The political party Harmony, which is currently unrepresented in the Latvian parliament, had challenged the provision of the law prohibiting the use of third country languages, including Russian, in pre-election promotion.
The Russian-speaking population of Latvia has been the main electorate of “Harmony” for many years.
The Constitutional Court of Latvia (ST) recognised that the norms of the Pre-election Campaign Law, which establish the obligation to use the state language in paid pre-election campaigns, comply with the Latvian Constitution. ST emphasised that Latvia’s security is influenced by its geopolitical location, namely, its neighbouring country is Russia, whose current ideology is focused on war and aggression against neighbouring countries. The court notes that Russia’s information influence measures are directed specifically at the countries where the elections are planned. Therefore, during the period of pre-election activities, it is important to minimize the possibility of spreading messages supporting aggressive policies in a language that can be used as a carrier of Russian ideology.
ST emphasises that it is important that the pre-election campaigning and the free conduct of elections are not affected by Russia’s information influence measures, which are implemented with the aim of influencing public opinion and the political course in favour of Russia’s interests, especially during the pre-election period.
The expansion of Russian information influence measures in the Latvian information space and increasing security risks make it necessary to limit the use of foreign languages in pre-election agitation in the current geopolitical situation,
the court emphasises, adding that in this way not only the security of the Latvian public and the democratic state system are protected, but also the security and democracy of the whole of Europe.
The court concluded that by strengthening the use of the official language and reducing the use of foreign languages in pre-election campaigning, the contested norms protect public security and the democratic state system. The court emphasized that the Latvian language is an integral part of the constitutional identity of the State of Latvia, and the Latvian national identity is also formed by the Latgalian written language as a historical type of the Latvian language and the Livonian language, which has special national protection as the only indigenous language.
Accordingly, the contested norms ensure that paid pre-election agitation will take place in an information space based on the national language, and thus reduce the impact of Russian disinformation and propaganda, the possibility of manipulating information and interference in Latvia’s democratic processes. The contested norms are not directed against pluralism during the pre-election period. They are aimed at reducing the impact of Russian outreach measures.
At the same time, the contested norms do not provide for a total ban on the use of foreign languages, which are not official languages of the European Union, in the communication of political parties with voters during the period of pre-election agitation and outside this period. As the contested norms relate to paid pre-election campaigning,
unpaid campaigning, such as individual communication with voters, can take place in any language.
In addition, the restriction of fundamental rights applies for a limited period of time, emphasizes ST.
The ST concluded that by adopting the contested norms, the Saeima has balanced the interests of public security and democratic state system, the protection of which in the current geopolitical situation is essential regulation of the use of the state language, including Latgalian written language and Livonian language, with the right of political parties to freedom of expression in paid pre-election agitation.
The court also recognised that the restriction of a person’s fundamental rights contained in the contested norms is proportionate and the contested norms comply with the first sentence of Article 100 of the Constitution.
The ruling of the Constitutional Court of Latvia is final and not subject to appeal.
Previously, “Harmony” expressed the position that this is an “absolute violation of the fundamental principles of the Constitution – the restriction of freedom of expression and the prohibition of censorship”. No one has the right to restrict communication with voters, said the political party.