The Senate’s Department of Administrative Cases has rejected an individual's application to overturn the decision of the Minister for the Interior of the Republic of Latvia, which imposed a ban on the applicant to leave the Republic of Latvia.

The Senate emphasizes that the prohibition to leave the country provided for in the National Security Law is a preventive measure to avert potential threats to national security interests, and that it exists as a separate mechanism that is not related to security measures applied to persons in criminal proceedings. Therefore, the imposition of the exit ban is not connected to the presumption of innocence and does not violate it, as it neither implies any allegation of the applicant’s guilt nor constitutes a form of criminal punishment. The purpose of the ban is not to prevent the person from fleeing Latvia, but to prevent the person from engaging in activities abroad that would harm national security.

Moreover, the Senate notes that the fact that the applicant has not been able to familiarize herself with all the information containing state secrets on the basis of which the contested decision was taken does not violate the applicant's right to a fair trial, because the principle of motivation of administrative acts is not absolute and, in this case, the legislator has provided for an exception to it in order to protect interests of public importance. The general reasons for imposing the travel ban can also be understood from the amount of information provided to the applicant. In examining the case, the Senate has familiarized itself with the relevant information containing state secrets in accordance with the procedure laid down by law, and had no doubts that the imposed travel ban was objectively necessary and justified, and that the principles of proportionality and prohibition of arbitrary conduct had been observed.

The applicant had appealed to the Senate for the annulment of the decision of the Minister for the Interior, stating that, in her opinion, the ban on leaving the country was a security measure not provided for by law, applied in addition to those measures imposed on her in the criminal proceedings initiated against her. The applicant also expressed the view that, although her guilt had not yet been established, the contested decision recognized her actions as criminal acts, and that she had not been able to familiarize herself with the content of the opinion provided by the State Security Service, on the basis of which the decision had been taken.

Case No SA-1/2025

 

Information prepared by Viesturs Lācis, Adviser in the Matters of Senate Communication

Telephone: +371 67020302; e-mail: viesturs.lacis@at.gov.lv