Rīga’s Gambling Prohibition Deemed Unconstitutional by Court

The Constitutional Court of Latvia’s recent decision deemed Rīga’s city-wide gambling ban unconstitutional following lawsuits from gambling businesses. The court emphasized the municipality’s failure to justify the ban and conduct proper assessments before implementing restrictions, highlighting the necessity for municipalities to adhere to legal provisions when imposing gambling restrictions.

Latvian Court Deems Rīga’s Gambling Ban Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of Latvia, Hansed by its recent decision on April 4th, stated that prohibiting gambling all over the capital city of Rīga was unconstitutional. The court followed lawsuits of gambling businesses represented by Olympic Casino Latvia Ltd, Alfor Ltd, Joker Ltd, and others, reacting to the question of the legality of the prohibition within some areas of the city.

The enterprises recognized that the law that prohibited startups in Rīga, as stipulated in the city’s spatial plan, violated Article 105 of the Constitution, wherein there is the protection of private ownership of property, and the law has to comply. The disputed restriction not only covers betting activities in all areas of Riga, including at the venues of four- or five-star hotels but also in the vicinity of Riga’s railway and bus stations.

Sowing seeds in 2012, Riga City Council prohibited the operation of 42-lane clubs in the city center, and the following year the council imposed a five-year moratorium on the city’s suburb casino operations, giving them five years to shut down.

A Constitutional Court ruling noted that gambling was a legal activity which gave rise to competition between the businesses. In this regard, it is future development and co-operation among different social groups and stakeholders of this issue which would have the primary effect.

Municipal Failure: Constitutional Court Deems Gambling Restrictions Unjustified

The Constitutional Court’s supervision on the multi-level restrictions of gambling business in the capital called to the surface the issue that the blanket ban on gambling in Riga was not justified by a certain governmental policy. The court stressed the administrative department’s noncompliance with the statutory regulation by having the territory assessed before the opposed prohibition was enacted.

When the legislation specifies it, municipalities acquire the authority to conduct their analysis and decide which neighborhoods should be set off for gambling restriction purposes based on population density, local interests, and business. Last of all, Riga does not do public sentiment research even after imposing the hold.

The opinion by the court was that due to the absence of such reasoning, such an act was unconstitutional and was not by the rights envisaged in the case of property and the legislative process.

This decision underscores the necessity for municipalities to rigorously assess and justify gambling restrictions with legal provisions