An official cannot
be held liable for inaction without a law
jaanuar 24, 2025
On January 16, 2025, Vidzeme Regional Court, in an appellate review of a criminal case under Section 319, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Law, concerning the inaction of a state official that resulted in serious consequences – the death of a person and severe bodily injuries – fully annulled the Vidzeme District Court’s guilty verdict in this case. This decision once again affirmed the fundamental principle of criminal law, ‘’Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege’’ or “No crime, no punishment without law”.
Although the full judgment is still being finalized, the outcome of this case once again reinforces what has already been established in judicial practice: namely, the inaction of a state official is characterized by the failure to perform actions that the official is required to take by law or by an assigned duty [1], and in no other way. If the law and the job description do not grant a specific competence to the state official, they cannot be held liable for inaction regarding something unforeseen, even if there may initially appear to be an impression that such competence applies to the official.
This case also demonstrated that it is irrelevant whether the official was aware of the specific non-compliance that led to severe consequences. The legally significant factor is the competence of the specific official as defined by law and their job description, not the official’s potentially mistaken assumption about the scope of their competence.
Finally, as in any other criminal case, the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law regarding the specificity of the accusation must be observed, particularly when charging inaction by a state official under Section 319 of the Criminal Law. In such cases, it is crucial to precisely indicate the subjective aspect of the individual’s attitude toward the objective elements of the criminal offense, to avoid violating the person’s right to a defense – namely, the right to know the specific criminal act for which they are suspected or accused. In this case, the defense argued that this requirement was not fulfilled.
WIDEN partner, attorney at law Armands Rasa joined the case shortly after the filing of the appeal and immediately took active steps to involve several competent institutions in providing expert opinions. These opinions were promptly submitted to the court of appeals and served as decisive evidence in acquitting the accused official, demonstrating why the specific official did not have the relevant competence. Ironically, the same institutions had previously provided opinions during the pre-trial investigation, which the prosecution had attempted to use to support its case.
In conclusion, it should be noted that the decision in this case is not yet final, as the prosecutor reserves the right to file a protest in the Senate.
Therefore, every person is presumed innocent until their guilt is proven by a final judgment in a criminal case.
[1] Case Law in Criminal Cases under Section 317, Paragraph 2; Section 318, Paragraph 2; and Section 319, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Law Available at:
English 
Estonian 
Latvian 
Lithuanian 
Russian