COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Latvia Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2020 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Latvia, administrative transparency, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.9.2020  SWD(2020) 313 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Latvia Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  2020 Rule of Law Report      The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2020) 580 final} - {SWD(2020) 300 final} - {SWD(2020) 301 final} - {SWD(2020) 302 final} - {SWD(2020) 303 final} - {SWD(2020) 304 final} - {SWD(2020) 305 final} - {SWD(2020) 306 final} - {SWD(2020) 307 final} - {SWD(2020) 308 final} - {SWD(2020) 309 final} - {SWD(2020) 310 final} - {SWD(2020) 311 final} - {SWD(2020) 312 final} - {SWD(2020) 314 final} - {SWD(2020) 315 final} - {SWD(2020) 316 final} - {SWD(2020) 317 final} - {SWD(2020) 318 final} - {SWD(2020) 319 final} - {SWD(2020) 320 final} - {SWD(2020) 321 final} - {SWD(2020) 322 final} - {SWD(2020) 323 final} - {SWD(2020) 324 final} - {SWD(2020) 325 final} - {SWD(2020) 326 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The  Latvian  justice  system  has  been  continuously  improving  its  quality  and  efficiency, 
notably  through  a  number  of  measures,  among  them  training  and  consecutive  judicial  map 
reforms. The Information and Communication System in courts and the Prosecution Office is 
at an advanced level and is being further developed. The independence of the justice system 
has  been  strengthened  by  reinforcing  the  role  of  the  judiciary  in  the  selection  of  candidate 
judges  and  the  Prosecutor  General,  as  well  as  in  the  appointment  of  court  presidents. 
However,  despite  gaining  new  powers,  the  Council  for  the  Judiciary  is  experiencing  a 
shortage  of  human  resources,  which  could  impede  the  exercise  of  its  new  powers. 
Discussions  are  ongoing  on  appropriate  ways  to  increase  the  effectiveness  of  handling 
financial  crime  cases.  The  establishment  of  a  separate  Court  of  Economic  Cases  and  the 
possible  improvements  in  quality  and  efficiency  it  would  bring  in  this  area,  have  been 
questioned  by  the  judiciary  and  the  Council  for  the  Judiciary  is  examining  this  issue.  The 
removal of immunity of judges concerning administrative offences and the unified register of 
the 
justice  system  will  contribute 
complaints  regarding 
accountability.  

to  further 

improving 

the 

In  recent  years,  Latvia  has  adopted  several  legislative  reforms  aimed  at  strengthening  the 
efficiency  of  the  anti-corruption  framework.  The  criminal  legislation  has  been  amended  to 
align  the  offences  of  abuse  of  office,  bribery  and  trading  in  influence  with  international 
standards. The adoption of the Whistleblowing Law for the first time provides a holistic basis 
for  the  protection  of  whistleblowers.  The  capacity  to  investigate  corruption  cases  has 
improved.  However,  challenges  remain  regarding  the  prosecution  of  corruption  cases  and 
their  adjudication  in  courts,  where  proceedings  often  remain  lengthy.  Work  is  ongoing  on 
legislation to improve the transparency of lobbying and  to strengthen the regime to prevent 
conflict of interests. 

The  Latvian  Constitution  guarantees  freedom  of  speech  and  information  and  prohibits 
censorship.  The  Law  on  the  Press  and  Other  Mass  Media  prohibits  monopolisation  of  the 
press  and  other  mass  media.  In  recent  years,  questions  have  been  raised  on  the  effective 
independence of the National Electronic Mass Media Council. The draft law transposing the 
revised  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive  aims 
the  authority’s 
independence by providing that the Council shall not seek or take instructions from any other 
body.  The  main  risk  for  media  pluralism  comes  from  the  high  concentration  of  the  media 
market.  A  comprehensive  framework  for  the  protection  of  journalists  is  in  place,  although 
journalists  increasingly  face  insults  and  other  verbal  attacks,  especially  in  the  online 
environment.   

to  strengthen 

The system of checks and balances is supported, among others, by an Ombudsman’s Office, 
who  acts  also  as  an  Equality  Body,  and  by  constitutional  review  before  the  Constitutional 
Court, including on the basis of an individual constitutional complaint. In addition, sittings of 
the  Cabinet  of  Ministers  are  open,  which  includes  the  possibility  for  media  and  non-
governmental  organisations  to  participate  in  such  meetings.  Furthermore,  the  Constitution 
provides  that  only  a  two-thirds  majority  of  the  Parliament  can  determine  that  a  law  is 
“urgent”.  New  ‘Guidelines  for  Cohesive  and  Active  Civil  Society  2021-2027’  are  in 
preparation in consultation with stakeholders. 

1 

 
 
I.  JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The Latvian justice system has three tiers. At first instance, there are nine district (city) courts 
dealing  with  civil  and  criminal  cases,  and  one  district  administrative  court.  At  second 
instance,  five  regional  courts  are  dealing  with  civil  and  commercial  cases  and  there  is  one 
regional administrative court. The Supreme Court, at third instance, is handling criminal, civil 
and  administrative  cases.  An  independent  Council  for  the  Judiciary  is  tasked  with 
participating  in  the  development  of  policies  and  strategies  for  the  judicial  system  and  the 
improvement  of  its  organisation.  Furthermore,  the  Council  deals  with  selecting  candidate 
judges,  appointing  and  dismissing  court  presidents,  determining  the  judicial  map  and 
approving the content of training. Candidate judges are selected through an open competition 
organised  by  the  Council  for  the  Judiciary,  ranked  and  placed  on  a  list,  from  which  the 
Minister  for  Justice  proposes  the  candidate  with  the  highest  number  of  points  to  the 
Parliament (Saeima) for appointment. After three years and an evaluation by a judicial body, 
judges are appointed for an indefinite term by the Parliament on a proposal from the Minister 
for Justice. The Prosecution Office is an independent judicial institution under the authority 
of the Prosecutor General. The Latvian Council of Lawyers is an independent, self-governing 
professional organisation.   

