law on State Budget, Explanatory Report (Likuma "Par valsts budžetu 

2014.gadam" paskaidrojumi), p. 164, available in Latvian at: 
http://www.fm.gov.lv/files/valstsbudzets/budzetapaskaidrojumi/FMPask_L_270114_bud2014_lab.pdf.  
266  Republic of Latvia Ombudsman (2016), Annual Report, p.261: ‘The real annual expenditure is lower than 

the budget initially allocated by the Government’. Available at 
http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/uploads/content/lapas/tiesibsarga_2016_gada_zinojums_1489647331.pdf. 

267  Republic of Latvia Ombudsman (LR Tiesībsargs) (2015), ‘Staff’ (‘Darbinieki’), at 

http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/en/about-us/darbinieki.  

268  Republic of Latvia Ombudsman (2015), ‘Ombudsman’s Office of the Republic of Latvia receives “A” status 

accreditation’, 8 July2015. Available at: http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/en/homepage/ombudsmans-office-of-the-
republic-of-latvia-receives-a-status-accreditation/. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
According  to  Article  11(2)  of  the  Law  on  the  Ombudsman,  the  Ombudsman  promotes 
observance  of  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  and  the  elimination  of  all  kinds  of 
discrimination, without specifying the grounds. The grounds covered in practice include the 
six grounds in the anti-discrimination directives as well as a range of other grounds, e.g. 
language, political belief, family status, property status, etc. 

d) 

Competences of the designated body/bodies – and their independent exercise 

The remit of the Ombudsman includes promoting the protection of the rights and lawful 
interests of individuals; promoting compliance with the principles of equal treatment and 
the  prevention  of  any  kind  of  discrimination,  including  in  the  private  sphere;  evaluating 
and  promoting  compliance  with  the  principles  of  good  administration  in  the  state 
administration; detecting deficiencies in the legislation and its application regarding issues 
related to the observance of human rights and the principle of good administration, as well 
as promoting the rectification of  such deficiencies; and promoting public awareness and 
understanding  of  human  rights  (Article  11(5)),  of  the  mechanisms  for  the  protection  of 
such rights and of the activities of the Ombudsman. 

Independent assistance to victims of discrimination 

According to Article 12 of the Law on the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman shall: 

1) 
2) 
3) 

4) 

5) 

6) 
7) 

8) 

accept and examine the submissions, complaints and proposals of private individuals; 
initiate a verification procedure for the clarification of circumstances; 
request that institutions, within the scope of their competence and within the time 
limits provided for by the law, clarify the necessary circumstances of the matter and 
inform the Ombudsman thereof; 
upon  examination  of  the  verification  procedure  or  after  the  termination  thereof, 
provide the institution with (non-binding) recommendations and opinions regarding 
the  lawfulness  and  effectiveness  of  their  activities,  as  well  as  compliance  with  the 
principle of good administration; 
in accordance with the procedures specified by this Law, resolve disputes between 
private  individuals  and  institutions,  as  well  as  disputes  in  respect  of  human  rights 
between private individuals; 
facilitate conciliation between the parties to the dispute; 
in  resolving  disputes  in  respect  of  human  rights  issues,  provide  opinions  and 
recommendations  to  private  individuals  regarding  the  prevention  of  human  rights 
violations; and 
provide persons with consultations regarding human rights issues. 

In particular, the Ombudsman may, upon termination of a verification procedure and upon 
establishment of a violation, defend the rights and interests of a private individual in an 
administrative court, if this is necessary for the public interest (Article 13(9)). Furthermore 
– and of direct relevance to discrimination cases – the Ombudsman may, upon termination 
of a verification procedure and the establishment of a violation, apply to a court in such 
civil  cases  where  the  nature  of  the  action  is  related  to  a  violation  of  the  prohibition  of 
differential  treatment  (Article  13(10)).  The  Ombudsman  can  initiate  a  verification 
procedure  –  not  only  in  response  to  a  complaint  submitted  to  him,  but  also  on  his  own 
initiative. 

Independent surveys 

According to Article 12(10) of the law, the Ombudsman shall conduct research and analyse 
the  situation  in  the  field  of  human  rights,  as  well  as  provide  opinions  regarding  human 
rights  issues.  In  his  activities,  the  Ombudsman  is  independent  and  is  governed  only  by 
law.  

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
From 2007 to 2010, there were no surveys organised by the Ombudsman even in the initial 
period when the allocated budget was significant. The Ombudsman conducted a survey on 
the  prevalence  of  discrimination  in  employment  in  October  2011,  a  survey  on  public 
awareness of fundamental rights in 2012, and a study of perceptions of discrimination as 
part of a wider survey on awareness of human rights and healthcare in 2013.  

In  November  2015,  the  Ombudsman’s  Office  published  the  findings  of  a  survey  on  the 
implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Latvia.269 
The survey, conducted in 2014, included persons with disabilities (266), members of the 
general public (1 033), desk research and responses from 119 municipalities. It covered a 
wide  range  of  issues  (public  attitudes  towards  persons  with  disabilities,  state/municipal 
support, awareness of avenues of redress in cases of discrimination, participation in public 
life, assessment of quality of life, access to information, environment accessibility, etc.270  

In the survey of persons with disabilities, if faced with discrimination, 29 % would be aware 
of where to turn to for help, while 71 % are not aware. If faced with discrimination, 39 % 
of respondents would turn to family members, 33 % to NGOs, 26 % to the Ombudsman’s 
office, 19 % to the State Labour Inspectorate, 18 % to the Health Inspectorate, 18 % to 
the media, 18 % to the police, 16 % to the Consumer Rights Protection Centre, and 10 % 
would take the matter to court.  

