Case law

On 4 September the Riga City Court declared void the Daugavpils municipality's order dismissing Santa Pupiņa, head of the liquidated Urban Planning and Construction Department, reinstated the employment relationship and, at the claimant's request, terminated it by court judgment. The municipality was ordered to pay EUR 13,012.65 for forced absence from work and EUR 2,051.68 in litigation costs; the claim for EUR 3,000 in moral damages was rejected. The court found a breach of the requirements of Section 108 of the Labour Law on assessing employees and a failure to prove the need for the reorganisation. The judgment may be appealed.

On 3 September 2026 the Court of Justice of the European Union, in case C-798/24 (Jautiva), initiated following an application by 17 minority shareholders of a joint-stock company to the Constitutional Court, ruled that EU law does not require public access to shareholder register information and that the GDPR precludes rules providing for the disclosure to anyone of the personal data of all shareholders (identity, contact details, number of shares, voting rights). The Court noted that the objectives of business transparency, AML/CTF and sanctions do not justify general public access, since the data can be stored and disseminated. The Constitutional Court will now assess whether Latvia's rules on disclosure of shareholder data comply with the Constitution; amendments to the Commercial Law and the Enterprise Register rules are expected. The clients were represented by COBALT (L. Liepa, G. Šantare, M. Aktumane).

Sworn attorney Lauris Klagišs analyses when an employer may terminate an employment contract because an employee's conduct is contrary to good morals. "Good morals" is a general clause without an exhaustive list of prohibited conduct, so the court assesses each case individually, taking into account both generally accepted ethical norms and principles established in the national legal system. The article is paywalled.

The Data State Inspectorate (DVI) explains that a person wishing to claim compensation in court for damage caused by a personal data protection breach under Article 82 of the GDPR does not first need to obtain a decision from the supervisory authority – the authority's investigation and the question of compensation are two separate matters. Referring to CJEU case law, the DVI notes that the purpose of compensation is to make good the damage actually suffered, not to punish the controller: a breach alone does not give rise to a right to compensation, damage and a causal link must be proven, and the amount also depends on the sensitivity of the data.

On 2 September the "LVM Employees' Independent Trade Union Organisation" filed a claim at the Riga City Court against AS "Latvijas valsts meži", asking the court to ensure genuine participation in collective bargaining. The union initiated negotiations in April 2026 and submitted its proposals in May, but the first meeting took place only on 5 August – after 125 days; it believes that correspondence about procedure has replaced substantive negotiations. LVM has concluded a collective agreement with another trade union, "LVM Cilvēkam un mežam". The case has not yet been initiated.

On 3 September 2026 the European Court of Human Rights rejected a complaint against Latvia alleging that the state had failed to provide sufficient rules against forced labour and servitude (Article 4 of the Convention). The Court found that Latvia has an adequate legal framework (the Constitution, the Criminal Law) and that the authorities had carefully investigated the applicant's allegations of exploitation, including unpaid wages and living conditions controlled by the employer.

An iTiesības article (author Anete Bože, law firm Ellex Kļaviņš) on how a company should act when a manifestly unfounded claim has been brought against it in court. It notes that even an unfounded claim must be examined on the merits (Supreme Court Senate decision SKC-881/2025), so the defendant must take an active part in the proceedings, as the claimant may request security for the claim under Section 138 of the Civil Procedure Law (attachment of property, restrictions on activities). The article is paywalled; the introduction is available.

The Court of Justice of the European Union, answering questions from the Constitutional Court in a case initiated by 17 minority shareholders of various joint-stock companies, held that Directive 2017/1132 does not require the disclosure of information on all shareholders of a joint-stock company. Latvia's rules, which provide for unrestricted online publication of shareholders' names, personal identity numbers, addresses, e-mails, number of shares and voting rights, constitute a serious interference with fundamental rights and are incompatible with the General Data Protection Regulation if access is not subject to conditions (such as demonstrating a legitimate interest). The Court pointed to less restrictive alternatives – access based on a legitimate interest, or publication only in respect of sanctioned persons.