Independence 

After  having  been  granted  additional  powers  with  a  view  to  strengthening  judicial 
independence,  the  Council  for  the  Judiciary  adopted  a  new  procedure  for  selecting 
candidate judges. In 2018, amendments to the Law on the Judicial Power entered into force, 
transferring a number of competences from the executive and the legislature to the Council 
for the Judiciary. This concerned, notably, the powers to appoint court presidents (previously 
by  the  Minister  for  Justice),  to  transfer  a  judge  (previously  by  the  Parliament),  to  approve 
judicial  training  (previously  by  the  Court  Administration,  a  body  under  the  Ministry  for 
Justice),  and  to  determine  the  procedure  for  selecting  candidate  judges  (previously  by  the 
Cabinet of Ministers).1 In April 2020, the Council developed and approved a new procedure 
for the selection of candidate-judges of district (city) and regional courts.2 Candidate judges 
are  selected  through  an  open  competition  organised  by  a  commission  established  by  the 
Council for three years, which is composed of three senators (Supreme Court judges), three 
judges of regional courts, and three judges of district (city) courts. The selection of candidate 
judges  takes  place  in  five  rounds.3  According  to  the  new  procedure,  an  applicant  who 
successfully passes the selection is included by the Council for the Judiciary on a ranked list 
of candidates for the position of a judge for three years. In case of a vacancy, the position of a 
judge is offered to the candidate with the highest number of points. It should be noted that the 

1   This reform follows a GRECO recommendation vii to “[strengthen] the decisive influence of the  relevant  
self-governing  judicial  bodies  (e.g.  the  Judicial  Council  and  Judicial  Qualification  Committee)  in  the 
appointment,  reappointment  and  career  progression  of  the  judiciary;  and  (ii)  reconsidering    the  scope    of 
powers  held  by  the Parliament in  this  area,  notably,  by restricting  it  to  the  confirmation  of  judicial  
appointments  as  recommended  by the relevant judicial bodies, with a view to better dispelling the risks of 
political influence.” See GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round preventing corruption in respect of members of 
parliament, judges and prosecutors – Evaluation report and compliance reports. 

2   Procedure became applicable as of June 2020, when the amendments to the Law on Judicial Power entered 

into force. 

3   1)  evaluation  of  the  applications  according  to  conditions  specified  in  the  Law  on  Judicial  Power,  2) 
evaluation  of  replies  to  questions  with  focus  on  applicant's  reasoned  motivation,  3)  test  of  professional 
knowledge, 4) written solution to a legal issue (casus) and an oral defense of the solution, 5) competency-
based interview, assessing applicant's personal and social competencies. Council for the Judiciary of Latvia 
(2020), The new procedure for selection of judges is approved. 

2 

 
 
                                                 
Minister  for  Justice  then  nominates  the  candidate  judge  to  the  Parliament  for  election  into 
office. After a judge of a district (city) court has held office for three years, the Parliament, 
upon  a  proposal  of  the  Minister  for  Justice,  and  on  the  basis  of  the  assessment  of  the 
professional work of the judge by the Judicial Qualification Committee,4 confirms him or her 
in  office  for  an  unlimited  term,  or  re-appoints  him  or  her  for  an  additional  probationary 
period of up to two years. In practice, the Parliament follows either a positive or a negative 
assessment of the Judicial Qualification Committee. Re-appointments for an additional two-
year  period  are  rare,  as  well  are  any  questions  from  members  of  the  Parliament  about 
candidate judges. If, according to the assessment of the Judicial Qualification Committee, the 
work of a judge during the three-year period is unsatisfactory, the Minister for Justice does 
not nominate the candidate for re-appointment. The new procedure increases the judges’ role 
in  selecting  new  judges,  which  is  consistent  with  Council  of  Europe  recommendations.5 
While the decision of the Parliament on non-appointment of the candidate judge for a limited 
or  unlimited  term  cannot  be  challenged  before  a  court,  all  decisions  of  the  Judicial 
Qualification Committee related to  judicial career may be  reviewed before the Disciplinary 
Court  (a  chamber  of  the  Supreme  Court).6  It  should  also  be  noted  that,  while  there  is  no 
possibility  of  judicial  review  against  the  decision  of  the  Parliament  on  the  dismissal  of 
judges,  both  the  disciplinary  decisions  of  the  Judicial  Disciplinary  Committee7  and  the 
decisions  of  the  Council  for  the  Judiciary8  are  subject  to  judicial  review  before  the 
Disciplinary Court.9  

The  role  of  the  judiciary  in  selecting  the  candidate  for  Prosecutor  General  has  been 
reinforced. In March 2020, amendments to the Laws on Judicial Power and the Office of the 
Prosecutor  entered  into  force,  which  changed  the  procedure  for  selecting  the  candidate  for 
Prosecutor  General.  The  Prosecutor  General  is  now  appointed  by  the  Parliament  on  the 
proposal of the Council for the Judiciary,10 which also determines the procedure and criteria 
for  the  evaluation  of  candidates  who  applied  in  an  open  competition.11  In  June  2020,  the 
Council first exercised its new power to evaluate and select a candidate Prosecutor General 
who was later appointed by the Parliament.12    

The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  is  average.  The  level  of  perceived  judicial 
independence among the general public is average (45% fairly and very good) and remained 

4   A  judicial  body  composed  of  nine  judges,  three  from  each  court  instance,  elected  for  four  years  at  the 

Judges’ Conference. 

5   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 47. See also, 
as  regards  the  process  of  judicial  appointments  from  the  perspective  of  judges’  independence  and 
impartiality, Joined Cases C‑ 585/18, C‑ 624/18 and C‑ 625/18, A.K., paras 124-125 and 133-134; Case C-
272/19, Land Hessen, paras 54-60. 

6    Decisions  of  the  Minister  for  Justice,  including  those  regarding  a  proposal  for  appointment  by  the 
Parliament, can be challenged before the Administrative Court. To be noted that in practice, there have only 
been very few cases where a candidate judge would not be appointed. 2018 EU Justice Scoreboard, p. 46. 
7   A  judicial  body  composed  of  eleven  judges  from  all  three  court  instances,  elected  for  four  years  at  the 
Judges’ Conference. To be noted that Latvia is among the few Member States where judges are dismissed by 
the Parliament. See Figure 64, 2018 EU Justice Scoreboard.  

8    When a judge repeatedly received an unfavourable opinion in the assessment of professional work. 
9   If a judge has been convicted and the judgment of the court has entered into legal effect, the judge shall be 

also dismissed from office by the Parliament, upon a proposal of the Minister for Justice. 

10   Previously, the right to propose the Prosecutor General was with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 
11   Council  for  the  Judiciary  of  Latvia  (2020),  The  selection  of  candidates  for  the  position  of  the  Prosecutor 

General will henceforth be the responsibility of the Judicial Council. 

12   Council for the Judiciary of Latvia (2020), The Judicial Council will evaluate the candidates for the position 

of Prosecutor General. 

