Blickpunkt Osteuropa

Blickpunkt Osteuropa

Latvia: EU court on VAT treatment of new vehicle supplies

On 14 June 2017 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) announced its ruling C-26/16 on the conditions for applying a VAT exemption to intra-Community supplies of new vehicles. This article explores the relevant court findings.

The background of the case

Santogal M-Comércio e Reparação de Automóveis Lda is a Portuguese company that sells automobiles. The company sold a new vehicle to an Angolan national, which he had previously brought into Portugal under a customs declaration for vehicles. The buyer had stated that he was planning to use the vehicle for private purposes in Spain, which he had named as his permanent residence to which he was planning to deliver the vehicle, then take it through a roadworthiness test and complete its registration. The buyer had provided his foreign citizen registration number in Spain and a copy of his Angolan passport. The address he stated at the time of purchase did not match the one appearing in his foreign citizen registration document. The vehicle was carried to Spain in a fully closed vehicle transporter. After the delivery to Spain, the Portuguese tax authority received the vehicle’s Spanish registration certificate, which stated yet another address of the buyer and mentioned temporary registration for tourism purposes. The Portuguese tax authority had found that the buyer’s permanent residence was in Portugal and he was registered as the CEO of a Portuguese company and had a Portuguese taxpayer number.
Under article 138(2)(a) of the VAT directive, a member state will exempt VAT on supplies of new vehicles that are shipped or transported by the seller, the buyer, or a third party on behalf of the seller or the buyer, to a destination outside the member state but within the EU if supplies are made to taxable persons, non-taxable entities whose intra-Community acquisitions of goods are exempt from VAT under article 3(1) of the directive, or to any other non-taxable person.

Since the company was in dispute with the Portuguese tax authority over the conditions for applying a VAT exemption, the case was referred to the CJEU.
Court findings

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant Portuguese legislation, the CJEU came to the following conclusions:

1. Article 138(2)(a) of the VAT directive is contradicted by the requirement that the buyer of a new vehicle should be registered or permanently resident in the member state of destination. The fact that the buyer is not living in the member state of destination does not necessarily mean that the final and permanent use of the vehicle does not take place in that member state. All the objective facts and circumstances should be assessed, including the buyer’s place of residence.

2. If a member state is to grant a VAT exemption to the supply of a new vehicle, article 138(2)(a) of the VAT directive implies that three cumulative conditions must be satisfied:

a) the seller must give the buyer the right to deal with the vehicle as owner;
b) the supplier must prove that the goods have been shipped or transported to another member state;
c) after the shipment or transportation the goods must be physically removed from the member state of shipment.

3. These conditions do not require that a new vehicle should be registered in the member state of destination, and the member state cannot, therefore, restrict the application of an exemption on the grounds that the registration made in the member state of destination is temporary, and the grant of registration in the member state of destination does not help determine the member state of end use of the vehicle, which is the place of taxation.

4. The court stated that evidence of the vehicle’s physical movement to the place of its end use, which the seller can file with the tax authority, depends on the buyer, and the seller cannot be required to provide evidence that the intra-Community acquisition of goods has been charged to VAT in order to receive an exemption.

5. Article 138(2)(a) of the VAT directive is contradicted by the fact that the seller must later pay VAT on the new vehicle which the buyer transported to another member state and temporarily registered in that last mentioned country unless it is proved that the temporary registration arrangement has ended and that VAT has been, or will be, paid in the member state of destination. The seller cannot be required to provide evidence that the buyer has paid VAT in the member state of destination.

6. The court also stated, however, that the trader must take all steps that may be reasonably demanded from him to make sure the transaction will not involve him in tax fraud. The seller cannot rely solely on the buyer’s intention to transport the goods to another member state for their end use, but the seller should ensure that the buyer’s intention is supported by objective circumstances. The seller must also demonstrate special care, given that an individual is not permitted to recover VAT when acquiring a new vehicle, and so the individual is more interested in evading VAT than a trader. In assessing the supplier’s good faith, we should form an opinion on whether the seller could know that the temporary registration of vehicles is restricted to persons without a permanent residence in the country, and whether the seller should not have had doubts about the buyer’s permanent residence after he had filed documents with different addresses. The seller should make a general assessment of all the facts and circumstances in order to treat the transaction as an intra-Community supply and to prevent any involvement in tax fraud; he should accumulate all evidence he can reasonably obtain to make sure all the conditions are satisfied, in particular the requirement for permanent use in the member state of destination. Considering the vehicle’s temporary registration, it would also be reasonable to check the country of its end use with the buyer.

