Latvia Defamation Laws: Civil, Criminal & Defences

In Latvia, defamation is both a criminal offence and a civil wrong. The Criminal Law (Kriminallikums) punishes defamation under section 157, while the Civil Law (Civillikums) lets a person whose honour or dignity is harmed by untrue information demand a retraction and compensation under section 2352.1, supported by the general delict rule in section 1635.

Is defamation civil, criminal, or both in Latvia?

It is both. Latvia keeps a criminal defamation offence in section 157 of the Criminal Law (Kriminallikums) while also providing a civil remedy in section 2352.1 of the Civil Law (Civillikums). Section 157 targets the deliberate public spreading of fabrications known to be untrue that defame another person. Section 2352.1 lets a person whose honour and dignity have been injured by the dissemination of untrue information demand a retraction and claim compensation, and the general delict rule in section 1635 confirms that every wrongful act causing harm, including moral harm, gives the victim a right to a remedy. Because the two tracks are independent, a single false statement can give rise both to a criminal case and to a civil claim.

What counts as criminal defamation under section 157?

Section 157 of the Criminal Law applies where a person intentionally and publicly disseminates fabrications, knowing them to be untrue and defamatory of another person, whether in printed or otherwise reproduced material or orally. The core elements are knowledge of falsity, an intention to defame, and public dissemination, so an honest mistake or a true statement does not satisfy the offence. The basic penalty is generally a fine or community service rather than imprisonment. Where the defamation is committed through the mass media, the offence is treated more seriously and the penalty can include temporary deprivation of liberty, community service, or a fine. Prosecution is brought through the criminal justice system, and Latvia has debated narrowing or repealing criminal defamation as part of media-freedom reform.

Watch out: Latvia repealed the former section 156 (intentional defamation) and section 158 (defamation in the mass media) in 2009, so the live criminal provision is section 157; older summaries that cite those repealed sections are out of date.

What defences and privileges apply?

Truth is the central defence on both tracks. For section 157, the offence reaches only fabrications the speaker knows to be untrue, so proof that a statement is true, or that the speaker did not know it was false, defeats the criminal charge. On the civil side, under section 2352.1 the defendant can avoid liability by proving that the disseminated information corresponds to the truth. Latvian courts distinguish verifiable statements of fact from opinions and value judgments, and a person's individual opinion is generally not treated as actionable defamatory data. As a Council of Europe and European Union member, Latvia applies the European Court of Human Rights case law, including the principle that public officials and politicians must tolerate a wider degree of criticism, and that good-faith journalism on matters of public interest is protected.

What remedies and damages are available?

Civil remedies center on section 2352.1 of the Civil Law. A person whose honour and dignity have been injured by untrue information can demand that the information be retracted, in the same manner in which it was disseminated, and can claim compensation for the harm. Section 1635 establishes the general right to compensation for moral harm caused by any wrongful act, and the courts assess the amount on the facts of the case, taking into account the gravity of the violation and its effects, rather than applying a single fixed statutory ceiling. The Latvian Constitutional Court has confirmed that moral damages are available where non-material rights such as reputation, honour, and dignity are infringed. The court can also order an apology in addition to the retraction.

What is the limitation period?

Latvia does not apply a single short limitation period to all defamation claims in the way some countries do. Civil claims for compensation are governed by the general limitation rules of the Civil Law, and the right to demand a retraction of untrue information is tied to the ongoing injury to reputation. Because the precise period can depend on how the claim is framed (retraction, moral-harm compensation, or general delict under section 1635), and on when the injured person learned of the dissemination, a claimant should act promptly to preserve the claim. On the criminal side, prosecution under section 157 is subject to the statutory limitation periods that attach to the relevant penalty range.

How is online defamation treated?

The Criminal Law and Civil Law rules apply to statements published online, including on social media, in reviews, and in comment sections; an online publication can satisfy the public-dissemination element of section 157 and can be the basis for a retraction and damages under section 2352.1. Because Latvia is a European Union member, intermediary liability follows EU law (the e-Commerce framework, now overlaid by the Digital Services Act), under which a hosting provider is generally not liable for user content of which it has no knowledge but can become liable if it fails to act expeditiously to remove or disable access to clearly unlawful content once properly notified. A person harmed online can therefore pursue both the author and, after notice, the platform.

Watch out: Latvia has separately legislated against the malicious public spreading of false information that grossly disturbs public order, which is distinct from personal defamation; the two should not be confused.

How do you bring a defamation claim in Latvia?

There are two routes. For criminal defamation, the matter proceeds through the criminal justice system under section 157, with the falsity and intent elements assessed by the court. For a civil claim, the injured person files a suit in the ordinary civil courts under section 2352.1 of the Civil Law, asking the court to order a retraction in the same form as the original publication and to award compensation for moral harm; the plaintiff must prove that the information was disseminated and injurious to honour and dignity, while the defendant can defend by proving its truth. Many claimants prefer the civil route because it directly restores reputation and provides compensation. This is general information about Latvian law, not legal advice for any specific dispute.