The Senate’s Department of Criminal Cases overturned a judgment of the Latgale Regional Court in a part concerning a conviction and punishment of a defendant in a criminal case in which a third-country national was accused of deliberately providing two or more persons with an opportunity to illegally reside in the Republic of Latvia.

In the case, it was found that the defendant had attempted to move five Indian citizens across the internal border of Latvia in order to transport them to another European Union member state. The court of first instance found him guilty of an offense under Section 285 of the Criminal Law – illegal movement of persons across the state border. However, the appellate court changed the classification, finding him guilty under Section 285¹ of the Criminal Law – intentional provision of the possibility to reside illegally in the Republic of Latvia.

The Senate notes that, although Section 285 of the Criminal Law does not directly provide for the deliberate provision of the opportunity for a person to reside illegally in the country, this may result from actions related to the illegal movement of the person across the border. Namely, even a temporary stay in the territory of Latvia, for example, in transit or during transportation, may be considered part of this criminal offense.

If a person intentionally facilitates the movement of another person across the state border, including an internal border, for example, by transporting him or her in transit – and these actions are related to illegal residence in the country, they may be classified as a criminal offense under Section 285 of the Criminal Law.

The Senate emphasizes that, according to the accusation, the defendant's intention was to illegally move five persons who had already crossed the external border of Latvia further across the internal border in order to reach another EU member state. Therefore, his actions correspond to the classification of a criminal offense under Section 285 of the Criminal Law.

In this regard, the Senate found that the concept of ‘illegal movement across the border’ within the meaning of the Criminal Law includes both movement across the external and internal borders of the state. Furthermore, the fact that a person is in transit in Latvia at a certain point in time in order to be illegally transferred further does not alter the criminal nature of this act. The case has been referred back to the Latgale Regional Court for reconsideration.

Case No SKK‑67/2025 (18230007423)

 

Kārlis Arājs
Communication adviser of the Supreme Court
Telephone: +371 67020302
E-mail: karlis.arajs@at.gov.lv