Overview
The Republic of Latvia has been an EU member state since 1 May 2004, a Schengen member since December 2007 and a member of the eurozone since 2014. It is fully integrated into the European Arrest Warrant system; the legal basis is Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and Sections 78 ff. IRG.
Extradition traffic between Germany and Latvia is of medium intensity by EU standards. The focal points are economic and property offenses, narcotics proceedings, money laundering and, less frequently, violent offenses. Latvia is, in principle, stable in terms of the rule of law; specific deficiencies, however, repeatedly concern the clarification and quality of the detention-conditions assurances, as confirmed at the highest judicial level, among others, by BVerfG, decision of 2 Feb 2021 — 2 BvR 156/21.
On the Latvian side, the Kriminālprocesa likums (Code of Criminal Procedure, KPL, "LV", 74 (3232), 11 May 2005, in force since 1 Oct 2005, with numerous subsequent amendments) applies, as does the Krimināllikums (Criminal Code, KL).
Legal basis
Extradition to Latvia is governed primarily by Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant, transposed domestically in Sections 78 ff. IRG. Latvia has incorporated the Framework Decision into Chapters 73–76 of the Kriminālprocesa likums (Sections 695 ff. KPL).
On the German side, the Higher Regional Courts are competent in the admissibility proceedings (Section 29 IRG); the granting decision is made by the General Public Prosecutor's Office (Section 79(2) IRG). On the Latvian side, the district courts (rajona (pilsētas) tiesa) and the regional courts (apgabaltiesa) issue European Arrest Warrants; the issuing and receiving authority in extradition traffic is the Ģenerālprokuratūra (Prosecutor General's Office) of the Republic of Latvia, based in Riga. The highest instance in criminal matters is the Augstākā tiesa (also "Latvijas Senāts"); the Constitutional Court (Satversmes tiesa) reviews matters by way of the constitutional complaint.
For German citizens, Article 16(2) of the Basic Law in conjunction with Section 80 IRG applies. Latvian citizens are extradited only under certain conditions under Article 98 of the Constitution (Satversme); for EU constellations, the restriction is largely lifted by the EAW Framework Decision.
Country-specific issues in Latvia
BVerfG 2 BvR 156/21 of 2 Feb 2021 — Latvian detention-conditions assurances insufficient: On a constitutional complaint against an admissibility decision of the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Hamburg, the Federal Constitutional Court ordered the interim suspension of the extradition to Latvia, because the information from the Latvian authorities on cell size, the separation of sanitary areas, out-of-cell times, fresh-air supply, lighting and the specifically named detention facility was insufficient. The decision requires substantiated clarification of all Aranyosi parameters as well as the identifiable naming of the facility in which the sentence would specifically be served. Alongside Muršić, it is the central defense reference in DE–LV extradition traffic.
Detention conditions — the Muršić standard and the Aranyosi review: The Latvian facilities Rīgas Centrālcietums (remand prison, Riga), Jelgavas cietums (sentence enforcement), Daugavpils cietums, Liepājas cietums and Iļģuciems (women's facility) show historically documented problems with overcrowding, old building stock, insufficiently separated sanitary areas and limited out-of-cell times. CPT reports (most recently 2022) point to structural renovation needs. Within the second stage of review under Aranyosi/Căldăraru, a facility-specific assurance binding under international law must regularly be obtained.
Russian-speaking minority: Approximately 24–25 % of the Latvian population is Russian-speaking or of Russian descent; in the facilities they are overrepresented. Translation requirements under Directive 2010/64/EU must be strictly enforced. For Russian nationals in Latvia who face a risk on return (sanctions regime, tightening of residence status since 2022), collateral migration and asylum questions must be taken into account as well.
Dual criminality: Outside the list catalogue of Article 2(2) of the EAW Framework Decision, a substantive review applies. The Latvian Krimināllikums is, in substance, largely compatible with continental European standards; special offenses concern, among others, money-laundering law (Chapter XII KL) and sanctions evasion (Section 84¹ KL as amended since 2022).
