PTAC: 'Tiesiskums.lv' Misled Public on OIK Recovery; Association Denies

The Consumer Rights Protection Centre (PTAC) has concluded that the association "Tiesiskums.lv", established a year ago, misled citizens regarding the legal prospects of recovering mandatory procurement component (OIK) payments included in electricity bills. The association had urged people to join a collective claim against the state, promising to recover OIK fees paid over the past decade or so.

During its investigation, PTAC determined that the association provided selective information from the European Commission's (EC) 2017 decision, omitting the key part where the EC found the OIK scheme compatible with the EU internal market. However, because individual applications have already closed and assessing the validity of OIK payments falls outside PTAC's competence, the case was closed without imposing any penalty. PTAC called on the association to ensure fair commercial practices in the future.

"Tiesiskums.lv" rejects PTAC's findings. Representatives argue that the EC's finding of compatibility does not preclude evaluating consequences for the period when the support was granted in violation of EU law. The association says it obtained 169 documents from the Ministry of Economics that, in its view, substantiate the claim for OIK refunds. Lawyer Artis Stucka told TV3's "Nekā personīga" that PTAC's opinion has no legal effect, so the association cannot challenge it in court.

Initially, the association's activities gained political support from the United List and the Union of Greens and Farmers (ZZS). At the end of the year, the ZZS board backed the initiative to seek compensation for citizens and businesses. However, enthusiasm has waned, and politicians now indicate the issue is no longer on the agenda. MP Augusts Brigmanis (ZZS) said it's not something to get overly stressed about, while Edgars Tavars (United List) stated he supports the principle of fighting for justice but deferred specific questions to the association.

The association offered individuals to sign assignment agreements, transferring the right to claim OIK amounts without any upfront payment, but with a 20% commission fee if the case succeeded. However, businessman Jevgenijs Gombergs, who signed an agreement, told the program that the contract contained pitfalls: withdrawing would require paying a 30% penalty. He proposed the association pay him 40 euros immediately instead of the promised 20% later, but the association refused. Gombergs has not been able to withdraw from the agreement.

The Prosecutor General's Office is still investigating the legality of the association's activities under the Advocacy Law and the Criminal Law, initiated after a submission by MP Jānis Patmalnieks (JV). The Ethics Commission of the Latvian Council of Sworn Advocates reviewed complaints about lawyers involved but found no grounds for disciplinary action, only recommending more ethical conduct.