The 14 km/h case the court will decide in 2028

In short: a 40-euro fine for doing 14 km/h over the limit in a residential zone, and the court will announce its ruling in January 2028, about 15 months after receiving the case, although the court's standard for such cases is 6.1 months. The practical lesson: everything is decided in the first complaint, which must be filed within 10 working days.

One summer day a camera in a residential zone recorded a car doing 34 km/h instead of the permitted 20. The fine: 40 euros. The court will decide the case in January 2028. This is a story about how the state gives two different validity dates for one certificate in a single decision, and then waits a year and a half for someone to decide it.

What Happened in This Case? 14 km/h, Four Decisions, and 18 Months

The authority decided the case within a month. The court will need a year and a half.

Almost 18 months will pass between the offence and the ruling. By then the car may have been sold, the company reorganised, the driver may have forgotten who was at the wheel, and the fine is still neither in force nor cancelled. The only thing that stays the same is the 40 euros.

What does a 40-euro fine cost the state?

Nobody has calculated the exact amount, and that is exactly the problem. But we can count what has already worked on this case:

• Technology: a certified, repeatedly verified measuring device and a system that records, processes and sends the data.
• The first officer: prepares and sends the decision imposing the fine.
• The senior officer: the head of the authority reviews the complaint and signs a four-page decision citing laws, regulations and rulings. Whoever drafted that text is also paid a salary.
• The court: the registry records the complaint, the judge reviews the file, assesses requests, looks up the certificate on the authority's website and drafts a decision citing legal literature. Yes, legal literature, over 14 km/h.
• The future: another ruling in 2028, and possibly further appeals.

At least two institutions are working for 40 euros, including one of the state's most expensive resources: a judge's time. Even if each person spent only a few hours on the case, the total working time is almost certainly worth more than the fine itself.

And here is the irony: the fine is not in force until the court decides. So the state has spent resources to collect 40 euros, at best, in 2028.

To be fair: 34 km/h in a residential zone where children play is no trifle, and nobody disputes speed enforcement. The problem is not the camera. The problem is what happens afterwards.

What does the law say about the time limit?

The law is clear about time limits. Reality speaks a different language.

What the law says.

• The purpose of the Administrative Liability Law (AAL) is, while respecting fundamental rights, to "ensure effective administrative offence proceedings" (AAL Section 1).
• The principle of procedural economy: officials and courts choose and perform procedural steps so as "to achieve the purpose of the proceedings as quickly and economically as possible" (AAL Section 32).
• The judge prepares the case "to ensure timely examination of the administrative offence case" (AAL Section 198(1)).

On the basis of that same Section 198, the court set the ruling for January 2028. Timely.

What the courts' own standards say. Each year a standard is set for how long cases may take on average. For first-instance administrative offence cases the 2026 standard is 6.1 months, and the actual average in 2025 was 4.1 months. In this case about 15 months will pass from the complaint reaching the court to the ruling: almost three times the standard and almost four times the average.

Two clocks. The person fined must file a complaint with the senior officer within 10 working days (AAL Section 168(1)). Miss it by one day and the complaint is not examined. The state has a year and a half to answer, with no consequences. How short those 10 days are when the file is handed over at the last moment will be the subject of the next article.

A reasonable time is not an empty phrase. The Administrative Procedure Law requires legal rules to be applied reasonably and proportionately (APL Sections 4, 8 and 13). Although the AAL governs administrative offence proceedings, these general principles of law do not evaporate just because the fine is small. The right to have a case heard within a reasonable time is also guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

What Must the Authority Prove? One Certificate, Two Validity Periods

In Latvia the presumption of innocence is not reserved for criminal cases. "A person does not have to prove their innocence. All reasonable doubts about guilt that cannot be removed by examining the evidence are assessed in the person's favour" (AAL Section 29). And: "In administrative offence proceedings the burden of proof lies with the official" (AAL Section 89(1)).

Now let us look at how this worked in practice.

1. A device verified twice. On the first page of the senior officer's decision the measuring device's certificate is valid until September. On the fourth page the same certificate is valid until December. One document, one number, two dates. And the complainant had specifically asked for the evidence on exactly this point.
2. A certificate missing from the file. The court found that the certificate was not in the case file. But it was on the authority's website, and the court found it there itself. Later in the same decision the court explains that it "does not perform investigative functions". Investigation, apparently, only begins after the second click.
3. A road sign nobody proves. The complainant asked a simple question: where is the residential zone sign, and did the car drive past it? In its first decision the authority only quoted point 101 of the Road Traffic Regulations, which lists four different areas with a 20 km/h limit. Only the second decision mentions a "residential zone", but without the sign's location. The court refused to request evidence about the sign: the authority may not submit additional evidence to the court (AAL Section 191(2)), and everything had to be proven at the authority stage.

The result: if the authority did not prove a fact and the court no longer asks for it, AAL Section 29 says reasonable doubts are assessed in the person's favour. Whether the court decides that way we will learn in 2028. But a case like this can be assessed in one afternoon, not a year and a half.

