The Prosecutor General’s Office of Latvia announced that Prosecutor General Armīns Meisters submitted an application to the Constitutional Court on Thursday in the high-profile timber industry case, requesting that two provisions of a Cabinet of Ministers protocol decision be declared invalid from the moment of their issuance. According to the application, the challenged protocol points directed the Ministry of Agriculture in 2024 to carry out and continuously implement price corrections throughout the year regarding long-term agreements concluded by joint-stock company “Latvijas valsts meži” (LVM) for the supply of coniferous grade II sawlogs.
Constitutional Court Application Targets Government Price Adjustments
According to the Prosecutor General’s Office, the application argues that the challenged Cabinet of Ministers protocol decisions do not comply with the Constitution, laws, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The prosecution maintains that the Cabinet of Ministers issued these decisions without an appropriate legislative delegation regarding the alienation of public property at prices lower than those established in civil-law contracts. “Šis ir tiesiskuma nodrošināšanas ceļš, ko prokuratūra izmanto, lai panāktu likumības ievērošanu. Būtiski ņemt vērā to, ka šāds precedents līdz šim nav bijis, un mēs izmantojam visas likumā paredzētās iespējas, lai nodrošinātu, ka valsts institūciju rīcība atbilst Satversmei un likumam. Vēršanās ST šajā gadījumā ir nākamais tiesiskais solis, lai šo jautājumu izvērtētu neatkarīga tiesa,” Meisters emphasized, noting that no such precedent has existed previously and that the office is utilizing all legal avenues to ensure state actions adhere to the Constitution and laws.
The legal battle began on June 16, when the Prosecutor General sent a protest to the Cabinet of Ministers demanding the immediate repeal of the contested protocol decision points from their adoption date. However, the Cabinet of Ministers refused to comply with the prosecutor’s demands, informing the Prosecutor General’s Office of its refusal via a letter dated July 27. Following an evaluation of the government’s arguments, the prosecution concluded that the official actions lacked legal justification, prompting Meisters to file the court application within the one-month statutory deadline set by the Prosecution Law.
Criminal Investigation Focuses on Official Malfeasance and Losses
The broader criminal process, initiated in March, evaluates two distinct investigative directions, as outlined by the Prosecutor General’s Office. The first direction examines Ministry of Agriculture officials who allegedly abused their official position to unlawfully secure support for the timber industry. The second direction focuses on possible negligent actions or inaction by LVM officials who allegedly failed to prevent damage to the state despite having the legal means to do so. The prosecution estimates that this alleged inaction by LVM officials may have caused losses to the Latvian state amounting to approximately 50 million euros.
Ten individuals face scrutiny in the ongoing criminal process, during which procedural actions were carried out on May 14. This list of individuals includes former Minister of Agriculture and current Saeimas deputy Armands Krauze (ZZS), former Ministry of Agriculture state secretary Raivis Kronbergs, current Ministry of Agriculture state secretary Ģirts Krūmiņš, Ministry of Agriculture Forest Industry Strategy and Support Division deputy head Ilze Silamiķele, former LVM board chairman Pēters Putniņš, LVM council chairwoman Zane Driņķe, LVM council chairwoman’s advisor Valdis Lūks, Latvian Forest Industry Federation vice-president Kristaps Klauss, “Pata Strenči” employee and Valmiera Municipality Council deputy Reinis Muižnieks, and “Pata” owner and manager Uldis Mierkalns. No coercive security measures have been applied to these individuals because such measures can only be applied to suspects or accused persons.
Did You Know? The Prosecutor General’s Office noted that this Constitutional Court challenge marks an unprecedented legal step for the institution, as no prior precedent exists regarding a prosecutor general contesting Cabinet protocol decisions of this nature.
Frequently Asked Questions
What specifically does the Prosecutor General ask the Constitutional Court to do?
The Prosecutor General asks the Constitutional Court to declare two specific points of a Cabinet of Ministers protocol decision invalid from the moment of their issuance.
Which state-owned enterprise is at the center of the dispute?
The dispute centers on the joint-stock company “Latvijas valsts meži” (LVM) and its long-term agreements for the supply of coniferous grade II sawlogs.
What are the estimated financial losses cited in the criminal process?
According to the prosecution, the alleged inaction by LVM officials may have caused losses to the Latvian state amounting to approximately 50 million euros.
How will the Constitutional Court proceedings influence the separate criminal investigation into state forestry officials?
What factors do you think will carry the most weight when the Constitutional Court evaluates the legality of the government’s timber pricing decisions?
Related reading