The State Audit Office of Latvia has concluded after an audit that, unlike other institutions, where violation cases are almost always examined individually, local and regional governments still use a collegial decision-making model in administrative commissions. This approach is time-consuming, more expensive and does not improve the quality of decisions. The State Audit Office of Latvia calls for abandoning the collegial form of commissions in the administrative violation process by moving to a simpler and more effective model, thus reducing red tape and administrative burden. Savings in municipal budgets can reach 1.12 million euros per year.
IN BRIEF:
- The State Audit Office of Latvia calls for abandoning the collegial decision-making model of municipal administrative commissions introduced during the Soviet era because such an approach is outdated, creates unnecessary bureaucracy and administrative burden.
- The audit shows that unilateral decision-making is up to 7.5 times cheaper and significantly faster, without losing quality.
- The differences in opinions among commission members are minimal, and the legal quality of decisions could also be maintained by an official who has investigated a case, for example, a municipal police officer.
- Transferring decisions to unilateral decision-making would allow local and regional governments to save up to 1.12 million euros per year.
- The heads of local and regional governments recognise the need to reform the commission model mostly by making administrative processes simpler, faster and more understandable to communities.
In Latvia, 139 sectoral laws and 498 binding regulations of local and regional governments regulate administrative liability. More than 50 state and municipal institutions are entitled to apply administrative penalties. Decisions are made in two ways. That is, individually or collectively. In the state administration, 96% of violation cases are reviewed individually, but in municipal administrative commissions 4% – collectively.
“Administrative commissions were introduced during the Soviet era as a means of organising state administration by involving the widest possible segment of society. The principles of governance have changed significantly since then, but the commission model has not been revised. In addition, a significant part of the commissions’ work is decisions on the application of coercive measures of an educational nature to children. Already in 2022, the State Audit Office of Latvia pointed out the need to abandon the punitive approach and made recommendations to several ministries. The implementation of these recommendations is slow,” emphasised Mr Oskars Erdmanis, Council Member of the State Audit Office of Latvia.
Currently, 99.9% of violations are recorded, investigated and transferred to a commission by another official, for instance, municipal police, but the commission examines the case and decides on the penalty. In 2024, 343 members worked in the commissions; an average of 8 in each local or regional government or even up to 11 members in some places. They are municipal employees from the social service, educational institution, custody court, construction board and police mostly. The situation modelled in the audit shows that if the municipal police took over the functions of the commission, its workload would increase by only about 190 hours per year in one local or regional government, while maintaining the legal quality of decisions. Lithuania and Estonia have not retained collegial commissions for the examination of administrative violation cases in their municipalities.
The audit compared cases that local and regional governments examined collegially and state institutions examined them individually. Unilateral decision-making in local and regional governments would be more efficient and modern in terms of time, costs and quality. The goal of collegiality is diversity of opinions and impartiality, but the audit concluded that only 7% of a commission members voted differently. So, diversity of opinions is of little importance. In addition, various violations regarding public order, keeping animals, territory maintenance, street trading are considered both individually and collegially. There is no justification for why administrative cases in local and regional governments should be considered collegially. 78% of penalties are warnings or fines of up to 50 euros, and collegiality does not bring any additional benefit here.
In 29 local and regional governments, the number of commission members could be reduced by 118 persons by saving approximately 30,000 working hours per year. Moreover, 32 or 80% of the surveyed heads of local and regional governments admit that the commission model needs to be reformed. In commissions, the examination of cases takes on average 13 days longer than in state institutions. The cost of a decision in a commission is 98 euros, but it is 13 euros in an institution unilaterally, that is, 7.5 times cheaper. The work of the commissions in two years has required 165,000 hours more than the equivalent amount of work in other institutions. Indicators such as the proportion of appealed or overturned decisions, the presence of violator, or the quality of the results are similar to those in state institutions. A size of the commissions is not related to the volume of work or effectiveness. In addition, the Ministry of Justice indicates that shared competence in the violation process should be an exception that must be justified impartially. The State Audit Office of Latvia did not find such justification during the audit.
Recommendations of the State Audit Office of Latvia #PēcRevīzijas
- The Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Smart Administration and Regional Development, and local and regional governments should abandon the collegial operating model of commissions in administrative violation process.
- Ensure that all cases are reviewed individually by using existing resources, such as municipal police.
- Reduce a number of commission members during the transition period and review mandates in the binding regulations.
The State Audit Office of Latvia expects that one shall ensure that all administrative violation cases in local and regional governments are reviewed individually within five years, thus reducing red tape and administrative burden. The processes will become simpler and more understandable for residents, and they will not have to attend routine case hearings.
Additional reading: audit report summary
About the State Audit Office of Latvia
The State Audit Office of the Republic of Latvia is an independent, collegial supreme audit institution. The purpose of its activity is to find out whether the actions with the financial means and property of a public entity are legal, correct, useful and in line with public interests, as well as to provide recommendations for the elimination of discovered irregularities. The State Audit Office conducts audits in accordance with International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions of the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions INTOSAI (ISSAI), whose recognition in Latvia is determined by the Auditor General. Upon discovering deficiencies, the State Audit Office of Latvia provides recommendations for their elimination, but it informs law enforcement authorities about potential infringements of the law.
Additional information
Ms Gunta Krevica
Head of Communication Division
Ph. 23282332 | E-mail: Gunta.Krevica@lrvk.gov.lv