From  June  to  October  2016,  the  Ombudsman,  in  cooperation  with  the  NGO  Apeirons, 
conducted a study on ‘Access to Higher Education by Persons with Disabilities’.271 The aim 
of the study was to assess the real situation and opinions of people with disabilities about 
access  to  higher  education  in  Latvia.  The  survey  participants  were  446  persons  with 
disabilities  and  46  higher  educational  establishments  and  164  buildings,  libraries  and 
student dormitories of higher educational establishments were inspected. According to the 
survey, 22.5 % of persons with disabilities said that teaching materials were not available 
in alternative forms (adjusted for the needs of persons with disabilities); 21.6 % said that 
higher education establishments do not ensure environmental accessibility; and 8.1 % said 
that environmental accessibility is not ensured in libraries. Results of the higher education 
establishments’ survey showed that 77 % have improved their accessibility on their own 
initiative.  The  monitoring  of  the  higher  education  establishment  buildings  identified  that 
43 %  are  not  accessible  to  persons  with  physical  disabilities  while  21 %  are  partially 
accessible and that 2 % are not accessible to persons with visual impairment while 94 % 
are partially accessible. The study also identified that access to  some buildings  is not in 
line with the relevant construction requirements, e.g. the wrong construction of wheelchair 
ramps, insufficient marking of stairs, touch buttons in elevators.272  

269  According to the findings, 21.1 % of respondents perceive discriminatory attitudes on the part of state 

institutions, 18.8 % find such attitudes among municipal institutions and public transport drivers, 17.3 % 
encounter them among the surrounding community, 16.9 % in the workplace and healthcare institutions, 
13.5 % from public utility providers and 10.9 % by law enforcement and educational establishments. The 
survey also found that 79 % of Latvian residents condemn discriminatory attitudes towards persons with 
disabilities, and 14 % tend not to support such attitudes. At the same time, the highest figures on social 
distance among people in Latvia are towards people with disabilities as work colleagues or classmates. 60 % 
of respondents would feel discomfort if working or studying with persons with psychosocial disabilities, 54 % 
express discomfort with persons with intellectual disabilities, and 20 % do so with persons with other forms 
of disabilities. 46 % of respondents would feel discomfort in relation to people with psychosocial disabilities, 
34 % with people with intellectual disabilities, and 10 % with having people with other forms of disabilities 
as neighbours.  

270  Ombudsman (2015), Materials from the ‘Aspects of the Implementation of UN Conventions of the Rights of 

Persons with Disabilities in Latvia’ conference, available in Latvian at 
http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/sakumlapa/konferences-ano-konvencijas-par-personu-ar-invaliditati-tiesibam-
aspekti-latvija-materiali. 

271  Latvia,Ombudsman’s Office (2016). Accessibility of Higher Education for Persons with Disability (Augstākās 
izglītības pieejamība personām ar invaliditāti). Presentation during the conference on 6 December 2016, in 
Latvian at 
http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/files/content/Konference_Izglitibas_pieejamiba_2016/I_sesija_Tiesibsarga_monit
orings_Anete_Ilves.pdf. 

272  Latvia, Ombudsman (Tiesībsargs) (2016), Presentation.  

86 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Independent reports 

According  to  Article  12(10),  the  Ombudsman  shall  conduct  research  and  analyse  the 
situation in the field of human rights, as well as providing opinions regarding topical human 
rights  issues.  In  his  activities,  the  Ombudsman  is  independent  and  is  governed  only  by 
law. 

In  2012,  the  Ombudsman  published  research  on  the  observance  of  the  prohibition  of 
discrimination towards young mothers in employment.273 There have been no reports on 
discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, age, or other aspects of discrimination in 
the  last  decade.  At  the  end  of  2016,  the  Office  of  the  Ombudsman  published  research 
findings  on  ‘Practical  Problems  Concerning  the  Identification  of  Hate  Speech  and  Hate 
Crimes in Latvia’, the  author  of which was a  staff member of the  office. The aim of  the 
research was to assess the effectiveness of the legal framework (Criminal Law) in Latvia 
in  cases  of  hate  crimes/speech,  if  necessary,  to  improve  legal  regulations  as  well  as  to 
provide recommendations in addressing the shortcomings. The research focused on racist 
speech.274 

e) 

Legal standing of the designated body/bodies 

In Latvia, the Ombudsman has legal authority to bring discrimination complaints (on behalf 
of identified victim(s)) or to intervene in legal cases concerning discrimination). 

According  to  Article  12  of  the  Law  on  the  Ombudsman,  the  Ombudsman  may,  upon 
termination of a verification procedure and upon establishment of a violation, defend the 
rights and interests of a private individual in an administrative court, if this is necessary 
for the public interest. Upon termination of a verification procedure and the establishment 
of a violation, the Ombudsman may also apply to a court in civil cases where the nature of 
the  action  is  related  to  a  violation  of  the  prohibition  of  differential  treatment.  The 
Ombudsman  has  not  brought  any  discrimination  cases  before  the  court,  although it  has 
facilitated  conciliation  in  two  gender  discrimination  cases.  The  only  discrimination  case 
brought  before  the  court  was  by  its  predecessor,  the  National  Human  Rights  Office,  in 
2006. 

f) 

Quasi-judicial competences 

In Latvia, the Ombudsman is not a quasi-judicial institution. 

The functioning of the Ombudsman is based on the idea of authority and persuasion, not 
enforcement. Its decisions are only recommendations; it cannot impose any sanctions. The 
law provides for no appeal concerning the decisions of the Ombudsman on their merits, 
and  the  2007  judgment  of  the  Administrative  Affairs  Department  of  the  Supreme  Court 
Senate confirmed that the actions of the Ombudsman cannot be appealed in court.  

There are no data concerning the extent to which the Ombudsman’s recommendations are 
followed,  but  the  first  Ombudsman  himself  publicly  admitted  that  ‘local  authorities, 
ministries and other institutions tend to ignore the opinion of the Ombudsman.’275 

273  Ombudsman’s Office (Tiesībsargs) (2012), Observing the Prohibition of Discrimination against Young 

Mothers in Employment Relations (Diskriminācijas aizlieguma ievērošana darba tiesiskajās attiecībās pret 
jaunajām māmiņām), available in Latvian at 
http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/img/content/maminas_petijuma_rezultati_apkopojums_2013.pdf.  

274  Ombudsman’s Office (Tiesībsargs) (2016), Problematic Aspects in the Identification and Investigation of 

Hate Speech and Hate Crimes in the Republic of Latvia. Available at: 
http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/uploads/content/naida_noziegumu_un_naida_runas_izmeklesana_lv_2016_14860
44199.pdf. 