In a preliminary ruling on questions referred by the Constitutional Court, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that EU law does not require the disclosure of information on all shareholders of a joint-stock company, including minority shareholders, and that Latvia's rules – Section 4.15(2)(b) of the Law on the Enterprise Register of the Republic of Latvia, which provides for publication of shareholder data in the public part of the register – do not provide sufficient safeguards against misuse, since the data are available for bulk download by unidentified users. The Court pointed to less restrictive solutions, such as access after verification of a legitimate interest. The Constitutional Court must now rule on the provision's compliance with the Constitution.

The Court of Justice of the European Union held that EU law does not require shareholders' personal data to be published online, and that Latvia's requirement to publish shareholders' names, personal identity numbers, addresses and shareholding data in a freely accessible and downloadable form violates the rights to privacy and data protection guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The measure is neither appropriate nor necessary for the objective of an open business environment, and Latvia lacks sufficient safeguards against misuse of the data.

A digest of the Supreme Court Senate's August 2026 rulings in tax cases. In case SKA-83/2026 it was held that renting out a flat or house for residential purposes is not economic activity within the meaning of real estate tax; a court reaching a different conclusion than in similar cases must justify it, and the court may order the tax administration to issue a corrected real estate tax calculation. Case SKA-733/2026 assessed the consequences of a late application for a tax relief under a municipality's binding regulations.

A digest of the Supreme Court Senate's August 2026 rulings in administrative cases: renting out residential property is not economic activity for real estate tax purposes (SKA-83/2026); a gambling licence cannot be restricted on the basis of general public disapproval without a justification tied to the specific location (SKA-57/2026); a court may order an authority to issue a corrected administrative act on real estate tax (SKA-83/2026); interim protection against a Competition Council order is permissible where compliance requires substantial system changes (SKA-734/2026); in an unregulated procurement the assessment of a bidder's reputation must be objectively justified (SKA-87/2026).

On 2 September 2026 the Constitutional Court began examining case No. 2025-23-01 on the compliance of Section 4(1)(2) and (5) and Section 5(1)(2) and (2) of the Law on the Release of Natural Persons from Debt Obligations with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution (Satversme). The application was filed by a licensed debt collection service provider that purchases and recovers debts out of court; it considers that the provisions excessively widen the circle of persons eligible for release and substantially reduce the value of its debt portfolio, infringing property rights and the principle of legitimate expectations. The case is being examined in written proceedings; a ruling must be adopted within 30 days after the court hearing.

The Constitutional Court has begun assessing whether the provisions of the Law on the Release of Natural Persons from Debt Obligations, which allow a person to be released from part of their obligations if their income and debts do not exceed the statutory thresholds and the person meets the social criteria, comply with the Constitution. The application was filed by debt collection service providers that purchase and recover debts out of court; they argue that the amendments in force since 21 January 2025 substantially widened the circle of persons eligible for release and reduced the value of debt portfolios purchased at market price, infringing property rights and legitimate expectations. The case is being examined in written proceedings, with a ruling due within 30 days after the hearing.

A Russian-language article on the case opened at the Constitutional Court concerning provisions of the Law on the Release of Natural Persons from Debt Obligations which, after the amendments of 21 January 2025, allow a wider circle of persons to be released from obligations if their income and debts do not exceed the statutory thresholds and the person meets the social criteria. The application was filed by debt collection companies that purchased the debts at market price, arguing that the provisions substantially reduce the value of their portfolios and violate property rights and the principle of legitimate expectations. A ruling is due within 30 days after the court hearing.

The Constitutional Court has initiated a case on the compliance with the Constitution of provisions of the Law on the Release of Natural Persons from Debt Obligations – provisions allowing a person to be released from debts if their income and the amount of their obligations are below the statutory thresholds and the social criteria are met. The application was filed by a licensed debt collection company, which argues that widening the circle of eligible persons has substantially reduced the value of its portfolio of claims purchased at market price, violating property rights and the principle of legitimate expectations.

Zelma Rence (law firm Eversheds Sutherland Bitāns) explains the right of a member or shareholder to request information from the board about the company's activities. Under the Commercial Law, every member/shareholder has this right regardless of the size of their holding (with reference to a 2018 Supreme Court Senate ruling), but its scope differs between an SIA and an AS; the article examines what may be requested, when the board may refuse and what the procedure is. The article is paywalled.