3 

 
 
                                                 
stable. Among companies it was found to be average as well (47%), whilst having decreased 
after previous positive trends.13 

The  immunity  of  judges  and  prosecutors  concerning  administrative  offences  has  been 
removed. In June 2020, amendments to the Judicial Disciplinary Liability Law, to the Law 
on Judicial Power and to the Law on the Prosecutor's Office removed the immunity of judges 
and  prosecutors  in  cases  of  administrative  offences  (violations),  in  line  with  a  GRECO 
recommendation.14  The  Council  for  the  Judiciary  supported  the  removal  of  this  type  of 
immunity  for  judges  provided  that  the  amendments  to  the  Law  on  Administrative  Liability 
exclude administrative arrest as a form of punishment.15 Simultaneously to the amendments 
to  the  Judicial  Disciplinary  Liability  Law,  it  is  provided  that  judges  may  incur  disciplinary 
liability if they commit an administrative offence that grossly violates the norms of the Code 
of Judicial Ethics or is disrespectful to the status of a judge. This amendment made it possible 
for  an  administrative  offence  to  lead,  under  certain  conditions,  to  disciplinary  proceedings 
before the Judicial Disciplinary Committee.  

Quality 

The  introduction  of  a  Unified  Complaints  Register  aims  at  grouping  all  complaints 
concerning the justice system. This portal, which is managed by the Court Administration, 
stores information about complaints regardless of which institution received and reviewed the 
complaint – the Ministry for Justice, district (city) court, regional court or the Supreme Court. 
The register contains information about the complaint and the reply that was given to it, as 
well  as  a  summary  of  the  result  of  the  complaint  (justified  or  not).  The  information  is  also 
shared  with  the  Judicial  Qualification  Committee,  as  one  of  several  sources  used  by  this 
judicial body in the regular evaluation of judges.  

The  Council  for  the  Judiciary  has  gained  new  powers  regarding  the  career  of  judges 
and management of the judiciary, but operates with limited resources. The Council for 
the  Judiciary  faces  capacity  constraints  in  its  efforts  to  improve  the  quality  of  the  justice 
system due to a lack of staff (only about four employees), and is  among the least  equipped 
councils in the EU.16 This is exacerbated by the fact that the Council gained a number of new 
powers regarding the career of judges and organisational aspects of the justice system without 
receiving  sufficient  additional  human  resources.17  The  Court  Administration,  a  body  of 
almost  one  hundred  employees  tasked  with  administering  the  courts,  remains  under  the 
authority  and  control  of  the  Ministry  for  Justice.  The  Court  Administration  responds  to 
requests from the Council for the Judiciary regarding the career of judges, but is not obliged 

13   Figure 47, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. To be noted that a survey conducted among judges in 2019 found 
that more than 40% of them had experienced a lack of respect for their independence by the Government and 
the  media.  European  Network  of  Councils  for  the  Judiciary,  Independence  and  Accountability  of  the 
Judiciary  –  ENCJ  (2020)  Survey  on  the  independence  of  judges,  2019,  Figures  43  and  45.  The  survey 
covered 21 EU Member States. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised as follows: very 
low (below 30% of respondents perceive judicial independence as fairly good and very good); low (between 
30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

14   GRECO  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  preventing  corruption  in  respect  of  members  of  parliament,  judges  and 
x.  

recommendation 

Compliance 

Reports, 

report 

and 

prosecutors 
The amendments entered into force in July 2020. 

Evaluation 

– 

15   Council for the Judiciary of Latvia (2020), The administrative immunity of judges is waived. 
16   For  a  comparative  perspective  of  resources  of  Councils  for  the  Judiciary,  see  contribution  from  European 

Network of Councils for the Judiciary for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, p. 9. 

17   See above, the section on Independence for details on these new powers. 

4 

 
 
                                                 
to respond to other requests of the Council, e.g. concerning data on effects of the judicial map 
reform. 

While legislation was adopted to create a new specialised court, discussions are ongoing 
on the appropriate ways to increase the quality and efficiency of handling economic and 
financial  crime  cases.  In  June  2020,  the  Parliament  adopted  amendments  to  the  Law  on 
Judicial  Power,  creating  a  special  court  in  Riga  for  economic  and  financial  crimes,  among 
others also to adress often lengthy court cases.18 This court would be staffed with up to ten 
judges,19 which would have jurisdiction over a limited number of areas  (e.g. criminal cases 
involving  money  laundering  offences  and  corruption  committed  by  public  officials,  and 
certain commercial cases). However, this reform proved controversial, as the Council for the 
Judiciary issued two opinions against establishing a separate ‘economic court’, stating there 
is no evidence that it would bring improvements in quality and efficiency. In their opinion, a 
reform of the criminal procedure, as well as specialisation of judges within the existing courts 
(notably in cases of economic and financial crime) would be a more suitable solution.20 The 
Council for the Judiciary is also conducting its own analysis of the situation concerning the 
handling  of  economic  and  financial  crime  court  cases,  including  regarding  lengthy 
proceedings.  The  State  Audit  Office  has  launched  an  audit  of  the  factors  affecting  the 
effective investigation and adjudication of criminal cases for economic and financial offences 
and it will cover a two-year period.   

Legal  aid  in  civil  cases  has been  increased.  Amendments  to  the State Ensured  Legal  Aid 
Law that came into force in January 2019 stipulate that persons are entitled to free legal aid in 
certain  types  of  cases  indicated  in  the  Civil  Procedure  Law,  if  the  income  of  such  persons 
does  not  exceed  the  minimum  monthly  salary  specified  in  Latvia.  These  amendments 
increased the availability of legal aid.21  

The Information and Communication System in courts and the Prosecution Office is at 
an advanced level and is being further developed through the introduction of an e-Case 
Management  System.  The  Latvian  justice  system  is  among  the  most  advanced  in  the  EU 
with  regard  to  ICT  for  case  management  and  court  activity  statistics,  communication  with 
court  parties,  online  publication  of  judgments.  Moreover,  the  published  judgments  are  the 
most machine-readable in the EU.22 In order to evaluate and measure the work of the courts, 
the Court Administration is using a business intelligence platform and processes data, among 

18   See more below in the section on Efficiency.  
19   The plan is to establish the new court in 2021. 
20   Council for the Judiciary of Latvia (2019), The Council for the Judiciary does not support the establishment 

of a specialised economic court in Latvia. 