275  Luckāns, Uldis. Apsītis: Pašvaldības un ministrijas mēdz ignorēt tiesībsarga viedoklis [Apsītis: Local 
Governments and Ministries Tend to Ignore Opinion of the Ombudsman]. Leta, 27.05.2009, at 
http://www.apollo.lv/portal/news/articles/168321.  

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Turning  to  the  Ombudsman  does  not  preclude  a  person  from  subsequently  –  or 
simultaneously  –  bringing  a  court  case.  There  is  no  law  to  preclude  this,  although  it  is 
difficult to imagine it, as the Ombudsman is perceived more as an alternative to the court, 
and is used by people who cannot afford to bring a court case.  

Although it would normally mean that the time limits for bringing the case would be missed, 
in the Kozlovska case276 the court held that, in cases where a person first turned to the 
former National Human Rights Office, and the time limit has been missed for this reason, 
the  time  limit  provision  has  to  be  interpreted  broadly  so  as  not  to  deny  the  person  the 
protection of their rights. The finding of the Ombudsman is not binding on the court, so 
the court is free to follow or not follow it, if any of the parties brings it to the court’s notice. 

g) 

Registration by the body/bodies of complaints and decisions 

In  Latvia,  the  Ombudsman’s  Office  registers  the  number  of  complaints  and  decisions 
(initiated investigation cases, refusals to initiate an investigation case, closed/completed 
cases,  and  consultations).  The  numbers  of  initiated  investigation  cases  by  ground  of 
discrimination are available only upon request. Except for selected  cases, discrimination 
complaints by field, type of discrimination, etc. are not available to the public. 

In  March  2015,  the  Ombudsman’s  Office  stopped  collecting  statistics  on  discrimination. 
According to the Office, ‘considering that violations of the prohibition of discrimination in 
practice  include  violations  of  other  rights  (from  the  aspect  of  civil  and  political,  social, 
economic, cultural or children rights), the Office does not collect separate statistics about 
discrimination complaints (those are included in the statistics of the above-mentioned legal 
departments.)’.277 However, data on discrimination complaints in 2016 were provided upon 
request.278  Over  half  the  complaints  received  by  the  Ombudsman  are  on  grounds  of 
disability,  allegedly  due  to  the  office’s  more  active  co-operation  with  NGOs  focusing  on 
persons with disabilities and monitoring of  the  implementation of  the  UN Convention on 
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. There is little information available on the outcome 
of the complaints, including in the annual reports.  

h) 

Roma and Travellers 

In May 2011, a person was hired by the Ombudsman’s Office to specialise on Roma issues. 
The individual was tasked with the promotion of Roma integration, organising the office’s 
activities  in  the  realm  of  non-discrimination  and  consulting  Roma  on  various  issues, 
including facilitating Roma access to law enforcement institutions.279 As of 1 January 2017, 
there is no longer a Roma consultant post.  

276  Latvia, Jelgava Court (Jelgavas tiesa), Case no C 15066406, S. Kozlovska v. SIA Palso, 25.05.2006, 

available in Latvian at cilvektiesibas.org.lv/media/attachments/29/01/2013/sk_palso.pdf.  

277  Email communication by the Ombudsman’s Office to the Latvian Centre for Human Rights on 18 March 

2016.  

278 Latvia, Ombudsman’s Office (Tiesībsarga birojs), Information provided to the LHCR by email on 19.10.2016 
and 22.02.2017. In 2016, the Ombudsman’s Office received 91 complaints concerning discrimination and 
legal equality principle. Of those, 48 complaints were on grounds of disability (6 – employment, 8 – 
environmental accessibility, education - 2 right to property – 3, access to services provided by 
municipalities/state, access to services provided by the private sector, other – 4, 1 – health, 2 - other); 5 
complaints on gender grounds (2 – employment, 2 – access to services by the private sector, 1 – other), 2 
complaints on grounds of sexual orientation- access to services provided by the private sector, 2 complaints 
on grounds of age (1 – employment, 1 – education), 1 complaint on grounds of health (access to services 
provided by municipal/state services), 8 complaints on grounds of ethnicity (2 employment, 3 – media, 1 – 
access to services provided by a club (denial of entry), 1- other); 19 complaints concerning legal equality 
(13 – employment, 3 – education, 3 – access to municipal/state provided services). In 2016, six verification 
cases were opened (in one case discrimination on grounds of sexual discrimination was established, in two 
cases violation of legal equality principle was established, in three cases there was no information about the 
outcome.  

279  Information provided by the consultant on Roma issues at the Ombudsman’s Office on 08.08.2011.  

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
The Advisory Council on Roma Issues (Romu konsultatīvā padome) was established under 
the auspices of the Ombudsman’s Office in 2013.280 The main aims of the Council are to 
assess  activities  and  measures  undertaken  in  2007-2012  aimed  at  preventing 
discrimination, reducing exclusion of Roma, assessing measures undertaken in 2012-2020 
in education, employment, health care, access to housing, to  develop and submit to the 
Ombudsman proposals aimed at improving the economic situation of Roma and the rest of 
society, to develop and submit proposals about necessary amendments to legislative acts 
to prevent Roma discrimination and exclusion and to facilitate equal participation by Roma 
in economic life. 

The meetings of the council have been closed, and there is little public information about 
its activities. 

In 2012, the Ombudsman criticised the national authorities on the basis that EU funding 
and  funding  from  the  state  budget  that  had  been  allocated  for  the  improvement  of  the 
situation of the Roma minority and their integration from 2007 to 2012 had not been spent 
‘purposefully and effectively’.281 The Ombudsman made recommendations to 1) create an 
effective control mechanism concerning the allocation of funding, 2) appoint a responsible 
institution that would evaluate and harmonise the compliance of each project with the aims 
of  EU  and  national  policy  planning  documents,  and  3)  provide  information  to  the 
Ombudsman about the planned projects for the purposes of monitoring. The Ombudsman 
also recommends engaging Roma in project design and implementation. 

