Current developments in judicial proceedings in June 2025
In June 2025, the Constitutional Court delivered judgements in the following three cases:
By 12 June 2025 judgement in the case No. 2024-17-03, provisions governing procedures for distributing difference in water consumption have been recognised as incompatible with the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution. The case was initiated following applications by the Vidzeme Regional Court and the Senate. The applicants considered that it was unjustified to impose the obligation to cover the entire difference in water consumption of a residential building only on the owner of the apartment who had not installed a water consumption meter, without taking into account the causes of the difference. Taking into account the conclusion in the judgement of 12 December 2024 in Case No. 2023-46-03, the Constitutional Court recognised that the contested provisions allowed for a derogation from the principles of civil law that determine the relations between joint owners. It is not acceptable for a person to avoid paying for the water they use by not installing a meter. However, the procedure for the allocation of the difference in water consumption established in the contested provisions is not proportionate, as it does not take into account the additional circumstances that may cause such a difference, nor does it establish maximum norms for water consumption. If the difference in water consumption is caused by, for example, poor technical condition of the water supply system, an accident or repairs, all apartment owners are responsible.
By the judgement of 27 June 2025 in Case No. 2024-07-01 the regulation on the amount of state compensation for several victims in case of death of a person was declared incompatible with the third sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution. The case was initiated on the basis of an application of the Administrative District Court. The applicant considered that the State compensation payable to each victim in the event of the death of a person was manifestly insufficient if the maximum amount of compensation was divided proportionally among several victims. The Constitutional Court emphasised that the primary obligation to pay adequate compensation rests directly with the perpetrator of the criminal offence, and the State is not required to assume the obligation of full compensation in his place. The contested provisions are a part of a common system formed to ensure that the victim is compensated for the harm done to him or her by a criminal offence. There is a legal framework which allows the victim to seek compensation from the perpetrator of the criminal offence in criminal and civil proceedings, while State compensation is a mechanism which provides the victim with timely State support in a simplified procedure. However, there may be cases where the victim cannot obtain adequate compensation from the perpetrator, and State compensation is the only redress for the harm caused by the criminal offence. Such compensation must not be symbolic or manifestly inadequate, but must also be in line with the socio-economic situation of the country. In the present case, the compensation awarded to each victim – 620 euro – cannot be considered fair and proportionate. Such compensation fails to achieve its purpose and is contrary to human dignity.
By the judgement of 30 June 2025 in Case No. 2024-23-01 , the prohibition of smoking in places where gambling is organised was declared compatible with Article 1 and the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution. The case was initiated on the basis of a constitutional complaint submitted by a gambling organiser. The applicant had set up separate smoking areas in its gambling venues. However, the contested provision prohibits them, causing the applicant losses in connection with the establishment of premises for smoking, as well as restricting its right to continue its business activities unhindered. The Constitutional Court recognised that the prohibition of smoking in places where gambling is organised not only protects against the harmful effects of smoking, but also functions as a mechanism for the prevention of gambling addiction. However, an isolated smoking room inside a gambling establishment is not an alternative as it does not fulfil the function of a gambling break. The restriction on property rights is outweighed by the benefit to society as a whole. The contested provision seeks to protect all persons present in gambling venues – active smokers, persons exposed to smoking, as well as employees – from the risks of disease, as well as to reduce the risk of gambling addiction for some gamblers. Although the applicant may have had a legitimate expectation that the smoking rooms could be used in the long term, it could not have had such an expectation that the legal framework would never be changed.
On 16 June 2025, the Constitutional Court decided to resume the hearing of Case No. 2024-21-01 on legal land use fees at a hearing with the participation of the parties on 30 September 2025 at 10.00.
In total, 10 cases were in the preparation stage and preparation of five cases for adjudication was completed at the Constitutional Court. In addition to the one case for which the procedure and date for hearing the cases had been determined in advance, the Constitutional Court determined the procedure and date for hearing two additional case.
A total of 32 applications have been handed over for review to the panels of the Constitutional Court. 30 applications are made by private individuals, one application is made by the court in a civil case, and one by the Senate in an administrative case.
Six cases have been initiated:
- Case No. 2025-16-01, No. 2025-17-01, No. 2025-20-01 and No. 2025-21-01 on the procedure for cadastral valuation of land in legal use, and Case No. 2025-19-01 on the fee for legal use of land and the procedure for cadastral valuation of such land following constitutional complaints by several individuals;
- Case No. 2025-18-03 on noise assessment and management regulation, following an application by the Ombudsman.
Furthermore, 12 decisions were adopted on refusal to initiate a case according to the following applications:
- Application No. 83/2025 on a provision of the Criminal Procedure Law which, in the case of imprisonment, prohibits the suspension of execution of a sentence for persons convicted of committing a serious or particularly serious crime. Decision on the application.
- Application No. 84/2025 concerning a provision of the Law on Administrative Liability that regulated the procedure for notifying a party to proceedings of a judgement. Decision on the application.
- Application No. 85/2025 on the application of the provisions of the Law on Administrative Liability regulating the application of the procedural coercive measure – suspension of the exercise of rights granted to a person. Decision on the application.
- Application No. 86/2025 on a provision of the Criminal Procedure Law which does not provide for an appeal against a prosecutor’s decision rejecting or upholding a complaint against a decision not to initiate criminal proceedings. Decision on the application.
- Application No. 88/2025 on the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law determining the amount of the State fee and the reimbursement of court costs. Decision on the application.
- Application No. 90/2025 on the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law on the amount of the state fee and exemption of a person from paying the State fee. Decision on the application.
- Application No. 93/2025 concerning the provisions of the National Defence Service Law in so far as they do not provide for alternative service which is not subject to military control and punishment. Decision on the application.
- Application No. 94/2025 on a provision of the Criminal Law criminalizing the movement of goods and substances whose movement is prohibited or specially regulated across the border of the Republic of Latvia. Decision on the application.
- Application No. 96/2025 concerning the provision of the Law on Administrative Liability which authorises the judges of the District Court to adopt a decision on the refusal to initiate appeal proceedings by way of a resolution. Decision on the application.
- Application No. 98/2025 concerning a provision of the Cabinet Regulation No. 423 of 30 May 2006 “Rules of Internal Procedure of a Penitentiary Institution”, which requires convicted persons to attach a business card to their clothing. Decision on the application.
- Application No. 102/2025 concerning the provision of the Cabinet Regulation No. 309 of 2 May 2012 “Regulations Regarding Felling of Trees Outside the Forest”, which stipulates the right of the landowner to fell trees outside the forest with a stump diameter of less than 20 centimetres without the permission of the local government. Decision on the application.
- Application No. 104/2025 on the provision of the Operational Activities Law regulating the procedure for notifying a person of the review of the conduct of an official of an operative activity subject. Decision on the application.
Information has been prepared for the purpose of raising awareness about the work of the Constitutional Court. This information does not constitute part of a court ruling and therefore is not binding upon the Constitutional Court.