  Council for the Judiciary of Latvia (2019), The Council for the Judiciary repeatedly rejects the establishment 
Court. 
of 
It should be noted that the Parliament is discussing amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law, which aim 
to  enhance  the  effectiveness  of  the  criminal  proceedings,  among  others,  by  enhancing  the  involvement  of 
defence  lawyers  and  allowing  as  evidence  undisputed  facts  from  preliminary  investigation,  which  would 
focus the court hearing on main disputed facts. 

Economic 

the 

21   For a situation involving a specific consumer case, compare Figure 26 in the 2018 EU Justice Scoreboard to 
later data in Figure 21 of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard, and Figure 23 in the 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
To  be  noted  that  Latvia  received  support  from  the  European  Commission  Structural  Reform  Support 
Programme to improve the quality of its justice system. Since 2019, support has been provided to Latvia to 
strengthen  the  access  to  justice  and  to  improve  the  internal  procedures  of  the  court  administrations.  The 
project has three components: 1) improving the use of mediation; 2) improving the implementation of state 
ensured legal aid and 3) improving of the quality of court management. 

22   Figures 40, 27, 28 and 29, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
others  from  the  Court  Information  System,  the  State  Unified  Computerized  Land  Register, 
and the resource management system (financial and personnel data). The Court Information 
System is used as a record-keeping system of court work, storing a wide range of information 
related  to  the  progress  of  a  case  in  a  structured  way.  In  2019,  the  development  of  a 
comparative workload model  started. This  model is  based on court budget  data, in  order to 
link  it  to  indicators  characterising  court  work.  The  project  to  introduce  an  e-Case 
Management System is on-going, with the first phase to include the investigation and judicial 
process, and the full implementation planned for 2023. The aim of the project is to modernise 
the  recording  of  procedural  actions  and  the  digitalisation  of  record-keeping.  This  will 
facilitate  the  work  of  law  enforcement,  the  Prosecution  Office  and  the  courts,  as  well  as 
provide easier access for the participants to the case file.  

Efficiency 

The justice system is not facing particular efficiency challenges in civil and commercial 
cases.  However,  cases  concerning  economic  and  financial  offences  sometimes  remain 
lengthy. The length of court proceedings in civil, commercial and administrative cases is at 
average or shorter than average level (measured in disposition time). Pending cases are often 
among  the  lowest  in  the  EU.23  In  those  type  of  cases,  the  clearance  rate  is  above  100%, 
meaning  that  courts  are  able  to  cope  with  incoming  cases.24  However,  some  challenges 
remain  in  court  cases  concerning  economic  and  financial  offences,  particularly  those 
involving  money  laundering  and  corruption,  despite  some  recent  improvements.25  The  long 
adjudication  of  complex  corruption  cases  remains  a  challenge  in  Latvia’s  anti-corruption 
efforts.  Illustrative cases are the court proceedings against the mayor of Ventspils, which is 
pending  with  the  court  since  2008,  and  the  alleged  fraud  in  the  introduction  of  digital 
television in Latvia, which has been before various court instances since 2007.  

II.  ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The legislative and institutional framework to prevent and prosecute corruption is broadly in 
place.  Latvia  adopted  Guidelines  for  the  Corruption  Prevention  and  Combating  for  2015-
2020. The implementation of the Guidelines is monitored by the Corruption Prevention and 
Combating  Bureau  (KNAB),  a  specialised  body  competent  for  the  investigation  of 
corruption-related  offences  and  preventing  corruption.  The  General  Prosecutor’s  Office 
supervises pre-trial investigations of corruption-related offences conducted by KNAB. Other 
institutions  with  anti-corruption  competences  are:  the  State  Police,  which  investigates 
corruption in private institutions and fraud, the Internal Security Bureau, which investigates 
criminal offences within State Police and State Fire and Rescue Service, the State Revenue 
Service  and  the  State  Border  Guard,  which  investigates  corruption  within  the  State  Border 
Guard  itself.  A  law  on  whistleblowers  protection  is  in  place.  Assets  disclosure  for  public 
officials are regulated by law and its monitoring is shared by different authorities. 

Latvia  scores  56/100  on the Transparency International  Corruption  Perceptions index 
in 2020, ranking it 13th in the EU and 44th globally.26 84% of Latvian respondents to the 

23   Figures 4 – 15, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
24   To  also  be  noted  that  several  consecutive  reforms  of  the  judicial  map,  which  reduced  the  number  of  first 
instance courts from 35 to 26 and (since March 2018) to 10 district courts, helped to balance the workload of 
judges  in  different  courts,  particularly  in  cities  compared  to  the  countryside,  and  contributed  to  imroved 
efficiency. 

25   Figure 21, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
26   Transparency International (2020), 2019 Corruption Perceptions Index.  

6 

 
 
                                                 
latest Eurobarometer survey on corruption think that corruption is widespread in their country 
(EU average 71%) and 19% of respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions 
to  deter  people  from  corrupt  practices  (EU  average  36%),  while  18%  of  people  feel 
personally affected by corruption in their daily lives (EU average 26%).27 Furthermore, 77% 
of companies consider corruption to be widespread (EU average 63%) and 17% of companies 
believe  that  people  and  businesses  caught  for  bribing  a  senior  official  are  appropriately 
punished (EU average 31%), while 19% of companies consider that corruption is a problem 
when doing business (EU average 37%).28 

The  legislation  on  criminalisation  of  corruption  and  related  offences  was  amended  to 
align the offences of abuse of office, bribery and trading in influence with international 
standards.  On  6  June  2019,  the  Parliament  amended  the  Criminal  Law  to  amend  the 
definitions  of  several  offences  of  the  abuse  of  office,  bribery  and  trading  in  influence.  The 
new  definitions  of  bribery  and  trading  in  influence  eliminating  certain  restrictions  to  the 
scope  of  deeds  falling  under  the  definition  of  these  offences.29  The  implementation  of  the 
Guidelines  for  the  Corruption  Prevention  and  Combating  for  2015-2020  is  ongoing.  The 
Guidelines include an action plan built around 15 specific measures.  