At the same time, the Advisory Committee of the Council of Europe noted in its Second 
Opinion in 2014 that, despite expressing his concern about the situation of Roma in Latvia 
who continue to face discrimination in many spheres of life, the Ombudsman is considered 
to  have  made  only  limited  concrete  contributions  to  promoting  their  full  and  effective 
equality in society.282 

On certain occasions, the Ombudsman has voiced support for controversial ideas, e.g. the 
creation of Roma villages, which was proposed by the Roma leader in Latvia283 although 
criticised by other Romani representatives.284  

There  have  been  no  activities  by  the  Ombudsman  specifically  related  to  Roma  issues  in 
2015–2016.  

280  The Ministry of Culture, Roma (Romi) www.km.gov.lv/lv/ministrija/romi.html. 
281  Tiesībsarga vēstule par Eiropas Savienības finanšu instrumentu un valsts budžeta līdzekļu izlietojumu romu 

integrācijai (30.08.2012). Available in Latvian: 
http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/img/content/atzinumi/romi_es_lidzekli_romu_kopienai_vestule_saeimai_mk_.pdf. 

282  Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (2014). Second 

Opinion on Latvia, adopted on 18.06.2013, paragraph 35, p.12. ACFC/OP/II(2013)001, 
https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/minorities/3_FCNMdocs/PDF_2nd_OP_Latvia_en.pdf.  

283  Romu centrs (Roma Cultural Centre) (2014), ‘21st Century Tabor’ (21.gadsimta tabors), 

http://www.romucentrs.lv/uploads/3/8/9/1/38919243/ciemats_lv_pdf.pdf  

284  LSM.LV (2013), ‘Would Gypsies in Latvia Want to Live in Separate Villages Built Exclusively for Them?’, 19 
December 2013. http://www.lsm.lv/lv/raksts/latvija/zinas/vai-chigani-latvija-gribetu-dziivot-atsevishkjos-
vinjiem-buvetos.a72611/ . 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
8 

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES  

8.1  Dissemination of information, dialogue with NGOs and between social 

partners 

a)  Dissemination of information about legal protection against discrimination (Article 10 

Directive 2000/43 and Article 12 Directive 2000/78)  

There  has  been  limited  dissemination  of  information  about  legal  protection  against 
discrimination in the last decade by state bodies, including the Ombudsman’s Office, the 
Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Welfare. Although the State Labour Inspectorate has 
continued to organise informative seminars on the Labour Law, these have concentrated 
on issues of non-discrimination in only a limited way.  

b)  Measures to encourage dialogue with NGOs with a view to promoting the principle of 

equal treatment (Article 12 Directive 2000/43 and Article 14 Directive 2000/78)  

Latvia provides training on discrimination and tolerance-related issues for different target 
groups with the involvement of NGOs. Thus, the Latvian Centre for Human Rights, within 
the  framework  of  different  projects,  has  organised  over  35  training  seminars  on  non-
discrimination and diversity management of various durations (8 to 30 hours) for NGOs, 
trade  union  representatives,  police  officers,  judges,  health  and  social  workers,  civil 
servants and journalism students. The LCHR has published different informative brochures 
and reports on non-discrimination, and has created an anti-discrimination database on its 
website.  This  is  the  largest  online  resource  in  Latvia  for  policy  documents,  anti-
discrimination legislation, court cases, surveys, reports and publications.285 

Since  2014,  a  public  agency,  the  Society  Integration  Fund  has  conducted  a  range  of 
projects  in  cooperation  with  NGOs  aimed  at  promoting  diversity  and  combating 
discrimination. The projects have been implemented through  the PROGRESS 2007-2013 
programme of the European Union and have included training of judges, a comprehensive 
Roma survey, a poster campaign and video spots challenging discrimination on different 
grounds.286 

c)  Measures to promote dialogue between social partners to give effect to the principle 
of  equal  treatment  within  workplace  practices,  codes  of  practice,  workforce 
monitoring (Article 11 Directive 2000/43 and Article 13 Directive 2000/78) 

Social  dialogue  in  Latvia  is  conducted  within  the  framework  of  the  National  Tripartite 
Cooperation Council (further - ‘the NTCC’).287 The NTCC is made up of an equal number of 
representatives  from  the  Government,  the  Latvian  Confederation  of  Employers  and  the 
Latvian  Union  of  the  Free  Trade  Unions.  The  NTCC  examines  drafts  of  framework 
documents,  programmes,  laws  and  other  legal  acts  and  submits  its  proposals  to  the 
relevant  ministries  in  relation  to  a  wide  range  of  social  and  economic  issues.  Four  sub-
councils  have  been  established  on  the  following  issues:  social  insurance,  professional 
education  and  employment,  healthcare  and  labour  issues.  The  last  of  these,  the  Labour 
Tripartite Cooperation Sub-Council, deals with issues of employment law, labour protection 
and equal opportunities. Issues of discrimination have been discussed in the work of the 
sub-councils  and  the  NTCC  to  a  limited  extent  only,  i.e.  only  as  far  as  they  relate  to 
employment law, and mostly in relation to gender-based discrimination. Issues of gender-
related discrimination have been examined more closely. 

285  See Latvian Centre for Human Rights www.cilvektiesibas.org.lv.  
286  Society Integration Fund (2015), ‘Different people. Different Experience. One Latvia II’, at 

http://www.sif.gov.lv/index.php?searchword=Progress&ordering=&searchphrase=all&Itemid=198&option=c
om_search&lang=lv . 

287 Latvia, Regulation on the National Tripartite Cooperation Council (Nacionālās Trīspusējās sadarbības 

padomes nolikums), 30.10.1998, available in Latvian at http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=50778.  

