Effective Strategies for Dealing with Cartel Threats

The Legal Affairs Committee of the Saeima (Latvian Parliament) has instructed the Ministry of Justice (TM) ‌to prepare⁢ proposals for amendments to ​the law to more ⁤effectively combat cartels, the saeima press Service ⁤informed LETA.

The Saeima ⁣committee made this decision in response to a ruling by the Senate of⁣ the Supreme Court (AT) in December ⁣last year, stating that​ conversations obtained under the Operational⁤ Activities Law ​cannot be used as evidence in an administrative proceeding in a cartel‌ case ‌involving construction companies.

representatives ‍from the Ministries of Justice, Interior, and Economics shared their assessments ‌of the situation during the committee meeting. The meeting also heard ‍the views of the Prosecutor General’s Office, the ‍Corruption Prevention and​ Combating Bureau (KNAB), and the ‌Competition Council⁤ (KP).At the conclusion of the meeting,the committee tasked the ​TM with compiling the views of all institutions⁤ and preparing precise proposals.

Prime Minister Evika Siliņa (JV)⁣ expressed her ‌opinion on social media‌ last week that the Saeima should return to addressing ⁢the issue of cartels. She informed‌ that she had agreed with the ⁣Chairman of the saeima Legal Affairs Committee,Andrejs Judins (JV),that this issue would be revisited in the near future. “An ⁤significant‌ discussion is​ needed both on the submission of existing⁢ norms in court ​and‌ on strengthening liability,” the Prime Minister said.

This ‌week, the Saeima faction of “New ⁣Unity” (JV) submitted ‍amendments to the Criminal Law.

Latvian Court Limits Use of Evidence⁣ Obtained Through surveillance

Evidence obtained during a criminal examination retains specific⁢ legal status and usage ⁣restrictions, a recent Latvian court ‍ruling affirmed. The decision clarifies ‌the boundaries of permissible​ surveillance practices, particularly concerning competition law violations.

The court emphasized that operational surveillance, including wiretapping, is legally ​permissible only to‍ uncover crimes,‌ not lesser offenses like administrative violations. ⁢ Latvian⁤ lawmakers have repeatedly declined to criminalize actions related to prohibited agreements under competition law. Consequently, the court ruled, law enforcement cannot use operational measures to detect ‍such violations.

This principle⁤ extends to the inclusion​ of materials added to criminal case files; these materials ‍are subject to the same restrictions. The⁢ ruling aligns with existing jurisprudence from the Administrative Territorial Court (AT), which previously established this distinction between investigating‌ crimes ⁢versus administrative offenses.