Today, on 30 March, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia delivered its judgment in case No. 2024-30-01, by which it found the regulation on creating the content of public media in languages of national minorities to be incompatible with the Constitution. The Court underscored that it was the legislator who, while respecting the independence and editorial freedom of public media, should ensure that in the process of creating the content of public media, balanced protection of the Latvian language, the rights of persons belonging to national minorities, as well as national security is provided.
The case was initiated at the Constitutional Court on the basis of an application by twenty members of the Parliament. The applicants alleged that the obligation of the public broadcasters to create content in the languages of national minorities, while permitting to dedicate one radio and one television programme or part of their broadcasting time for programmes in the languages of national minorities, diminishes the value of the Latvian language as the only official language in a democratic society.
The Court pointed out that the foundations of the state of Latvia and its national cultural identity are determined by the Latvian language as the only official language, without which existence of the state envisaged by the Constitution is impossible. Latvia is the only place in the world where the existence of the Latvian language and, thus, also of the Latvian nation and its development through ages can be guaranteed.
The Constitutional Court underscored that the constitutional mission of public media was to strengthen the values inherent to a democratic state, which includes caring for the Latvian language, thus fostering the sense of the inhabitants of belonging to the Latvian state. The purpose of public media is to provide trustworthy information to the society, particularly concerning matters important for the society. The principle that the content of public media basically should be primarily in Latvian derives from the essence of the constitutional identity of the Latvian state, so that the Latvian language would indeed serve as the common language of communication and democratic participation for the society as a whole, including national minorities. Any departure from this principle is permissible only to fulfil other obligations of the state that derive from the Constitution and only to the extent that it does not endanger the status and functions of the official language.
At the same time, Latvia as a democratic state governed by the rule of law respects national minorities and their right to preserve and develop their language and culture, which is enshrined in Article 114 of the Constitution. The state must take appropriate measures to ensure to national minorities access to media, to promote tolerance and cultural diversity. However, the scope of the state’s obligations with respect to ensuring the rights of national minorities depends on the actual situation of a particular national minority in the state, e.g., the number of persons belonging to it, the spread of the language, the accessibility of media, the wish and ability to independently ensure access to information in its language, as well as other circumstances.
In the present case, the Constitutional Court established that the Russian language in mass media of Latvia is self-sufficient – commercial media in the Russian language are still widely accessible. Moreover, there are printed, audiovisual, and digital media, as well as dozens of programmes created by electronic mass media of other countries that offer content in Russian. Hence, existence of that minority language, as well as the preservation and the development of its national identity are not endangered and persons belonging to the Russian national minority are able to effectively exercise their rights in the media space without any special support from the state.
The Constitutional Court also pointed out that there are national minorities whose language is not self-sufficient. The state has an obligation that derives from Constitution to facilitate the access of such national minorities, particularly the numerically smaller ones, to public media, so that they could preserve and develop their language, culture and national identity. However, for the public media to ensure content in the languages of such national minorities their own wish to preserve and develop the said values, as well as the participation, to the extent of their abilities, in order to reach this aim are needed. Likewise, in fulfilling the state’s obligation to facilitate the access of such national minorities to public media it must be assessed whether the respective national minorities have access to mass media in their own language.
In reviewing the constitutionality of the contested provisions, the Court underscored that the state’s constitutional obligation to ensure its security had to be taken into account, as this was the only way to guarantee the existence of the state of Latvia and its democratic structure. Every person’s awareness of important matters in the life of the state is the foundation for national security and it is aimed at developing a cohesive society. Public media play an important role in the context of national security, which includes the duty to ensure objective and independent information in languages of national minorities about important processes in the state.
This applies also to a national minority whose language is self-sufficient in mass media in Latvia, i.e., the Russian language. Implementation of aggressive and hostile propaganda of war and disinformation measures is one of the main lines of activities by which Russia is targeting Latvia and the Baltic States. Forecasts indicate that Russia will continue to engage in such activities. Therefore, in instances when, for example, the society should be protected against propaganda and disinformation, it is the public media whose task is to provide facts-based objective information and to explain its political, legal, and social context. Providing information in the interests of national security in languages of national minorities, including in Russian, should be proportionate to the threat to the national security and justified by an objective necessity; likewise, it cannot endanger the status and functions of the Latvian language.
The Constitutional Court concluded that the content of the contested provisions was too broad. They allow for a situation where, he Public Broadcasting of Latvia essentially does not ensure the protection of the rights of national minorities whose languages are not self-sufficient in mass media and who require special protection. Whereas with respect to the rights of the national minority whose language is self-sufficient in mass media in Latvia the contested provisions permit an unjustified departure from the principle that, the content of the Public Broadcasting of Latvia should primarily be created in the Latvian language. Exercising the rights of persons belonging to national minorities at the expense of the national language is impermissible.
In view of the above, the contested provisions do not ensure an appropriate balance between the state’s duties deriving from the Constitution to protect the Latvian language, the rights of national minorities, and the national security. The contested regulation is declared to be void from 1 May 2027, granting to the Saeima a reasonable time for determining what legal regulation that would ensure the best balance between these obligations of the state in the process of creating the content of public media.
The Constitutional Court’s judgement is final and not subject to appeal; it has entered into effect at the moment of its pronouncement.