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Social  dialogue  concerning  discrimination-related  issues  related  to  gender-based  and 
disability-based discrimination occurs in those areas where dialogue and cooperation with 
the relevant NGOs is well established. There has been a Gender Equality Committee since 
2002 (earlier it was the Gender Equality Council), and the National Council for the Affairs 
of Disabled Persons, uniting representatives of NGOs and state institutions, was created 
under the aegis of the Ministry of Welfare in 1997. The council, among other things, focuses 
on issues related to the implementation in Latvia of the UN Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities.288  

d) 

Addressing the situation of Roma and Travellers  

Roma integration issues were marginally included in the National Identity, Civil Society and 
Integration  Policy  Fundamental  Principles  2012-2018,  which  were  adopted  in  October 
2011.  The  Ministry  of  Culture  is  responsible  for  the  advancement  of  Roma  issues  at  a 
national level. It has set up a Latvian Roma platform to foster co-operation between the 
Roma  community  and  state  and  municipal  institutions,  and  social  partners  to  improve 
participation  in  and  co-ordination  and  implementation  of  Roma  integration  measures  at 
local, regional and national level.289  

8.2 

 Compliance (Article 14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78) 

a)  Mechanisms 

There is no specific regulation in national law establishing a mechanism that is designed to 
screen and eventually abolish laws, provisions and regulations that do not comply with the 
principle of non-discrimination. If it is the legal provision itself that is discriminatory, the 
person  who  has  suffered  from  discrimination  on  the  basis  of  the  measure  can,  by  first 
initiating procedures in the courts of general jurisdiction, submit a constitutional complaint 
to the Constitutional Court, which may declare null and void the legal provisions that are 
contrary to provisions of a higher legal force, up to the Constitution. This, however, is a 
cumbersome  procedure,  requiring  the  prior  exhaustion  of  all  other  remedies.  The 
alternative would be to turn to the  Ombudsman’s  Office, asking it to  bring a complaint. 
However,  the  Ombudsman  can  only  bring  abstract  review  cases,  and  since  the 
unconstitutional law usually loses its force only prospectively, the result of the case will be 
of no avail to the particular complainant. In the case of a concrete review as a result of a 
constitutional complaint, the Constitutional Court can make, and has made in the past, an 
exception to allow the  author  of the complaint to benefit from the positive result of the 
case. 

There does exist a mechanism, however, for ensuring that contracts, collective agreements 
and internal rules that are incompatible with the principle of equal treatment are abolished 
– or, more precisely, are recognised by the courts as being void. Article 6 of the Labour 
Law provides that ‘provisions of a collective agreement, working procedure regulations, as 
well  as  the  provisions  of  an  employment  contract  and  orders  of  an  employer  which, 
contrary to regulatory  enactments,  erode the  legal status of an employee, are void and 
can be declared as such by courts of general jurisdiction’. According to Article 43(1) of the 
Civil  Procedure  Law,  claims  concerning  labour  disputes  are  exempt  from  judicial  costs 
which  mean  that  the  applicant  does  not  have  to  pay  state  duty  or  other  costs  directly 
related to the proceedings.  

However, this does not include lawyers’ fees, although, since the adoption in 2005 of a law 
to  provide  for  state-paid  legal  aid,  it  has  become  possible  to  ask  for  state  aid  to  cover 
lawyer’s fees. 

288  Ministry of Welfare (2015), ‘Meetings with Associations that Represent Persons with Disabilties’ 

http://www.lm.gov.lv/text/3089. 

289  Ministry of Culture (Kultūras ministrija), ‘Latvian Roma platform’ (Latvijas Romu platforma), at 

https://www.km.gov.lv/lv/integracija-un-sabiedriba/romi/latvijas-romu-platforma. 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
b) 

Rules contrary to the principle of equality 

It is difficult to estimate whether any laws etc. that are contrary to the principle of equality 
are still in force; at least, there are no apparent cases to indicate this. More often, the laws 
would not be discriminatory in themselves, but would fail to provide adequate protection 
against discrimination.  In cases  of conflict, EU law would take precedence  over national 
law.  

92 

 
 
 
 
9 

COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL 

Following the transposition of the anti-discrimination directives and since the closure of the 
Secretariat  of  the  Special  Assignments  Minister  for  Integration  Affairs  (SSAMIA)  on 
1 January 2009, there has been no national authority coordinating issues regarding anti-
discrimination.  

The  Ministry  of  Welfare  is  responsible  for  issues  relating to  discrimination in  the  field  of 
employment relationships, social security, children and family affairs, as well as in relation 
to equal opportunities regarding disabled persons and gender equality, thus covering the 
grounds of gender, disability and age.  

Tasks and obligations in relation to social integration have been handed over to different 
ministries, eventually ending up with the Department for Social Integration Affairs within 
the Ministry of Culture (MoC). The regulations governing the MoC do not explicitly mention 
anti-discrimination functions, however the competence of the MoC in the realm of social 
integration and the promotion of civil society also includes a role ‘to ensure the observance 
of  the  rights  of  minorities,  including  Roma,  by  facilitating  the  elimination  of  racial  and 
ethnic discrimination.’ The Ombudsman’s Office has not assumed a national coordinating 
role on non-discrimination issues. 

There is no national action plan on anti-discrimination or anti-racism, but the Government 
has adopted several framework documents and action plans for the implementation of the 
UN  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  and  its  Additional  Protocol.  In 
September 2013, the Government approved the framework document for 2014-2020.290 

The  Framework  Document  on  Guidelines  on  National  Identity,  Civil  Society  and  Social 
Integration  Policy  2012-2018291  includes  a  brief  paragraph  on  anti-discrimination,  citing 
that an institutional mechanism and an anti-discrimination legislative framework have been 
developed,  while  discrimination  often  remains  unrecognised  and  unpunished.  In  such  a 
situation, particular groups of the population face a greater risk of suffering discrimination, 
for  example  the  Roma.  There  is  little  case  law,  and  there  are  no  regular  surveys  or 
information  campaigns  which  would  make  this  problem  more  visible  in  the  public 
consciousness. A positive attitude to diversity should be promoted in society in order to 
ensure a tolerant and respectful attitude to diversity and those who are different. 

The action plan accompanying the guidelines envisages a range of activities, such as the 
development of a system of data collection, including on the situation of Roma in various 
socio-economic  areas  (employment,  education,  healthcare  and  affordable  housing),  the 
conducting of surveys, training on non-discrimination for different target groups, improving 
methods to better identify discrimination, etc. The implementation of different activities is 
foreseen through different EU-funded programmes and bilateral financial instruments. 

The Ministry of Welfare prepared the 2015-2017 Implementation Plan for the ‘Guidelines 
for  the  implementation  of  the  United  Nations  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with 
Disabilities 2014-2020’ (Pamatnostādņu „Apvienoto Nāciju Organizācijas Konvencijas par 
personu  ar 
īstenošanas  pamatnostādnes  2014.-2020.gadam” 
īstenošanas plāns 2015.-2017.gadam).292 On 15 December 2015, the plan was approved 

invaliditāti  tiesībām 

290  Apvienoto Nāciju Organizācijas Konvencijas par personu ar invaliditāti tiesībām īstenošanas pamatnostādnes 

2014.–2020.gadam, 22.11.2013, available in Latvian at 
http://www.lm.gov.lv/upload/2013junijs/lmpamn_040613_inv.pdf.  

