Latvia's Constitutional Court strikes down Riga's gambling ban as unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of Latvia rendered a landmark verdict on April 4, deeming the prohibition on gambling organization within Rīga as unconstitutional.

This decision followed a legal challenge initiated by gambling entities Olympic Casino Latvia Ltd, Alfor Ltd, and Joker Ltd, contesting the restrictions stipulated in the city's spatial plan. Their argument centered on the violation of Article 105 of the Constitution, which safeguards property rights and permits restrictions solely through lawful channels, LSM reported.

Compulsory expropriation of property for public needs is only allowed in exceptional cases on the basis of a separate law against fair compensation, as Article 105 of the Latvian Constitution stipulates.

The contested norm, which prohibited gambling in Rīga except in four- or five-star hotels, stemmed from the Rīga City Council's decision six years ago to close 42 gambling venues in the city center. Additionally, last September, the council moved to revoke 139 permits for gambling venues outside the city center, mandating their closure within five years.

In its ruling, the Constitutional Court emphasized gambling as a legal commercial activity subject to fair competition. While acknowledging the municipality's authority to designate areas where gambling is restricted, the Court highlighted the necessity for the municipality to justify such restrictions within the framework of the law, the report said.

The Court found that the municipality failed to provide reasoning for prohibiting gambling in functional zones of the spatial plan, where commercial activities were permitted. The Court also underscored the importance of conducting a thorough assessment, including considerations such as urban development, infrastructure, population density, and community interests, before imposing gambling restrictions.

Consequently, the Court deemed the restriction on fundamental rights outlined in the contested norm incompatible with Article 1 and various clauses of Article 105 of the Constitution, ultimately nullifying the provision.