The  fight  against  corruption  is  shared  among  several  law  enforcement  bodies.  The 
Corruption Prevention and Fighting Bureau (KNAB) is the specialised anti-corruption body, 
operational  since  February  2003.  Its  mandate  includes  competencies  both  as  regards  the 
prevention  of  corruption  and  investigation  of  corruption-related  offences.  KNAB  is 
furthermore in charge of monitoring and reporting the implementation of the Guidelines for 
the Corruption Prevention and Combating. In 2019, KNAB has started criminal proceedings 
and conducted high-profile investigations in vulnerable sectors such as public procurement at 
municipal level  or cartels in  the construction  industry (in cooperation with  the Competition 
Council). 2019 results showed an increase in the number of initiated criminal proceedings by 
24% in comparison with the previous year. 47 criminal proceedings were initiated, which is 
the  highest  number  in  the  last  ten  years.  The  Government’s  latest  Action  Plan  for  the 
prevention and the fight against corruption foresees to strengthen KNAB’s capacity in terms 
of human and material resources by increasing the Bureau’s budget and number of positions 
by 23% (35 additional positions). However, so far, this measure has not been implemented.30 
Stakeholders raised concerns about the lack of resources and expertise in KNAB.  

27   Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020). 
28   Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019).  
29   Grozījumi Krimināllikumā (amendments of the Criminal Law), 6 June 2019. 
30   In 2020, two permanent positions were added in KNAB, bringing the total number of staff to 152.  

7 

 
 
                                                 
As  regards  the  investigation  and  prosecution  of  corruption,  KNAB  cooperates  with  the 
Prosecutor’s  Office.  The  General  Prosecutor’s  Office  supervises  pre-trial  investigations  on 
corruption  related  offences,  and  has  also  the  capacity  to  initiate  and  conduct  pre-trial 
investigations  thereon.  The  ordinance  of  the  Prosecutor  General  of  8  November  2019  has 
established  a  performance  and  reward  mechanism  to  providing  incentives  for  prosecutors 
specialising  in  financial  and  economic  crime.31  Other  institutions  with  anti-corruption 
competences are the the State Police investigating corruption in private institutions and fraud, 
and  the  Internal  Security  Bureau,  which  carries  out  pre-trial  investigation  and  operational 
activities. The Internal Security Bureau’s function is to detect, prevent and investigate crimes, 
which  are  committed  by  the  officials  and  employees  of  the  subordinate  institutions  of  the 
Ministry  of  the  Interior  such  as  the  State  Police  and  State  Fire  and  Rescue  Service.32  The 
Internal Security Board of the State Revenue Service is responsible for preventing, detecting 
and  investigating  criminal  offenses  in  the  activities  of  civil  servants  and  employees  of  the 
State Revenue Service.   

An  asset  disclosure  system  for  public  officials  and  members  of  Parliament  is  in  place. 
Asset declarations are verified by both State Revenue Service (SRS) and KNAB. However, 
while  KNAB  uses  the  declarations  as  a  tool  to  identify  possible  conflicts  of  interest  and 
compliance with the restrictions prescribed by the Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interests, 
the  SRS  checks  whether  public  officials  have  correctly  declared  their  property  status. 
Approximately  68  000  asset  and  interest  declarations  are  submitted  annually  by  all  public 
officials in Latvia. Relying on a risk-based approach, in 2018, KNAB assessed a total of 878 
declarations and found irregularities in more than one third of the verified declarations.33 Not 
all persons with top executive functions undergo regular in-depth checks. The extent to which 
the new amendments to the law– by virtue of which the SRS is now obliged to compare the 
information  included  in  the  declarations  with  other  information  at  its  disposal  -  will  in 
practice  increase  the  thoroughness  of  controls  of  top  officials  declarations  remains  to  be 
established.34 

A new law established mechanisms for whistleblowing in public institutions and private 
entities  with  more  than  fifty  employees.35  These  mechanisms  (internal,  turning  to  a 
competent authority or through intermediation of the contact point of whistleblowers) aim to 
shield the whistleblowers’ identity and protect them against possible adverse effects. KNAB 
also  offers  options  for  the  public  to  report  corruption.36  In  2019  (starting  1  May,  when  the 
Whistleblower Law entered into force), KNAB received 51 whistleblower reports, of which 
18  were  recognised  as  whistleblower  reports,  and  13  were  redirected  to  other  institutions 
according to competence.  

Work  is  ongoing  on  legislation  to  improve  the  transparency  of  lobbying  and  to 
strengthen the regime to prevent conflict of interests.  In 2020, the working group for the 

31   OECD  Working  Group  on  Bribery  recommends  Latvia  take  further  steps  to  significantly  increase  the 
number  of  convicted  offenders  of  money  laundering,  while  stressing  the  need  to  assess  the  possible 
involvement of financial institutions and their officials in money laundering schemes. OECD, Implementing 
the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, Phase 3 Report: Latvia. 

32   The State Border Guard investigates its own officials regarding corruption. 
33   European Commission, 2020 Country Report for Latvia, 26.2.2020, SWD(2020) 513 final.         
34   GRECO  Fifth  evaluation  round  –  evaluation  round  on  preventing  corruption  and  promoting  integrity  in 

central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies, p. 27.  

35   The Whistleblowing Law entered into force in May 2019.  
36   This  includes  anonymous  and  signed  submissions  in  writing  by  mail  or  e-mail,  anonymous  and  identified 
phone calls (a hotline and office line), meetings with investigators in person as well as a mobile application.  

8 

 
 
                                                 
elaboration  of  a  lobbying  transparency  law,  set  up  in  the  Parliament  in  October  2019, 
working on a draft law. In October 2019, the Parliament has amended the Law on Prevention 
of Conflict of Interest in Actions of Public Officials, among others, to prohibit members of 
Parliament,  members  of  Government,  and  parliamentary  secretaries  from  receiving 
remuneration for positions that they hold in associations, foundations and social enterprises. 
The  amendment  addresses  concerns  regarding  certain  officials  who  were  paid  by 
organisations engaging in policy advocacy and lobbying, hence could be regarded as having 
conflicts  of interest.  Several  amendments  of the  law remain pending in  the  Parliament.37  In 
2019, KNAB made 151 decisions regarding non-compliance with the Law on Prevention of 
Conflict of Interest in Actions of Public Officials.  