291  Latvia, Guidelines on National Identity, Civil Participation and Society Integration 2012-2018 (Nacionālās 

identitātes, pilsoniskās sabiedrības un sabiedrības integrācijas politikas pamatnostādnes 2012.-
2018.gadam). 

292  Latvia, Ministry of Welfare (Labklājības ministrija), 2015-2017 Implementation Plan for the ‘Guidelines for 
implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2014-2020’ 
(Pasākumu plāns nākamajiem gadiem ANO Konvencijas par personu ar invaliditāti tiesībām īstenošanai 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
by the Government. The plan aims to facilitate a shift from a medical approach to a human 
rights-based social model, and focuses on four directions: education – which will include 
measures to facilitate access to education and inclusive education; work and employment 
– measures to facilitate the inclusion of persons with disabilities in the labour market (e.g. 
through  subsidised  employment  schemes  and  developing  the  concept  of  social 
entrepreneurship, etc.); social protection – development of state-funded support services, 
with a strong emphasis on the beginning of de-institutionalisation; and public awareness 
– activities to raise public awareness about the rights of persons with disabilities. The plan 
sets  specific  targets  in  all  areas,  e.g.  numbers  of  beneficiaries,  and  foresees  specific 
funding. 

Latvijā), 15 December 2015, available in Latvian at: 
http://tap.mk.gov.lv/lv/mk/tap/?pid=40365029&mode=mk&date=2015-12-15. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
10  CURRENT BEST PRACTICES 

Activities organised by the Ombudsman’s Office in co-operation with NGOs working with 
persons with disabilities aimed at raising public awareness about barriers faced by persons 
with disabilities, (e.g. consecutive annual surveys concerning accessibility to health care 
facilities, banks, higher educational establishments by persons with disability), an annual 
conference,  annual  awards  to  NGOs,  and  employers  facilitating  the  social  inclusion  of 
persons with disabilities might be considered good practice. 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
11  SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES 

11.1 Potential breaches of the directives (if any) 

In relation to vocational training outside employment relationships, differential treatment 
is not adequately prohibited. The Law on Education contains a closed list of grounds that 
does not include age, disability or sexual orientation. As far as the application of the Law 
on Education in the private sector is concerned, there is nothing to make up for the missing 
grounds. There is no implementation mechanism in the law and no shared burden of proof. 
Similarly,  amendments  to  the  Law  on  Support  to  Unemployed  Persons  and  Job  Seekers 
covering  access  to  vocational  retraining  apply  to  only  three  grounds,  gender,  race  and 
ethnic origin, and so ignore Directive 2000/78. 

In March 2015, the Legal Equality Department of the Ombudsman’s Office was closed down 
and the staff were assigned to other departments,293 which raises the question of whether 
the  office  fulfils  the  minimum  race  equality  requirements  in  practice.  According  to  the 
office,  ‘considering  that  violations  of  the  prohibition  of  discrimination  in  practice  include 
violations of other rights (from the aspect of civil and political, social, economic, cultural 
or  children  rights),  the  Office  does  not  collect  separate  statistics  about  discrimination 
complaints  (those  are  included  in  the  statistics  of  the  above-mentioned  legal 
departments.)’.294  

As of 2014, NGOs are no longer entitled to represent a victim or victims of discrimination 
at the cassation court as it is reserved to the person participating in the case or to their 
advocate. This excludes the possibility of legal representation of victims of discrimination 
in civil claims by other persons with a law degree (e.g. NGO staff), who are not participants 
in the case and do not have the status of an advocate (defence counsel). However, this 
may  impact  on  access  to  justice  for  certain  vulnerable  groups,  including  victims  of 
discrimination,  as  cases  of  discrimination  have  predominantly  been  brought  before  the 
courts by NGOs. The amendments contravene the non-regression clauses of the equality 
directives. (See section 4.2 of this report) 

11.2 Other issues of concern  

Since the transposition of Racial Equality Directive and  the Employment Directive, there 
remains limited case law concerning discrimination on grounds of race/ethnic origin (1), 
disability (3), age (2), religion (0), and sexual orientation (0). Court cases on discrimination 
are not specifically recorded and remain unknown to the wider public.  

There continues to be no national co-ordination on non-discrimination issues. 

On the work of the equality body, the Ombudsman’s Office remains complaints driven, and 
there is limited involvement in public awareness raising, conducting research or surveys. 
No  public  awareness  raising  activities,  research  or  surveys  concerning  discrimination  on 
grounds of race/ethnic origin, age, or sexual orientation have been carried out in the last 
decade.  

293  LR Tiesībsargs (2015), ‘Staff’. Available at: http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/en/about-us/darbinieki.  
294  Email communication by the Ombudsman’s Office to the Latvian Centre for Human Rights on 18 March 

2016.  

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
12  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2016 

12.1 Legislative amendments 

There have been no new essential legislative anti-discrimination amendments or new laws 
adopted in 2016.  

Amendments (Sections 30(4) and 48(5)) to the Education Law in the context of teacher 
loyalty  provisions  specify  that  for  a  person  to  be  allowed  to  work  as  the  head  of  an 
educational  institution  or  a  teacher  they  must  not  have  violated  the  prohibition  of 
discrimination.295 

A draft new law on the restriction of face-covering clothing, allegedly aimed at banning the 
burqa  and  niqab  in  public  places  was  put  forward  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice,  led  by  the 
radical  right  wing  National  Alliance  in  September,296  but  has  not  yet  reached  the 
Government.297  

There have been no new legal developments that have had an effect on the situation of 
migrants with regard to their rights in Latvia in 2016. 

12.2 Case law 

There is one known discrimination case in 2016, on the ground of gender, which was in 
relation to social protection. One discrimination case from 2015 was made public in 2016. 
There  has  been  no  case  law  concerning  migrants  with  regard  to  their  rights  under  the 
national legislation transposing the EU anti-discrimination directives.  