In view of this court ruling, we would recommend that any company making supplies of goods in the EU, in particular supplies of new vehicles to EU individuals that do not carry on a trade or business, should make an in-depth assessment of its supply procedures to stay compliant with the conditions for a VAT exemption (section 43 of the Latvian VAT Act) and make sure the company steers clear of fraudulent transactions.

Latvia: Non-residents to file Latvian income tax

The deadline for taxpayers who are required to file an income tax return is 1 June. We have already informed our subscribers about cases where Latvian tax residents are required to file an income tax return and cases where they can choose to do so voluntarily. This article explores a non-Latvian resident’s filing obligation.

Taxable income and withholding tax

Unlike Latvian tax residents, whose worldwide income is taxable in Latvia, non-Latvian residents are liable to pay Latvian personal income tax (PIT) on their Latvian-source income only. This means that a tax return should be filed by a non-resident who has gained any income on which PIT was not withheld at source.

In practice, more often than not, the source or payer of income will have already withheld PIT from the income, and so the non-resident need not file in Latvia. For example, a Latvian employer paying salary to a non-resident for work done in Latvia will withhold PIT under general procedure. Latvian credit institutions paying interest or dividends to non-residents are also required to withhold. The non-resident need not file in either case.

If, however, the source or payer of income has not withheld PIT from the non-resident’s Latvian-source income (or income attributable to Latvia), the non-resident is required to file in order to pay the PIT charged on that income. Below we list cases where the filing obligation arises:

  • A non-resident is hired labour, and the Latvian company on whose behalf the person was employed in Latvia has not withheld PIT from their income. Such a situation can arise, for example, if the foreign employer who hires out labour has failed to attribute relevant costs to Latvia, i.e. the non-resident’s foreign salary costs were not transferred to the Latvian company. This failure does not, however, affect the existence of labour hire, and the income attracts Latvian PIT;
  • A non-resident has received a bonus from the foreign employer in the current tax year for work done in Latvia in previous tax periods, but the foreign employer did not have the technical capability to withhold Latvian PIT;
  • A non-resident has gained income from leasing out real estate in Latvia, but the tenant or lessee has not withheld PIT at source, e.g. the tenant is an individual who does not carry on a trade, or the lessee is a non-Latvian resident entity. (This example ignores the fact that a non-resident gaining income from leasing out real estate may be required to register as a trader in Latvia, and the fact that this income may attract different rates of PIT.)

In all the cases listed above the non-resident is required to file (this is not an exhaustive list of cases where filing is mandatory).

In general, where no exceptions apply, non-residents are required to file by the same deadline as residents, i.e. the 2016 income tax return is due by 1 June 2017.

Latvia: Tighter requirements for external accountants from 1 July 2017

In an attempt to optimise costs, CEOs in small and medium firms tend to put their accounting function out to an external service provider under a written contract defining their rights, obligations, and liability. This article explores some recent amendments to the Accounting Act and some new proposals dealing with bookkeeping procedures.

An external accountant’s liability

The current law holds the CEO responsible for keeping the company’s books. The CEO can agree with an external accountant on the required scope of services and define their level of liability in a contract. External accountants have so far had the option of insuring their civil liability on a voluntary basis, meaning an increase in their service fees.

The Accounting Act as amended from 1 July 2017 lays down the liability of external accountants and requires that they insure their civil liability for any loss resulting from their professional acts or omissions for a minimum of €3,000. The amendments are likely to have the effect of reducing the number of available external accountants due to extra cost as well as improving the quality of their services.

The Financial Statements and Consolidated Financial Statements Act requires that a company’s financial statements be signed by its internal or external accountant or a responsible person appointed internally.

When it comes to filing financial statements through the Electronic Declaration System, there is a special field for giving the first name, surname and full title of the responsible person, the entity’s name and the person’s title, designed to help tax inspectors analyse details of accounting service providers.

Proposed amendments

A new set of proposals for amending the Accounting Act have been drafted to lay down administrative liability in the field of accounting. The proposals replace the current title of Chapter IV, “Apportionment of competence in accounting” with “Administrative liability in accounting and competence in imposing penalties” as well as laying down liability for the following offences:

  • Non-compliance with procedures for recording cash transactions;
  • Non-compliance with bookkeeping rules;
  • Non-submission or incomplete filing of financial statements;
  • Non-compliance with procedures for preparing, registering and using supporting documents;
  • Non-compliance with procedures for preparing, registering and using delivery or carriage documents.