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM 

In  Latvia,  the  legal  framework  regulating  media  pluralism  is  based  on  constitutional 
safeguards  and  sectoral  legislation.  The  Constitution  guarantees  freedom  of  speech  and 
information  and  prohibits  censorship.  The  Electronic  Mass  Media  Law  (EMML)  ensures 
freedom of expression within its scope and general access to socially significant information. 
The  Law  on  the  Press  and  Other  Mass  Media  establishes  the  right  for  the  press  to  access 
information  from  the  state  and  from  public  organisations.  Furthermore,  the  law  prohibits 
censorship  and  monopolisation  of  the  press  and  other  mass  media.  Access  to  public 
information is also guaranteed by the Freedom of Information Law, which obliges state and 
other  institutions  fulfilling  administrative  functions  to  provide  information  on  their  own 
initiative or upon the request of a private person. The Latvian media regulatory authority, the 
National  Electronic  Mass  Media  Council  (NEMMC),  supervises  the  compliance  of  the 
activities  of  media  service  providers  with  the  Constitution,  the  EMML  and  other  relevant 
legislation.38 

Legislative amendments aim to strengthen the independence of the National Electronic 
Mass  Media  Council.  NEMMC  is  an  independent  body  regulated  by  the  Electronic  Mass 
Media  Law,  which  sets  out  its  competences,  composition  and  duties.  The  members  of  the 
Council  are  elected  by  the  Parliament  and  are  nominated  by  the  Commission  on  Human 
Rights  and  Public  Affairs  following  consultation  with  professional  associations  and  NGOs 
active in the field of mass media, education, culture, science and human rights. The EMML 
explicitly  states  that  the  Council  is  an  independent  institution  ‘enjoying  full  rights’.39  The 
latest  edition  of  the  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  (MPM  2020),40  has  reported  a  medium  risk 
with regard to the independence and effectiveness of the Latvian media regulatory authority. 
This assessment is due to a discrepancy between the independence of the NEMMC set out in 
media  regulation  and  the  perceived  political  influence  on  its  decisions  potentially  affecting 
the  work  of  this  institution.41  The  draft  law  transposing  the  revised  Audiovisual  Media 

37   On 13 December 2018, the Parliament has approved other amendments of the same law in the first reading. 
If  adopted,  the  law  would,  inter  alia,  allow  managers  of  public  institutions  to  permit  certain  categories  of 
public officials of their institutions to combine the public positions with outside work, without requesting a 
permission  on  a  case-by-case  basis,  and  oblige  certain  categories  of  public  officials  to  submit  their 
declarations only when the manager of the institution establishes such a duty. 

38   Between 2019 and 2020 Latvia climbed two places in the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom 

Index, now registering at 22nd position worldwide. Reporters without Borders, Latvia. 

39   Section 57 of the EMML.  
40   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor. 
41   According to Media Pluralism Monitor 2020, members of the parliament-elected media authority since 2017 
have been involved in a number of professional scandals, which resulted in  expressing mistrust in Latvia's 
media authority by PSM organisations’ representatives and the Association of Latvian Journalists. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Services Directive42 aims to address this through strengthening the authority’s independence, 
including  a  new  provision  which  stipulates  that  the  Council  “shall  not  seek  or  take 
instructions from any other body”.43  

The  legal  framework  for  media  ownership  transparency  is  in  place.  As  regards  the 
transparency  of  media  ownership,  the  law  requires  providing  information  on  the  existence 
and  change  of  beneficial  owners.  The  EMML  requires  new  audiovisual  service  providers, 
when  requesting  a  broadcasting  license,  to  provide  information  on  their  beneficial  owners. 
Existing service providers also  need to  submit  to the EMML information on any change of 
the  beneficial  owner.  In  addition,  the  Law  on  the  Press  and  other  Mass  Media  includes  a 
provision that obliges the founders and owners of mass media who are capital companies “to 
inform the Commercial Register Authority about their true beneficiaries when submitting an 
application  for  registration”.44  The  ownership  information  is  publicly  available  through  the 
website of the Register of Enterprises. Transparency of media ownership is important in view 
of  the  finding  of  MPM  2020,  confirmed  during  the  country  visit,  which  highlights  the 
concentration of news media ownership in Latvia, with few companies owning the majority 
of  news  media  outlets.45  In  July  2020,  the  NEMMC  prohibited  several  TV  stations  from 
operating in Latvia, as their beneficial owner was on the EU sanctions list.46 

Legal guarantees for the activities of journalists are in place. The right to information is 
enshrined  in  the  Latvian  Constitution,  and  the  Law  on  the  Press  and  Other  Mass  Media 
establishes the rights  of journalists “to  gather information  by  any method  not prohibited by 
law  and  from  any  source  of  information  not  prohibited  by  law”.47  The  MPM  2020  has 
assessed the  risk related to  the right  to  information as well  as to  guarantees for journalistic 
profession, standards and protection in Latvia as low. As confirmed during the country visit, 
access  to  the journalistic profession is  free and journalists do not  need to register or hold  a 
license.  Nevertheless,  in  Latvia  imprisonment  is  among  the  envisaged  sanctions  for 
defamation.48 

Latvia also has a comprehensive framework for the protection of journalists. There have 
been  no  physical  attacks  against  journalists  in  recent  years.  However,  as  reported  by  the 
MPM  2020  and  Reporters  without  Borders,  journalists  increasingly  face  insults  and  other 
verbal attacks, especially in the online environment. According to Reporters without Borders, 
politicians  or  political  communications  companies  often  attack  and  sue  journalists,  in 
particular around electoral periods.49 In 2019 and 2020, the Council of Europe’s Platform to 
promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  did  not  publish  any  alerts 
concerning Latvia. 

42   It should be recalled that the  revised  Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD)  sets out a range of 

specific guarantees for the independence and effectiveness of national media regulators.  

43   The draft law to amend the EMML in order to transpose the AVMSD was adopted by the Government on 21 

April 2020 and is in the Parliament. 
44   Law on the Press and Other Mass Media.  
45   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor. 
46   Implementing  Decision  2010/151/CFSP  of  the  Council  of  the  European  Union  of  21  March  2014,  and 
Council  Decision  (CFSP)  2020/399  of  13  March  2020  amending  Decision  2014/145/CFSP  concerning 
restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and 
independence of Ukraine. 

47   To be noted that in line with Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Recommendation, “Member 
States  should put in place a comprehensive legislative  framework that enables journalists and other  media 
actors to contribute to public debate effectively and without fear”. See para. 1, Recommendation 2016/4. 

48   Center for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom, Decriminalisation of Defamation.  
49   Reporters without Borders, Country profile: Latvia. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Latvia  has  a  unicameral,  parliamentary  system  of  government,  in  which  the  Constitutional 
Court can carry out ex-post constitutional review, including in concrete cases on the basis of 
a constitutional complaint. Draft laws may be submitted to the Parliament by the President, 
the Government, Parliamentary committees, at least five members of the Parliament or one-
tenth of the electorate. In addition to the justice system, also the Ombudsman’s Office and the 
civil society play a role in the system of checks and balances.  