Name of the court: Liepāja Court 
Date of decision: 22 October 2015 
Name of the parties: Pāvilosta Regional Local Government v. [anonymised] 
Reference number: C20 2558 14 
Address of the webpage:  
Brief  summary:  On  5  September  2014  the  claimant  (Pāvilosta  Regional  Local 
Government) submitted a claim before the Liepāja Court on the termination of employment 
legal  relationships  with  the  defendant  (name  anonymised).  The  defendant  lodged  a 
counterclaim for compensation of non-pecuniary damages (EUR 10 000) for psychological 
terror (mobbing) at the workplace and discrimination on the ground of disability. The court 
decided to satisfy the counterclaim in part, awarding her the sum of EUR 1 000 in respect 
of non-pecuniary damage. 

Key  facts  of the  case:  In 2012 the claimant and the defendant  established  employment 
legal  relationships  entering  into  a  contract  of  employment  for  the  head  of  the  council 
position  in  Saka  Municipality.  In  2013  the  Council  of  the  Pāvilosta  Regional  Local 
Government took a decision  to establish a common Pāvilosta City and Saka Municipality 
administration, which led to the dismissal of the head of the latter administration. In 2014, 
the defendant informed the  claimant about the fact that she had been granted group  II 
disability. The claimant offered her several vacancies in the local government, which the 
defendant refused, claiming that they did not match her education and, in one case, on 
grounds  of  health.  Eventually,  the  claimant  brought  the  case  before  the  court  on  the 

295  Latvia, Amendments to the Education Law (Grozījumi Izglītības likumā), 23 November 2016, available in 
Latvian at http://likumi.lv/ta/id/287247-grozijumi-izglitibas-likuma. Discrimination offences can include 
those found in court decisions (criminal, civil, administrative), but also in disciplinary decisions by 
administrative bodies that have not been appealed or annulled.  

296  Latvia, The draft face-covering restriction law and its explanatory note, available in Latvian at, 

http://tap.mk.gov.lv/lv/mk/tap/?pid=40399697. 

297  There are three stages before a legislative act is adopted by the Government. In 2016, the draft law was 
announced at the first stage, however, due to serious internal disagreements between several ministries, 
particularly those that did not support a blanket ban, the draft law has stalled.  

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
termination of the employment legal relationships (Article 101.5 of the Labour Law). The 
defendant claimed that she had been a victim of mobbing in the workplace since 2011 and 
that while she already had a sick-leave certificate she had been  deliberately offered the 
position  that  she  could  not  fulfil  for  health  reasons.  The  court  decided  to  satisfy  the 
counterclaim  in  part,  awarding  the  defendant  the  sum  of  EUR  1  000  in  respect  of 
non-pecuniary damage. 

Please describe trends and patterns in 2016 in cases brought by Roma and Travellers, 
and provide figures – if available. 

There  have  been  no  cases  brought  by  Roma  before  the  court  in  2016.  In  2016,  the 
Ombudsman’s Office received only one complaint by Roma (an individual objecting to being 
called  a  gypsy).298  The  State  Labour  Inspectorate  had  no  complaints  alleging  Roma 
discrimination in 2016. Despite the 2015 comprehensive survey ‘Roma in Latvia’ in which 
82 %  of  Roma  respondents  claimed  that  they  or  their  close  family  members  had  been 
discriminated  against  in  employment,299  there  have  been  no  concerted  efforts  by  the 
national authorities to tackle discrimination against Roma in accessing employment.  

298  Ombudsman’s email to the Latvian Centre for Human Rights on 20 January 2017. According to the email, 
the person (a Roma) was arrested as part of criminal proceedings. A witness to the criminal proceedings 
who gave evidence called the person a representative of ‘čigānu tautības’ (gypsy ethnicity). The 
Ombudsman provided an answer that according to Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 246 of 8 April 2008, 
on the classification of ethnicities, the right name (designation) of ethnicity in male gender is ‘čigāns’. It can 
be concluded that ‘čigāns’ is a recognised name for the ethnic group in Latvia. This is also acknowledged in 
reports conducted by human rights organisations in Latvia and the fact that one of the most active 
organisations has not avoided the name – Čigānu kultūras attīstības centrs. It was concluded that no 
discrimination had occurred, and the name ‘čigāns’ is used and is not considered discriminatory. 

299  Market and Social Research Centre Latvijas Fakti (2015), Roma in Latvia (Romi Latvijā), 

http://www.sif.gov.lv/images/files/SIF/progress-dazadiba-II/EN_Research_Roma_in_Latvia.pdf. 

98 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 1: TABLE OF KEY NATIONAL ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION 

The main transposition and anti-discrimination legislation at both federal and 
federated/provincial level. 

Country:  
Date:   

Latvia 
1 January 2017 

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)   

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)   

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)   

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)   

Title of the law: Labour Law [Darba likums] 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 20.06.2001 
Latest amendments: 12.05.2016  
Entry into force: 01.06.2002 
Web link: http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=26019  
Grounds  covered:  Race,  skin  colour,  age,  disability,  religious,  political  or 
other conviction, national or social origin, property or marital status, sexual 
orientation "or other circumstances" 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: Civil 
Material  scope:  Employment  relationships  proper  (civil  service  and 
specialized civil service excepted) 
Principal content: Prohibition of discrimination in relation to all aspects of 
employment  relationships;  prohibition  and  definition  of  direct/indirect 
discrimination, instruction to discriminate, victimization and harassment 
Title of the law: State Civil Service Law [Valsts civildienesta likums] 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 07.09.2000 
Latest amendments: 23.11.2016  
Entry into force: 01.01.2001 
Web link: http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=10944  
Grounds covered: Grounds not specified 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: administrative 
Material scope: Civil service relationships 
Principal  content:  Application  of  Labour  Law  provisions  on  protection 
against discrimination to civil service relationships 
Title of the law: Law  on Prohibition of Discrimination of Natural Persons-
Economic  Operators  [Fizisko  personu  –  saimnieciskās  darbības  veicēju 
diskriminācijas aizlieguma likums) 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 19.12.2012 
Latest amendments: - 
Entry into force: 02.01.2013 
Web link: http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=253547  
Grounds  covered:  Gender,  age,  religious,  political  or  other  conviction, 
sexual orientation, disability, race or ethnic origin 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: Civil 
Material scope: Access to self-employment; access to goods and services 
of a self-employed person 
Principal  content:  Prohibition  of  discrimination  in  access  to  self-
employment;  access  to  goods  and  services  of  a  self-employed  person; 
prohibition and definition of victimization 
Title of the law: Law on Social Security [Likums par sociālo drošību] 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 07.09.1995 
Latest amendments: 29.10.2015 
Entry into force: 05.10.1995 
Web link: http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=36850  

