The Constitutional Court publishes a judgment on the legality of the gambling ban in Daugavpils

On October 19, 2026, the official publication “Latvijas Vēstnesis” (No. 201, OP 2026/201) published a judgment of the Constitutional Court, which examined the compliance of Paragraph 2 of the Daugavpils State City Municipal Council’s binding regulations No. 35 of October 31, 2024, “On places and territories in Daugavpils where it is not permitted to organize gambling,” with the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia. The judgment is placed in the “Constitutional Institutions” section of the issue as the second entry, immediately following the Prime Minister’s order on the granting of leave. The publication in the official gazette is the official notification of the court’s decision and concludes the dispute regarding the boundaries of the municipal regulation and property rights.

The contested norm is Paragraph 2 of the binding regulations — specifically the provision that determines the places and territories in Daugavpils where the organization of gambling is not permitted. The issuer of the normative act is the Daugavpils State City Municipal Council; the regulations were adopted on October 31, 2024, and are designated as No. 35. The evaluator is the Constitutional Court, and the benchmark for the legal assessment is the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution, which guarantee property rights and determine the procedure for their restriction.

What is being evaluated and why it is important

The case concerns the limits of municipal freedom: how far local authorities may go in prohibiting commercial activity in specific locations within the city, and whether such a prohibition is compatible with the protection of property rights. The fact that a judgment, rather than a court decision, was published in the gazette means that the case was examined on its merits — procedural issues in the Constitutional Court are resolved by decision.

The official notification specifies the following identifiers:

• court: Constitutional Court;
• contested act: Daugavpils State City Municipal Council’s binding regulations No. 35 of October 31, 2024;
• contested part: Paragraph 2 of the regulations;
• evaluation criterion: the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution;
• publication: “Latvijas Vēstnesis”, No. 201, OP 2026/201, October 19, 2026.

Place in the flow of municipal normative acts

The judgment was published in an issue that simultaneously contains a significant number of municipal binding regulations, demonstrating how densely municipalities regulate local life. In the same publication, among the municipal acts, the following were published:

• Riga City Council binding regulations No. RD-26-58-sn (amendments to regulations regarding the territory between Ķiburgas and Lazdu streets);
• Liepāja City Council binding regulations No. 22 (charter) and No. 23 (budget for 2026);
• Ķekava Municipality Council binding regulations No. 17/2026 (budget);
• Mārupe Municipality Council binding regulations No. 40/2026 (decentralized sewerage);
• Olaine Municipality Council binding regulations SN14/2026 and SN15/2026 (partial repeal of detailed plan annexes).

In this context, the Constitutional Court judgment is the only numbered entry that evaluates the substance of a local government act, rather than merely registering its adoption.

Precedent for other municipalities

Geographical restrictions on the organization of gambling are one of the most sensitive areas of local government regulation, as they simultaneously affect the freedom of business, property rights, and the interests of residents. The judgment regarding paragraph 2 of the Daugavpils regulations becomes a reference point for other municipalities evaluating the introduction of similar bans or the revision of already adopted regulations. The court’s assessment applies to the specific norm and its compliance with Article 105 of the Constitution; therefore, it is binding on the parties to the case and simultaneously serves as a basis for argumentation in future cases.

What this means for readers

For companies in the sector, the judgment determines under what conditions a local government ban can be considered permissible, thereby influencing both the planning of gambling venue locations and potential claims against local governments. For residents, it clarifies to what extent local authorities can determine where gambling is available. For local governments, it is a signal that similar restrictions must be justified by the requirements set out in Article 105 of the Constitution, rather than by a political decision alone.

The full text of the judgment is available in the official publication “Latvijas Vēstnesis”, No. 201 (OP 2026/201), October 19, 2026, in the “Constitutional Institutions” section.

Official source: Constitutional Court judgment in the case regarding the compliance of paragraph 2 of the Daugavpils State City Municipality Council binding regulations No. 35 of October 31, 2024, “On places and territories in Daugavpils where it is not permitted to organize gambling” with the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia; published in “Latvijas Vēstnesis”, No. 201, OP 2026/201, October 19, 2026.