The  Cabinet  of  Ministers  ensures  that  the  legislative  process  in  the  Government  is 
transparent.  The  functioning  and  operation  of  the  Cabinet  of  Ministers  (Cabinet)  is 
regulated by the Law on Cabinet Structure, which, among others, establishes a general  rule 
that sittings of the Cabinet shall be open. The agenda of each forthcoming Cabinet sitting is 
published on the Cabinet website and is accompanied by publicly available draft legal acts. 
The  minutes  of  sittings  are  also  publicly  available.  Representatives  of  the  media  and  non-
governmental organisations may participate in open meetings, and anyone can watch them on 
live stream.  However, the Prime Minister has  a right  to  derogate  from  the  general  rule and 
announce that a specific sitting or its part thereof shall be closed/shall be held behind closed 
doors. Regulatory impact assessment is required for all draft legal acts including subordinate 
regulations  submitted  to  the  Cabinet  and  consultation  with  stakeholders  is  structured  and 
follows  a  systematic  process.50  To  modernise  the  decision-making  process,  ensuring  more 
accessible participation to the public and a more efficient and rapid process of developing and 
harmonising  legislative  acts,  the  Latvian  Government  Single  Legislative  Act  Development 
and Harmonisation  Portal  has been launched, allowing anyone  to  follow  through the  whole 
life cycle of a legislative act. There has been an improvement in the inclusion of civil society 
in policy making. A new action plan for Open Government Partnership 2022-2025 is being 
developed  in  order  to  strengthen  citizen  participation.  The  CIVICUS  Monitor  downgraded 
the civic space in Latvia to ‘narrowed’ in 2018, but noted an improvement at the beginning of 
2019.51 The Ministry of Culture is working on the new Guidelines for Cohesive and Active 
Civil  Society  2021-2027  and  has  been  consulting  stakeholders  in  public  discussions  in  all 
regions of Latvia.52  

The Constitution entrusts the Parliament with the authority to determine that a law is 
“urgent”.  However,  such  a  decision  requires  a  two  thirds  majority  vote.  If  the  Parliament 
decides that a law is “urgent” the President of Latvia may not request reconsideration of the 
law, it may not be submitted to national referendum, and the adopted law shall be proclaimed 
no later than on the third day after the President has received it.53  

The constitutional review is carried out by the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional 
Court has a competence to  review the conformity of laws, international  agreements entered 
into  by  Latvia,  as  well  as  other  regulatory  enactments  with  the  Constitution.  If  a  person 
believes  that  a  law,  an  international  agreement  or  other  regulatory  enactment  breaches  the 
fundamental rights specified in the Constitution, the person has a right to lodge an application 

50   See OECD, Regulatory Policy, Latvia, 2018.  
51   Ratings  in  the  CIVICUS  Monitor  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed,  obstructed,  

repressed and closed.  

52   E.g. 

https://www.mk.gov.lv/lv/content/nevalstisko-organizaciju-un-ministru-kabineta-sadarbibas-

memoranda-istenosanas-padomes-202-4. 

53   To  be  noted  that  during  the  state  of  emergency  due  to  COVID-19  pandemic,  the  Government  issued  the 
Order on the declaration of a state of emergency, which was amended a number of times, and was published 
online in the latest version. https://likumi.lv/ta/id/313191-par-arkartejas-situacijas-izsludinasanu.  

11 

 
 
                                                 
or a “constitutional complaint” before the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court will 
initiate  a  case  provided  that  the  application  complies  with  the  general  and  special 
requirements specified by law. 

In  relation  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  Latvia  declared  a  state  of  emergency.  On  12 
March 2020, the Latvian Government adopted the Declaration of Emergency Situation.54 The 
declaration  contained  measures  addressing  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  and  was  amended 
several times. The Parliament, which continued to work remotely throughout the emergency 
situation with the support of the e-Seima platform, approved the Governmental measures in 
an extraordinary session. On 16 March 2020, it informed the Council of Europe pursuant to 
the derogation clause contained in Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights 
(the Convention) that the restrictions adopted due to the state of emergency could potentially 
exceed  the  limits  provided  for  by  the  Convention  to  ensure  the  legitimate  aim  of  “public 
health”. The Ombudsman has provided an explanation to the public and politicians that the 
limitations allowed by the derogation clause contained in Article 15 of the Convention are to 
be  interpreted  narrowly,  allowing  for  deviation  from  obligations  only  to  the  extent  that  the 
extraordinary nature of the situation inevitably requires. According to the Ombudsman, this 
means  that  the  Latvian  Government,  using  the  declared  state  of  emergency,  may  not 
disproportionately restrict the rights of the population in areas and in ways that are not strictly 
necessary  to  ensure  public  health  and  to  control  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  emergency 
was  terminated  on  10  June  2020  (the  derogation  under  Article  15  of  the  Convention  was 
lifted on the same day). 

The Ombudsman's Office, which is also an equality body, is in charge of protection of 
the  rights  of  inhabitants.  The  Ombudsman  is  an  official  elected  by  the  Parliament,  who 
ensures that human rights are observed in  Latvia and that the state administration and local 
governments  observe the principle of  good  governance. The Ombudsman is  independent  in 
his  or  her  activities,  is  governed  exclusively  by  law,  and  no  one  has  the  right  to  exert 
influence on the performance of his or her functions and tasks. The Ombudsman’s Office was 
accredited by the United Nations accreditation body with A status in March 2015. During its 
assessment,  the  UN  body  encouraged  the  Ombudsman’s  Office  to  advocate  for  further 
guarantees to ensure the tenure of the members of the decision-making body, the protection 
of  the  Ombudsman  from  undue  interference  from  the  parliament,  and  sufficient  funding  to 
carry out its growing powers. 

54   The declaration can be found at https://likumi.lv/ta/id/313191-par-arkartejas-situacijas-izsludinasanu. 

12 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2020 Rule of Law report 

can be found at (COM website). 

Center  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom,  (2019)  Decriminalisation  of  Defamation. 
https://cmpf.eui.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/decriminalisation-of-defamation_Infographic.pdf.  

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2020),  2020  Media  pluralism  monitor. 

https://cmpf.eui.eu/media-pluralism-monitor/mpm-2020.  

CIVICUS, Monitor tracking civic space: Latvia. https://monitor.civicus.org/country/latvia.  

