On the 13th of November, the Saeima rejected a request submitted by National Alliance (NA) MPs asking Minister of the Interior Rihards Kozlovskis to revoke Latvian citizenship from Pjotrs Avens. With 21 MPs voting in favour, 65 against, and one abstaining, the request was dismissed.
With the majority vote against the initiative, it can be concluded that the long-discussed issue of Avens’ Latvian citizenship has now effectively been settled.
MP Jānis Patmalnieks (New Unity), speaking on behalf of the Requests Committee, noted that the committee had already reviewed the matter at its meeting of the 15th of October. With 2 votes in favour, 11 against, and one abstention, the committee found the request unfounded.
Patmalnieks recalled that, under Section 24(1)(5) of the Citizenship Law, citizenship may be revoked if an individual has provided substantial support to a state or persons engaged in activities that threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty, or constitutional order of a democratic state — and only if such information is provided by state security authorities. The decision is made by the head of the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs or an authorised official, in accordance with administrative procedure.
MP Edvīns Šnore (NA), one of the request’s initiators, argued during the debate that Minister Kozlovskis had publicly stated two years ago that an investigation into Avens’ citizenship status had begun.
“Our question was simple: has this review been completed?
And the answer we received from Mr Avens — from Mr Kozlovskis — was vague, evasive… The message was essentially that if the authorities found violations, they would decide on revoking citizenship. This clearly implied that the review was carried out, nothing was found, and therefore a decision was made not to revoke Avens’ citizenship. But for some reason there is reluctance to admit openly that such a decision has been taken — a decision favourable to Avens — and that it has all been kept non-public and unspoken,” Šnore said.
MP Andris Šuvajevs (Progressives) urged parliament to reject the NA request, calling it a “typical opposition tactic”, and reminded MPs of the Avens porcelain collection exhibition in Ogre that ultimately never took place. He also suggested that opinions within the NA about Avens may be divided, noting that Ogre mayor Egils Helmanis had met Avens at his home.
Meanwhile, the General Court of the European Union stated in its ruling that the arguments presented by the EU Council do not show that Pjotrs Avens supported actions or policies undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, or independence, nor that he provided material or financial support to Russian officials responsible for the annexation of Crimea.
According to the Court, none of the grounds originally cited for sanctioning Avens were sufficiently substantiated, and therefore his inclusion on the EU sanctions list was not justified.
The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the EU, in analysing Latvia’s appeal, also noted that Avens had been “unjustifiably included and subsequently kept on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures.” The Advocate General recommended that the Court dismiss Latvia’s appeal and order the Republic of Latvia to cover the legal costs.
Read also: Clarity finally reached in Avens citizenship case – investigation completed, case will not proceed