Anti‑Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Latvia
Table of contents
The Corruption Prevention and Combating Action Plan 2023-2025 was adopted at the central government level in March 2023. The Action Plan identified 5 sub-objectives, which are each supported by actions and indicators: 1) Linking the Anti-Corruption Plan to other policy planning documents; 2) To establish and improve an autonomously and continuously operating internal control system; 3) To reduce public tolerance towards corruption; 4) To ensure inevitability of punishment for offences related to abuse of office and misuse of entrusted power; 5) To limit the power of money in politics.
Latvia has a central government body focused on anti-corruption and prevention of conflict-of-interest (Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau, hereinafter KNAB), which also supervises political finance. The Ministry of Smart Administration and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia is responsible for the open data policy. The Ministry of Finance is tasked with the central harmonisation of internal audit. The Ministry of Justice supports policy-development in the field of anti-corruption, and the Judicial Council is responsible for the procedure for the selection of Supreme Court Judges.
Note: 2025 and 2020 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
Data on where Latvia’s integrity system is strongest and could be most improved can be found at the link below:
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
Latvia fulfils 87% of criteria related to the strength of its strategic framework and 97% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 38% and 32%.
The Corruption Prevention and Combating Action Plan 2023-2025 includes objectives to mitigate public integrity risks related to human resources management, internal control and risk management, public procurement fraud, private sector corruption and education. While it contains a situation analysis, including the identification of existing public integrity risks and outcome level indicators for public integrity objectives, the strategy was not based on a formal risk assessment. The Action Plan 2023-2025 contains 13 action directions and a total of 49 measures with consequential tasks.
On practice, the action plan contains a section specifying the monitoring, reporting and evaluation arrangements. Lead organisations are identified of each objective as per Section III of the Action Plan. All institutions responsible for the implementation of the plan must submit information on the progress of the implementation every year, and an online tool allows the visualisation of progress on KNAB’s website.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Latvia fulfils 60% of criteria on lobbying regulations and 33% of criteria on practice, compared to the OECD average of 43% and 38%, respectively.
In Latvia, Section 1 the Law on Transparency of Interest Representation defines lobbying and which actors are considered as lobbyists. There is no supervisory function in the central government that oversees the transparency of lobbying activities, but a lobbying register is now publicly available. It currently only includes the name, organisation and type of lobbying activities conducted and a new Register of Interest Representatives will be made available in September 2028. The lobbying framework is completed by the Cabinet Recommendation Nr. 1, which regulates interactions between public officials and lobbyists, including by providing practical examples of undesirable situations and behaviours.
A two-year cooling off period is established for public officials in cases where the person has been involved as a representative of a public authority, but there are no similar provisions applied for lobbyists entering government.
The beneficial ownership register remains operational and accessible to the public.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Latvia fulfils 100% of the criteria on conflict-of-interest regulations, and 100% of criteria on practice, compared to the OECD average of 80% and 45%, respectively.
Latvia's is one of the best-performing OECD countries for both its regulations on conflict of interest and its performance in practice. Latvia requires ministers, members of Parliament, judges and senior civil servants to submit interest and asset declarations, and this procedure is reinforced by risk-based verification managed by the KNAB.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Latvia fulfils 100% of criteria on political finance regulations, and 43% of criteria on practice, compared to the OECD average of 76% and 58%, respectively.
The regulatory framework on political finance in Latvia is one of the most comprehensive among OECD countries. The Law on Financing of Political Organisations includes bans on anonymous donations and contributions from foreign states and state-owned enterprises. The Law on Financing of Political Organisations and the Pre-Election Campaign Law also limit candidates’ expenses to a ceiling pegged to the monthly average gross salary of Latvian workers.
However, in practice, the body overseeing political finance, KNAB, does not have financial accountability directly to parliament, which could potentially undermine its independence. The body also does not employ certified auditors to monitor parties’ financial statements, and not all parties represented in parliament presented annual or electoral financial reports within 30 days of the deadlines established by Latvian legislation.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Latvia fulfils 67% of criteria on access to public information regulations and 69% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 72% and 62%, respectively.