In August the Supreme Court added 24 rulings of the Senate's Department of Administrative Cases to its case-law classifiers. The most important theses for businesses: renting out a flat or house for residential purposes is not economic activity for the purpose of applying the real estate tax rate (SKA-83/2026); the Competition Council must justify a legal obligation with considerations of expediency and proportionality, and the need to rebuild a platform's processes may justify interim protection (SKA-734/2026); a licensed payment institution in an unregulated procurement has discretion to assess bidders' reputation, subject to the prohibition of arbitrariness and the principle of equality (SKA-87/2026); a creditor's subjective public rights in proceedings to strike a company off the commercial register are limited to the procedural rights provided for in the Commercial Law (an application to appoint a liquidator) (SKA-744/2026); an authority may not formally reject a request to use another communication channel instead of the official e-address (SKA-685/2026).

Lawyer Aleksandra Baranova (law firm Kronbergs Čukste Levin) analyses the CJEU judgment of 14 July 2026 in case C-474/24 on the Austrian anti-doping organisation's practice of publishing athletes' names, violations and the length of their bans. Four athletes challenged the publication as disproportionate processing of special categories of personal data; the article assesses the circumstances in which such publication is permissible under data protection law. The article is paywalled.

The Supreme Court Senate overturned a conviction and terminated criminal proceedings for misappropriation against a company's authorised representative who received goods from a German supplier but did not pay the invoice in full. As the parties had not agreed on the moment of transfer of ownership, German law applied, under which the goods became the buyer's property upon delivery – so the person was dealing with their own company's assets. A dispute over an unpaid invoice is to be resolved in civil proceedings, not criminal proceedings.

Sorainen's review of legislation and case law for 11–25 August. Key points for businesses: on 19 August amendments to the Unfair Trading Practices Prohibition Law entered into force; on 20 August the Saeima adopted in the 3rd reading amendments to the Consumer Rights Protection Law and the Credit Information Bureaus Law, and in the 2nd reading amendments to the Advertising Law, the Payment Services Law and others, under which consumer supervision in financial services passes from PTAC to the Bank of Latvia from 1 January 2027; Cabinet regulations on registration of deferred payment service providers (registration fee EUR 50,000) and consumer credit amendments (Directive 2023/2225) have been drafted. In the Account Register regulations the Insolvency Control Service (to be liquidated on 1 October 2026) is replaced by the Ministry of Justice; amendments to the Advocacy Law shorten the practice requirement from 7 to 5 years. The review also covers Constitutional Court case 2026-13-01 on compensation for losses in the event of an unjustified attachment of property and Senate judgments SKC-526/2026 and SKA-393/2026.

Sworn attorney Annija Švemberga-Streikiša (AmberLaw) analyses the CJEU judgment of 16 July 2026 in joined cases C-258/23–C-260/23 on competition authorities' access to employees' e-mails. The Court held that work e-mail is correspondence protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and an internal ban on private use of e-mail does not remove that protection; any access is an interference with fundamental rights that must have a legal basis. The article is paywalled.

The Senate's Criminal Cases Department terminated criminal proceedings against a businessman accused of large-scale embezzlement, ruling the dispute over unpaid German-supplied goods was a civil commercial matter, not a crime. Under applicable German law, ownership passed to the recipient's company at delivery, so he managed his own, not another's, property; the case now goes to civil courts.

In case No. SKA-139/2026, the Senate overturned an appellate ruling and held that a former judge whose term ended due to reaching the maximum age limit has no right to severance pay. The Senate found the legislator deliberately excluded this ground from judges' compensation rules, unlike other dismissal grounds for state officials; the Justice Ministry had earlier refused payment.

On 20 August, Prosecutor General Armīns Meisters petitioned the Constitutional Court over two Cabinet of Ministers protocol decisions that had instructed the Agriculture Ministry to adjust prices in long-term contracts between state forestry company "Latvijas valsts meži" and private timber buyers for softwood logs from 2024 onward. The Prosecutor General argues the government, without statutory authorisation, allowed state property to be sold below the prices set in existing civil contracts, in breach of the Constitution.

The Senate's Civil Cases Department declined to open cassation proceedings in a case where an actor sought retraction of false statements broadcast on TV. A Riga Regional Court ruling requiring the broadcaster to retract the information stands, while the claim for moral damages was rejected. Case No. SKC-526/2026.