Latvia’s Constitutional Court has refused to initiate proceedings following an application submitted by Prosecutor General Armīns Meisters in the so-called timber industry case, explaining that the prosecutor general is not legally entitled to bring the specific claim before the court, the Constitutional Court told LETA.
The court concluded that the contested decisions are legally binding on a single institution within a public-law entity and do not directly require any actions to be taken outside public administration.
Furthermore, the decisions do not regulate an indefinite number of situations and are not intended for repeated application.
Consequently, they do not qualify as regulatory enactments that fall within the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction to examine the compliance of legislation with higher-ranking legal provisions or the compatibility of Latvian national law with international agreements concluded by Latvia.
The court explained that the contested Cabinet meeting decisions are individual legal acts of the Cabinet of Ministers and do not meet the criteria for administrative acts.
The Constitutional Court noted that reviewing the legality of such acts falls within its jurisdiction.
However, the Constitutional Court Law allows only a specific group of institutions and officials to submit applications concerning these decisions. These include the President of Latvia, the Saeima, at least 20 members of parliament, the Cabinet of Ministers and the Judicial Council within its legally defined competence. The prosecutor general is not among those authorised to submit such applications. The court emphasised that lawmakers deliberately established an exhaustive list of eligible applicants and relevant legal acts in the Constitutional Court Law. This list cannot be expanded through legal interpretation.
Accordingly, the Constitutional Court concluded that the prosecutor general had no legal standing to submit the application concerning the disputed decisions.
As previously reported, Prosecutor General Armīns Meisters had asked the Constitutional Court to declare two provisions of Cabinet meeting decisions invalid from the moment they were adopted.
The decisions instructed the Ministry of Agriculture to introduce price adjustments in 2024 and maintain them for one year
under long-term contracts concluded by the state-owned company Latvijas valsts meži (LVM) for the supply of second-grade softwood sawlogs.
“This is a legal avenue used by the Prosecutor’s Office to ensure compliance with the law. It is important to recognise that there has been no such precedent before, and we are using all the possibilities provided by law to ensure that the actions of state institutions comply with the Constitution and legislation. “Applying to the Constitutional Court in this case is the next legal step towards having the matter assessed by an independent court,” Meisters previously stated.
In his application, the prosecutor general argued that the contested Cabinet decisions were incompatible with Latvia’s Constitution, national legislation and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
According to the Prosecutor’s Office, the Cabinet adopted the decisions without the necessary statutory authorisation to dispose of public property at prices lower than those established in legally binding commercial contracts.
Following its investigation, the Prosecutor’s Office concluded that the Cabinet led by former Prime Minister Evika Siliņa (New Unity) had acted unlawfully
by instructing LVM to change its timber pricing arrangements. As a result, the Prosecutor General’s Office submitted a formal protest to the government on 16 June, demanding that the decisions be revoked.
However, the government led by Prime Minister Andris Kulbergs (United List) decided not to comply with the request and informed the Prosecutor General’s Office of its decision on the 27th of July.
Following the government meeting, Kulbergs claimed that his government could not revoke the previous administration’s decisions concerning support for the timber industry because doing so was not legally possible. According to the prime minister, ministers were unanimous on the matter.
After reviewing the arguments presented in the Cabinet’s response, the Prosecutor’s Office concluded that the government’s position was unjustified.
Consequently, in accordance with the Prosecutor’s Office Law, the prosecutor general submitted an application to the Constitutional Court seeking the annulment of the contested decisions.
In June, Meisters told LETA that the criminal investigation into the so-called timber industry case was progressing, with investigators identifying increasing amounts of evidence and additional lines of inquiry. “This will certainly not take years to reach a result,” the prosecutor general said at the time. He added that the procedural status of those involved in the criminal proceedings had not changed. No additional individuals had been included in the case, and none had been removed.
The ten individuals against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated and in relation to whom investigative actions were carried out on 14 May are Armands Krauze (ZZS) (former Minister of Agriculture and current Saeima deputy), Raivis Kronbergs (former State Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture), Ģirts Krūmiņš (State Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture), Ilze Silamiķele (Deputy Head of the Ministry of Agriculture’s Forest Sector Strategy and Support Division), Pēters Putniņš (former Chairman of the Management Board of Latvijas valsts meži), Zane Driņķe (Chairwoman of the Supervisory Board of Latvijas valsts meži), Valdis Lūks (Adviser to the Chairwoman of the LVM Supervisory Board), Kristaps Klauss (Vice-President of the Latvian Federation of Woodworking Industries), Reinis Muižnieks (employee of the timber company Pata Strenči and Valmiera Municipality Council deputy representing the party Valmierai un Vidzemei) and Uldis Mierkalns (owner and head of Pata).
No preventive measures have been imposed on any of these individuals, as such measures can only be applied to persons who have been formally designated as suspects or accused.
The criminal proceedings, initiated in March, are examining two main lines of investigation. The first concerns officials at the Ministry of Agriculture who may have abused their official positions to unlawfully secure support for the timber industry. The second concerns possible negligence by officials at Latvijas valsts meži.
According to investigators, these officials may have had opportunities to prevent financial damage to the state but allegedly failed to act in accordance with the law.
The suspected inaction of LVM officials may have caused losses of approximately 50 million euros to the Latvian state.
Mierkalns and other individuals who are not public officials are being investigated for allegedly assisting in the abuse of official positions.