In Latvia, consolidated versions of primary laws, minutes and agendas of Government sessions, ministers’ personal agendas, the national budget, data on public tenders, the business and land registries, and asset and interest declarations are all publicly available.
No supervisory body for public information exists, as states and local authorities have a responsibility to make public information available and accessible. The Ministry of Smart Administration and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia is responsible for the Open Data portal and the Ministry of Justice is responsible for public information policy.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
Latvia fulfils 94% of criteria on judicial integrity regulations, and 88% criteria on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 45%, respectively.
The Law on Judicial Power establishes guaranteed tenure for judges until mandatory retirement age, expiry of their term or dismissal from office, the dismissal of judges, defined in Article 83 of said law does not determine in which cases and for which reasons the Disciplinary Board may propose the removal of a judge.
Articles 52 to 54 establish the requirements for the selection of judges of district, regional and supreme court respectively. The Selection Committee is a sub-body of the Judicial Council which acts as an independent body and provides recommendations for the appointment of judges and their promotion. Judicial positions are filled through open competition procedures publicly announced, but only after being first offered to a specific category of candidates.
Standards of conduct and ethical behaviour are published for judges in the form of the Code of Judicial Ethics. Regulations define the circumstances and relationships that can lead to conflict of interest situations for judges, as the Law on the Prevention of Conflict of Interest applies to judges in accordance with Section 4(21). The submission rate of declarations from national judges has been 100% for the past 4 years.
Internal reporting channels exist for courts of all instances, in the form of dedicated mailboxes or e-mail addresses. A publicly available portal provides information on whistleblowers’ rights and procedures for reporting misconduct of judges. Staff handling reports in courts undergo mandatory training on confidentiality, in the form of webinars and a court offered by the State Chancellery and the Latvian School of Public Administration.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
Latvia fulfils 90% of criteria on prosecutorial integrity, and 84% criteria on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 52%, respectively.
The Office of the Prosecutor Law establishes objective grounds for the dismissal of prosecutors, in the form of its article 40(1). The Criminal Procedure Law and the Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest define the circumstances and relationships that can lead to conflict-of-interest situations for prosecutors. The Criminal Procedure Law also defines the circumstances where prosecutors can be recused or should recuse themselves and establishes a procedure to decide whether the prosecutor should continue the case. The legislation also establishes sanctions for breaches of conflict-of-interest regulations.
The Law on Prosecutorial Integrity establishes merit-based, objective procedures for the selection and promotion of prosecutors. The procedure is divided into three stages: a written test, an evaluation of documents submitted relying on established criteria and an evaluation of the responses provided in the application. The selection, appointment and promotion of prosecutors is appealable, with the exception of the position of Prosecutor-General.
Standards of conduct and ethical behaviour are included in the Code of Conduct of Prosecutors and are applicable to all prosecutors. The submission rate of interest declarations from the highest members of prosecutorial authorities has equated to 100% over the last four years The Whistleblowing Law establishes internal reporting channels for all public institutions, regardless of the number of employees. New personnel are informed of the existence of these channels at the beginning of their professional activity. Staff handling reports in public prosecutors' offices undergo mandatory training on confidentiality in the form of mandatory webinars. Additionally, a publicly available portal provides information on whistleblowers’ rights and procedures for reporting misconduct.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
Latvia fulfils 92% of criteria on disciplinary system for civil servants’ regulations 33% for practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 22%, respectively.
The Law on Disciplinary Liability of State Civil Servants establish disciplinary procedures for civil servants, which include a range of sanctions for each type of disciplinary offence, varying according to the severity and circumstances of the offence. A right to appeal a disciplinary decision is guaranteed by the law on Disciplinary Liability of State Civil Servants.
The Latvian School of Public Administration offers a training program on disciplinary supervision and investigations. However, there is no electronic case management system used to manage disciplinary cases and proceedings, and data, including the number of disciplinary procedures against civil servants and the number and type of sanctions applied, are not publicly available.
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Member countries of the OECD.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Kosovo: This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99 and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s declaration of independence.
The full book is available in English: OECD (2026), Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Harnessing the Integrity Advantage, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/16708b78-en.
© OECD 2026
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution – you must cite the work.
Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of the original work should be considered valid.
Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.
Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement.
You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.
Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one.