Issue: № 4, 2026
Doi: https://doi.org/10.37634/efp.2026.4.9
The paper examines the Latvian model of the judicial system of subjects authorized to hear administrative offence cases through a comparative analysis with the Ukrainian approach. The paper focuses on the institutional structure established by the Latvian Administrative Liability Law and demonstrates that Latvia has developed a conceptually different system from the post-Soviet codified model preserved in the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences. The Latvian approach is characterized by the separation of general principles of administrative liability from sectoral rules defining specific offences and sanctions, by the broad involvement of administrative authorities and municipal bodies as primary decision-makers, and by the preservation of judicial review as a guarantee of legality, proportionality and procedural fairness. It is established that the primary consideration of administrative offence cases in Latvia is concentrated within public administration bodies and officials, while courts perform a secondary, controlling function. The paper highlights that such a design excludes courts from the general structure of first-instance punitive response, except for narrowly defined categories, including cases related to state secrets, which fall within the jurisdiction of the Riga City Court. Particular attention is paid to the mechanisms for appealing administrative decisions to a higher official and, where appropriate, to a district court, as well as to the appellate role of the regional court. The paper also addresses the specific role of the prosecutor in Latvian proceedings and compares it with the limited prosecutorial powers provided by Ukrainian legislation. The author argues that the Latvian model is of practical and doctrinal significance for Ukraine because it offers an alternative understanding of administrative offence proceedings as an autonomous public-law procedure in which the court should not duplicate the functions of an administrative authority. Instead, the court should exercise judicial control and administer justice only where such intervention is necessary. The paper substantiates that the Latvian experience may be useful for rethinking the Ukrainian system of jurisdiction in administrative offence cases, improving legislative technique, and developing a more coherent distribution of powers between public administration and the judiciary.
Keywords : Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, Law on Administrative Liability of Latvia, administrative offenses, administrative liability, public administration bodies, liability, justice, judicial process, administrative proceedings
References:
1. Administratīvās atbildības likums : likums (Saeima) no 25.10.2018 (stājas spēkā 01.07.2020). Likumi.lv (Latvijas Republikas tiesību akti). URL: https://likumi.lv/ta/id/303007-administrativas-atbildibas-likums
2. Buhaichuk K.L. Foreign experience of legal regulation, organization of prevention and counteraction to domestic violence, and possibilities of its use in Ukraine: scientific and methodological recommendations. Kharkiv, 2023. 137 p. URL: https://dspace.univd.edu.ua/server/api/core/bitstreams/34c7b26b-28f0-4713-a524-3157a0727e60/content (in Ukrainian).
3. Ziemele І. Administratīvā pārkāpuma process iestādē. Administratīvā un Kriminālā Justīcija. 2022. Vol. 1. № 93 (№ 1/2). pp. 46–56. URL: https://journals.rta.lv/index.php/ACJ/article/view/6730/5780
4. Resolution of the Dnipro Court of Appeal dated 01.04.2025 in case No. 265/10356/21. Unified State Register of Court Decisions. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126268377 (in Ukrainian).
5. On State Secrets: Law of Ukraine dated 21.01.1994 No. 3855-XII. Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/go/3855-12 (in Ukrainian).