99 

 
 
 
 
Grounds  covered:  Race,  colour,  gender,  age,  disability,  health  condition, 
religious, political or other conviction, national or social origin, property or 
family status or other circumstances 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: administrative 
Material scope: Social services - measures ensured by state or municipality 
as  monetary  or  material  support  or  other  services  to  promote  the  full 
realization of person’s social rights 
Principal content: Prohibition of differential treatment in provision of social 
services;  prohibition  and  definition  of  direct/indirect  discrimination, 
instruction to discriminate, victimization and harassment 
Title of the law: Law on Education [Izglītības likums] 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 29.10.1998 
Latest amendments: 03.12.2015 
Entry into force: 01.06.1999 
Web link: http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=50759  
Grounds covered: Property and social status, race, ethnic origin, gender, 
religious  and  political  belief,  state  of  health,  employment  and  place  of 
residence 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: administrative 
Material scope: Access to education 
Principal  content:  Prohibition  of  discrimination  in  access  to  all  types  of 
education, prohibition of victimisation, reversal of burden of proof 
Title  of  the  law:  Consumer  Rights  Protection  Law  [Patērētāju  tiesību 
aizsardzības likums] 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 18.03.1999 
Latest amendments: 18.06.2015 
Entry into force: 15.04.1999 
Web link: http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=23309  
Grounds covered: Gender, race, ethnic origin, disability 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: Civil 
Material scope: Access to goods and services 
Principal content: prohibit discrimination in access to goods and services; 
prohibition  and  definition  of  direct/indirect  discrimination,  instruction  to 
discriminate, victimization and harassment 
Title of the law: the Law on Ombudsman [Tiesībsarga likums] 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 06.04.2006 
Latest amendments: 25.09.2014 
Entry into force: 01.01.2007 
Web link: http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=133535  
Grounds covered: Not specified 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: administrative 
Material  scope:  legal  status,  functions  and  tasks  of  the  Ombudsman,  as 
well  as  the  procedures  by  which  the  Ombudsman  shall  perform  the 
functions and tasks specified by the Law 
Principal content: Entrusts the ombudsman with promotion of observation 
of  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  and  elimination  of  all  kinds  of 
discrimination 
Title  of  the  law:  Law  on  Organisations  and  Foundations  [Biedrību  un 
nodibinājumu likums] 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 30.10.2003 
Latest amendments: 23.01.2014 
Entry into force: 01.04.2004 

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)   

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)   

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)   

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)   

100 

 
Web link: http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=81050  
Grounds covered: Not specified 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: Civil 
Material  scope:  principles  for  the  activity,  organisational  structure, 
liquidation and re-organisation of associations and foundations 
Principal  content:  Right  on  behalf  of  the  victim  to  turn  to  the  state 
institutions and courts in order to protect the rights and legal interests of 
the person in cases related to the violation of the prohibition of differential 
treatment 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: TABLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS 

Country:  
Date:   

Latvia 
1 January 2017 

Instrumen
t 

European 
Convention 
on Human 
Rights 
(ECHR) 
Protocol 
12, ECHR 

Revised 
European 
Social 
Charter 

Internation
al Covenant 
on Civil and 
Political 
Rights 
Framework 
Convention 
for the 
Protection 
of National 
Minorities 
Internation
al Covenant 
on 
Economic, 
Social and 
Cultural 
Rights 
Convention 
on the 
Elimination 
of All Forms 
of Racial 
Discrimina-
tion 
Convention 
on the 
Elimination 
of 
Discrimina-

Date of 
signature  
(if not 
signed 
please 
indicate) 
Dd/mm/ 
yyyy 

10.02.1995 

Date of 
ratificatio
n  
(if not 
ratified 
please 
indicate) 
Dd/mm/ 
yyyy 
27.06.1997 

Derogations
/ 
reservations 
relevant to 
equality and 
non-
discriminatio
n 

Right of 
individual 
petition 
accepted? 

Can this 
instrument 
be directly 
relied upon 
in domestic 
courts by 
individuals? 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

4.11.2000 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

29.05.2007 

26.03.2013 

Article 12 para 
4 

N/A 

14.04.1992 

No 

Ratified 
collective 
complaints 
protocol? 
No 
Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

11.05.1995 

06.06.2005 

No, but 
definition of 
minority 

N/A 

Yes 

N/A 

No 

14.04.1992 
(27.01. 
1992 – ILO 
database) 

Yes 

N/A 

14.04.1992 

No 

No 

Yes 

N/A 

14.04.1992 

No 

No 

Yes 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Instrumen
t 

tion Against 
Women 

ILO 
Convention 
No. 111 on 
Discriminati
on 
Convention 
on the 
Rights of 
the Child 
Convention 
on the 
Rights of 
Persons 
with 
Disabilities  

Date of 
signature  
(if not 
signed 
please 
indicate) 
Dd/mm/ 
yyyy 

Date of 
ratificatio
n  
(if not 
ratified 
please 
indicate) 
Dd/mm/ 
yyyy 

Derogations
/ 
reservations 
relevant to 
equality and 
non-
discriminatio
n 

Right of 
individual 
petition 
accepted? 

Can this 
instrument 
be directly 
relied upon 
in domestic 
courts by 
individuals? 

N/A 

N/A 

14.04.1992  No 

Yes 

Yes 

18.06.2008 
Optional 
protocol 
signed 
22.10.2010 

01.03.2010 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Ratified 
31.08.2010 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu)  

 
 
 
 
 
 
D
S
-
0
4
-
1
7
-
4
6
3
-
3
A
-
N

ISBN: 978-92-79-68849-2 

doi:10.2838/09809