Judicial reform and the economic court: Under the Likums par tiesu varu, a specialized Ekonomisko lietu tiesa (Economic Affairs Court) based in Riga was established in 2021, which is also competent for selected economic-crime cases with a connection to the entire Latvian territory.
Detention conditions and the human-rights review
Detention conditions in Latvian prisons are assessed in a differentiated manner according to CPT reports and ECtHR case law. Structural problems exist in several older facilities; in particular, at Rīgas Centrālcietums (remand prison), problems with overcrowding, old building stock and insufficiently separated sanitary areas are historically documented. Daugavpils cietums and Liepājas cietums have also been criticized by the CPT on several occasions.
The facilities Jelgavas cietums and Šķirotava (Riga, semi-open regime) are more modern in their fittings and are, in principle, classified as ECHR-compliant. Iļģuciems cietums (Riga) is the central women's facility and is subject to selective criticism (hygiene, occupational programs).
In German extradition practice, the second stage of review under Aranyosi/Căldăraru regularly has to be activated. On account of the recurring sources of error in Latvian assurance responses (cf. BVerfG 2 BvR 156/21; OLG Hamm III-2 Ausl. 45/17; Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Hamburg in the underlying decision), one must insist on a substantiated, facility-specific assurance covering all Aranyosi parameters (cell size, separation of sanitary facilities, out-of-cell times, fresh air, light, heating, nutrition, hygiene, medical care). Blanket declarations by the Latvian authorities that the detention conditions comply with human rights are not sufficient.
Lines of defense
The defense in Latvia EAW cases is geared to the following points:
- Section 80 IRG (extradition of Germans): review of the connection to the place of the offense and the assurance of return.
- Section 73 sentence 2 IRG in conjunction with Article 4 of the EU Charter / Article 3 ECHR — Aranyosi/Căldăraru: a facility-specific assurance covering all Aranyosi parameters. Reference to BVerfG, decision of 2 Feb 2021 — 2 BvR 156/21: blanket declarations are not sufficient; the detention facility must be identifiable; all parameters (cell size, separation of sanitary facilities, out-of-cell times, fresh air, light, water, furnishing, nutrition, hygiene, medical care) must be specifically answered.
- Muršić standard (ECtHR GC, 20 Oct 2016, 7334/13): review of the 3 m² threshold and the cumulative conditions for rebuttal.
- Section 83b(2) IRG (bar to granting): where there has been a long-standing habitual residence in Germany, insist on the exercise of discretion by the General Public Prosecutor's Office.
- Directive 2010/64/EU (translation): for Russian-speaking requested persons, the full availability of all documents; review of the quality of translation.
- Section 81 no. 1 IRG (penalty range): substantive review outside the list catalogue.
- Section 83 IRG (judgments in absentia): assurance of a retrial under Chapter 63 KPL.
- Rule of specialty (Section 83h IRG): limitation to the offenses granted.
- Double jeopardy (ne bis in idem) (Article 50 of the EU Charter, Article 54 CISA): review of the blocking effect of parallel proceedings.
- Constitutional complaint with an urgent application (Section 32 BVerfGG): the standard instrument where the clarification of detention conditions is insufficient; in the case of Latvia, the prospects of success are demonstrably above average.
Legal representation in Latvian extradition proceedings
An extradition case is a specialized mutual-legal-assistance procedure that goes beyond classic criminal defense. Engaging a defense lawyer specialized in extradition law at an early stage is regularly decisive — not only after the formal extradition arrest warrant has been issued, but already from the moment of an arrest based on an Interpol notice, an SIS alert or a European Arrest Warrant.
As a Certified Specialist in Criminal Law with a focus on extradition law, I advise and represent affected persons nationwide before the competent Higher Regional Courts and in constitutional complaint proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court.