Lawyer: K2 Ventum’s threats to Latvian government lack legal basis

The Latvian Cabinet of Ministers has declined to approve the K2 Ventum wind park project, leaving its further development to the usual municipal route. Discussions and media coverage have highlighted possible litigation risks after the developer sent a letter threatening costly court action against the state and individual ministers.

In a commentary, sworn attorney Ivars Pommers says these threats have no serious legal foundation and are meant to influence the government. He points to the company’s latest annual report, which shows only €805,000 invested so far and share capital of €2,800, making the claimed €120 million in losses unrealistic at this stage.

Pommers challenges the developer’s assertion that compliance with the Protective Zone Law need not be assessed when deciding on approval. He cites Article 22, Part 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Law, which obliges the Cabinet to examine the EIA report, the opinion, and the views of the municipality and the public. The documents issued so far are interim decisions, he explains; because they cannot be appealed separately by the public, the final decision-maker must defend their validity.

At an April 29 meeting, the Cabinet identified two significant deficiencies: the public consultation procedure had been breached, and serious doubts emerged about whether the Protective Zone Law allows the construction. Pommers says the decision to postpone was actually favourable to K2 Ventum, as it gave the developer a chance to correct the flaws; the alternative would have been outright rejection.

The association PIEKRASTE RĪTDIENAI has sent open letters to the Prime Minister and the Ministries of Justice and Climate and Energy. It argues that the planned construction lies in a protected coastal zone where it is banned, that the project contradicts existing territorial plans, that the municipality refused to start a local plan, and that the project lacks the status of an object of national interest. The association also notes that no repeated public consultation was held, an independent Swedish ornithologist found the wind farm sits on a major bird migration route, and the landscape impact section of the EIA report relies on fabricated photovisualisations.

The lawyer stresses that no legitimate expectation of a favourable decision can arise simply from completing an EIA process, and that territorial planning and national interest status are political choices. Giving in to the threats, he warns, would set a dangerous precedent for dishonest developers pushing harmful projects through exaggerated claims.