Does Waiting a Year and a Half Comply with the Satversme and Proportionality?

Article 92 of the Constitution promises that "everyone has the right to defend their rights and lawful interests in a fair court" and that "everyone shall be presumed innocent until their guilt has been established in accordance with law". A fair court is not only an independent judge. It is also a court that decides while the case still means something.

Article 89 requires the state not only to recognise fundamental rights but also to protect them. A right to a court that will answer in 2028 about 40 euros from the summer of 2026 is formally ensured. In practice it is a queue.

And proportionality works both ways. The Administrative Procedure Law says: "The benefit gained by society from the restrictions imposed on the addressee must be greater than the restriction of the addressee's rights or legal interests" (APL Section 13). If we apply the same principle to the state's own conduct, we have to ask: is society's benefit from this case greater than what it costs society?

The answer is not "stop collecting fines". The answer is better decisions the first time: with the sign's location, one validity date and the certificate in the file. Then there would be no complaint, no court and no 2028.

What should you do if you get a camera fine?

The main lesson is small and practical: everything is decided in the first complaint. The court said plainly that court proceedings are "not a continuation of the investigation of the facts of the administrative offence case". If you did not ask or dispute something at the authority, it may be too late to do so in court (AAL Section 191).

So in the complaint to the senior officer ask everything at once: which road sign and where, which certificate and its validity date, where the video is, and request the evidence. And do it within 10 working days.

How LexAI helps. The "Camera fine appeal" service prepares a draft complaint that includes all these questions from the start, with references to the AAL and the Road Traffic Regulations and a link to likumi.lv. It does not promise that the fine will be cancelled, because that is for the authority and the court to decide. But it helps make sure nothing important is left out, so that the court has something to assess a year and a half later. Registration at lexai.lv is free.

Questions and answers. Short answers to frequently asked questions about camera fines; legal provisions verified on likumi.lv on 31 October 2026. Related articles: Seven Mistakes AI Makes in Latvian Legal Texts and What AI Legal Tools Are Available in Latvia.

How to Appeal a Speed Camera or Traffic Camera Fine in Latvia?

A decision to impose a fine is appealed to a higher official within 10 working days from the date of notification of the decision, and the appeal is submitted to the official who made the decision (AAL Sections 168(1) and (2)). If someone else was driving the vehicle, the appeal must identify the driver and attach evidence (AAL Section 163(1)). The decision of the higher official can be appealed to a district (city) court within another 10 working days by submitting the appeal to the authority (AAL Sections 186(1) and (3)).

Within How Many Days Must an Appeal Against an Administrative Fine Be Submitted?

Within 10 working days from the date of notification of the decision (AAL Section 168(1)). A late appeal will not be examined by the higher official (Section 168(3)), unless the deadline is reinstated for a justifiable reason (AAL Section 169). The same 10 working days apply to an appeal addressed to the court (AAL Section 186(1)).

What to Write in an Appeal Against a Camera Fine?

The law requires specifying the addressee, one’s details, the appealed decision, the extent to which it is appealed, arguments, the request, annexes, and the date, and the appeal must be signed (AAL Section 167). The lesson from this case: ask right away which road sign it is and where it is located, which certificate applies to the measuring device and what its validity period is, where the video is, and request the disclosure of evidence, as the authority is not permitted to submit new evidence in court (AAL Section 191(2)).

How Long Does a Court Take to Examine an Administrative Offence Case in Latvia?

The Judicial Council’s standard for 2026 for first-instance administrative offence cases is 6.1 months, and in 2025 cases were examined in an average of 4.1 months. In this case, the court will announce the ruling in January 2028, approximately 15 months after receiving the case.

The article is prepared based on the materials of an actual case; all identifying information has been removed. The article represents an opinion and general information, not individual legal advice. Legal provisions verified on likumi.lv on 20 October 2026; the questions and answers section — on 31 October 2026. Author: Ivars Bajārs, lawyer, creator of LexAI. Translated from the Latvian original.

References

1. Constitution of the Republic of Latvia (Satversme), Articles 89 and 92.
2. Administrative Liability Law (Administratīvās atbildības likums): Sections 1, 29, 32, Section 89(1), Section 163(1), Section 167, Sections 168(1)–(3), Section 169, Sections 186(1) and (3), Section 191(2), Section 198(1).
3. Administrative Procedure Law (Administratīvā procesa likums): Sections 4, 8, 13.
4. Road Traffic Regulations (Cabinet Regulation No. 279 of 2 June 2015): point 101.
5. Judicial Council (Tieslietu padome). Case processing time standards for 2026: first-instance administrative offence cases, 2026 standard 6.1 months; 2025 performance 4.1 months.
6. European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time).
7. Case materials: decision imposing the fine, senior officer's decision, court decision opening proceedings (2026). Held by the author; not made public.