Commission  staff  working  document  country  report  Latvia  2020  accompanying  the  document 
communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  European  Council,  the 
Council,  the  European  Central  Bank  and  the  Eurogroup  2020  European  Semester:  Assessment  of 
progress on structural reforms, prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances, and results 
of in-depth reviews under Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 SWD/2020/513 final. 

Council  for  the  Judiciary  of  Latvia  (2019),  The  Council  for  the  Judiciary  does  not  support  the 
establishment  of  a  specialized  economic  court  in  Latvia.  http://at.gov.lv/en/jaunumi/par-tieslietu-
padomi/the-council-for-the-judiciary-does-not-support-the-establishment-of-a-specialized-
economic-court-in-latvia-9632?year=2019&.   

Council  for  the  Judiciary  of  Latvia  (2019),  The  Council  for  the  Judiciary  repeatedly  rejects  the 
establishment  of  the  Economic  Court.  http://at.gov.lv/en/jaunumi/par-tieslietu-padomi/the-council-
for-the-judiciary-repeatedly-rejects-the-establishment-of-the-economic-court-9848?year=2019.  

Council  for  the  Judiciary  of  Latvia  (2020),  The  administrative  immunity  of  judges  is  waived. 
http://at.gov.lv/en/jaunumi/par-tieslietu-padomi/the-administrative-immunity-of-judges-is-waived-
10088?year=2020&month=6&.   

Council for the Judiciary of Latvia (2020), The Judicial Council will evaluate the candidates for the 
position  of  Prosecutor  General.  http://at.gov.lv/en/jaunumi/par-tieslietu-padomi/the-judicial-
council-will-evaluate-the-candidates-for-the-position-of-prosecutor-general-10077?year=2020&.    

Council  for  the  Judiciary  of  Latvia  (2020),  The  new  procedure  for  selection  of  judges  is  approved. 

http://at.gov.lv/en/jaunumi/par-tieslietu-padomi/the-new-procedure-for-selection-of-judges-is-
approved-10018?year=2020&.   

Council  for  the  Judiciary  of  Latvia  (2020),  The  selection  of  candidates  for  the  position  of  the 
Judicial  Council. 

the 
Prosecutor  General  will  henceforth  be 
http://at.gov.lv/en/jaunumi/par-tieslietu-padomi/the-selection-of-candidates-for-the-position-of-the-
prosecutor-general-will-henceforth-be-the-responsibility-of-the-judicial-council-
10023?year=2020&.   

responsibility  of 

the 

Council of Europe: Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and 
the  Financing  of  Terrorism  -  MONEYVAL  (2018),  Anti-money  laundering  and  counter  terrorist 
financing measures: Latvia fifth round mutual evaluation report.   

Council of Europe: Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and 
the  Financing  of  Terrorism  -  MONEYVAL  (2019),  Anti-money  laundering  and  counter  terrorist 
financing measures: Latvia first enhanced follow-up report.  

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2016),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2016)4  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member States on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists 
and other media actors.  

Council  of  the  European  Union,  Decision  (CFSP)  2020/399  of  13  March  2020  amending  Decision 
2014/145/CFSP  concerning  restrictive  measures  in  respect  of  actions  undermining  or  threatening 

13 

 
 
the  territorial  integrity,  sovereignty  and  independence  of  Ukraine,  OJ  L  78,  13.3.2020,  p.  44–85. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2020.078.01.0044.01.ENG.  

Council of the European Union, Implementing Decision 2010/151/CFSP of 21 March 2014. 

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 19 November 2019, A.K., C‑ 585/18, C‑ 624/18 

and C‑ 625/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:982.  

Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union,  judgment  of  9  July  2020,  Land  Hessen,  C-272/19, 

ECLI:EU:C:2020:535.  

Directive  (EU)  2018/1808  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14  November  2018 
amending  Directive  2010/13/EU  on  the  coordination  of  certain  provisions  laid  down  by  law, 
regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media 
in  view  of  changing  market  realities 
services  (Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive) 
PE/33/2018/REV/1 OJ 303.  

Directorate-General for Communication (2019), Flash Eurobarometer 482: Businesses and corruption. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: Corruption. 

European Commission (2019, 2020), The EU Justice Scoreboard.   

European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (2020), Contribution from the European Network of 

Councils for the Judiciary for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.   

European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) (2019): Independence and Accountability of 
judges,  2019.  https://pgwrk-

the  Judiciary  –  ENCJ  Survey  on 
websitemedia.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/production/pwk-web-encj2017-
p/Reports/Data%20ENCJ%202019%20Survey%20on%20the%20Independence%20of%20judges.p
df.    

independence  of 

the 

GRECO  (2012),  Fourth  evaluation  round  –  evaluation  report  on  Latvia  on  corruption  prevention  in 

respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors.   

GRECO (2015), Fourth evaluation round – compliance report on Latvia on corruption prevention in 

respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors.   

GRECO  (2016),  Fourth  evaluation  round  –  interim  compliance  report  on  Latvia  on  corruption 

prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors.   

GRECO (2017), Fourth evaluation round – second interim compliance report on Latvia on corruption 

prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors.   

GRECO  (2018),  Fifth  evaluation  round  –  evaluation  report  on  Latvia  on  preventing  corruption  and 
promoting integrity in central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies. 

GRECO  (2019),  Fourth  evaluation  round  –  second  compliance  report  on  Latvia  on  corruption 

prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors.   

OECD (2018), Regulatory Policy, Latvia. https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/latvia-country-

note-regulatory-policy-2018.pdf.  

OECD (2019), Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, Phase 3 Report: Latvia. 

Reporters without Borders, Latvia. https://rsf.org/en/latvia.  

Transparency International (2020), 2019 Corruption Perceptions Index. 

Virtual country visit to Latvia in the context of the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Latvia 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in June and July 2020 with: 

Internal Security Board of the State Revenue Service  

  Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau  
  Council for the Judiciary 
  Delna - Transparency International Latvia 
 
  Latvian Association of Journalists 
  Ministry of Culture 
  Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
  Ministry of Justice 
  National Electronic Mass Media Council 
  Prosecution Office 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International 
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe 
  Conference of European Churches  
  EuroCommerce 
  European Center for Non Profit Law  
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom 
  European Civic Forum  
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Front Line Defenders 
 
ILGA-Europe 
 
International Commission of Jurists 
 
International Federation for Human Rights  
 
International Press Institute  
  Lifelong learning Platform  
  Open Society Justice Initiative/Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Reporters without Borders  
  Transparency International EU 

15