Selected case studies : the case study of Latvia (LV)

Abstract

The aim of this report is to describe and provide an analysis of the implementation and enforcement of the EU criminal law norms in the criminal law of Latvia regarding certain fields, particularly in the area of fraud and corruption affecting the financial interests of the EU. Criminal law in Latvia is regulated by the two acts: the Criminal Law (hereafter ‘LCL’) and the Criminal Procedure Law (hereafter ‘LCPL’). There are also a number of further acts which contain legal norms regulating criminal law and criminal procedure – the Law on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism and Proliferation Financing, the Office of the Prosecutor Law and the Operational Activities Law. Latvian Criminal law is one of the branches of law most susceptible to change. It has continuously evolved in sync with Latvia’s move from one Union towards the other. Basically, LCL has the Criminal Code of the Latvian SSR at its foundation. The new LCL came into force on 1 April 1999 replacing the old Latvian Criminal Code. This was the first significant criminal law reform, and since then the LCL has constantly been changing. To a great extent, the change has been dictated by Latvia’s aspiration in joining the EU; in accordance with Article 69 of the Association Agreement, Latvia had to ensure that its legislation will be gradually made compatible with that of the Community. Since its implementation and until Latvia joined the EU, the LCL was amended 15 times. Since Latvia’s accession to the EU and until today, the LCL has been amended 48 times. Before restoration of independence, all of the Latvian criminal law norms were found only in the Criminal Code – the situation prevailing in all Soviet Republics’ legal systems. The judiciary and academia had long got accustomed to the exclusive and central position of the Criminal Code in both legal theory and practice, where any international agreements or treaties were annexed via one-provision laws. Upon signing the Association Agreement with the European Community, Latvia engaged in ‘the approximation of Latvia’s existing and future legislation to that of the Community’ in the sphere of criminal law through an already-established process – all new penalties and crimes were incorporated into the country’s Criminal Law. The working group entrusted with the task of developing a new criminal law draft had to comply with Article 69 of the Association Agreement by including the measures required by the acts of the third pillar of the European Union. Before the new LCL of 1999 came into force, the Latvian Parliament (Saeima) took into account the Joint Actions and the Conventions by adding to the norms: (a) criminal liability for cruelty towards and violence against a minor (now Article 174 LCL), (b) kidnapping (Article 153 LCL) and (c) infringement of copyright and neighbouring rights (Article 148 LCL). The new part in the draft law which aimed at combating corruption by state officials and public servants had been influenced by the Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the EU. It could be concluded, therefore, that the impact of EU criminal law on the LCL has been a significant one. The influence of EU criminal law on procedural criminal law has also been significant. This is evident from the implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law, which was implemented on 21 April 2005 and entered into force on 1 October 2005. At the time of its implementation, Latvia was already a Member State; hence, the drafters had to comply with all of the acquis, ECHR as well as the decisions of the ECtHR. Since its entry into force, the LCPL was amended 38 times. In Latvia, the EU criminal law had a significant impact on the rights of a victim in criminal proceedings, rights of the accused as well as significant influence on the substantial scope of criminal offences and interstate cooperation (Joint Investigation Teams, European Arrest Warrant and recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions through EU instruments). The following sections analyse the impact of EU criminal law legislation on the Latvian criminal justice system. In particular, the EU provisions on terrorism, cybercrime, money laundering and participation in a criminal group will be looked into.