The State Revenue Service can issue a warning or levy a fine of 70–400 units depending on the type of offence.

This means that the statutory requirements for bookkeeping and accounting are tightening up, and the company can agree with the external accountant on their terms of business in order to avoid risks and define their respective obligations.

Latvia: SRS ruling on taxation of board member’s income

In July 2016 the SRS published a ruling on how income received by someone sitting on a company’s management board is taxed under section 8(2.9) of the Personal Income Tax (PIT) Act. This article explores the approach the SRS takes in analysing the taxpayer’s issue.


X Ltd has two officers: the chairman of the board and a board member who is also the company’s CEO. The chairman receives no remuneration for his work, but the board member is remunerated by three companies: X Ltd, U Ltd (X’s parent company), and C Ltd.

X Ltd asked the SRS to issue a ruling on whether X qualifies for the exception available under section 8(2.10)(1) of the PIT Act (i.e. the right to exempt a board member’s income from wage tax).

Provisions of the PIT Act

Section 8(2.9) of the PIT Act states that a company’s board member is considered to have received taxable income equal to the statutory minimum monthly wage (€370 in 2016) for the current month in which the company has no employee or board member receiving remuneration that equals or exceeds the minimum wage, if the company’s revenue for that month exceeds five minimum monthly wages (€1,850 in 2016).

Section 8(2.10) of the PIT Act states that section 8(2.9) does not apply where a board member in a company meeting the criteria listed in section 8(2.9) receives board remuneration in another company for the current month that equals or exceeds five minimum monthly wages, and if the two companies are members of the same group within the meaning of the Corporate Income Tax Act.

The SRS analysis and findings

The SRS measured X’s revenue for the first five months of 2016: it exceeded €30,000 in total and was €1,850 or more for each of the months. The SRS found that the board member’s monthly gross remuneration was €145.11 from X Ltd, €1,425.03 from U Ltd, and €435.32 from C Ltd.

The SRS examined whether X, U and C qualify as members of the group under section 12(7) of the Corporate Income Tax Act. The SRS found that X and U are related companies within the meaning of the Act, but X and C are not.

The SRS found that X may escape section 8(2.9) of the PIT Act only if the board member of U and C (group entities) is a board member also in X, with his total board remuneration for one month exceeding five minimum monthly wages.

However, C does not qualify as a member of the group, and so the board member’s remuneration from C was ignored for the purpose of applying the provision of law in question.

The SRS found that X cannot take the exception available under section 8(2.10)(1) of the PIT Act because the board member’s remuneration from X and U combined is less than €1,850 (145.11 + 1,425.03 = 1,570.14).

The SRS also mentioned that the National Social Insurance Act (Section 1(2)(m)) treats a company’s board member as an employee if the company’s revenue for the current month of the tax year exceeds the minimum monthly wage prescribed by the Cabinet of Ministers multiplied by a coefficient of 5 and if the company has no employee or all its employees pay social insurance contributions on an income that is below the minimum wage in that month.

Latvia: Tax implications of investing in public infrastructure items

Companies that launch property development projects or pursue other lines of business in an area with no infrastructure (no roads, no streets, no lighting, no water main, etc) are often forced to build the necessary items of public infrastructure, because municipalities do not have enough funds. Later, to reduce the cost of managing that public infrastructure, the developer requests that the municipality should take ownership of those items and carry out their further management and maintenance. This article explores the tax implications of such activities.

The Municipalities Act states that a municipality’s functions include providing local residents with utility services as well as improving and cleaning the municipality’s administrative area, including building, refurbishing, maintaining and lighting the streets, roads and squares. So it makes perfect sense to transfer any items of public infrastructure built with private-sector money to the municipality for their further management.

Initial questions arise when it comes to legally documenting the transfer of the public infrastructure item to the municipality, because there is no legal form of transaction that would precisely reflect the intentions of the parties and lead to public infrastructure items built by the private sector being passed to the municipality for their further management and maintenance. Since municipalities are not prepared to reimburse the cost of building such public infrastructure, these items are transferred to municipalities without consideration under a deed of gift. However, generosity is not a motive for such private-sector activities: a gift is the only form of transaction that provides for the transfer of an asset without consideration.

Also, the corporate income tax (CIT) and value added tax (VAT) legislation is silent about how public infrastructure development costs should be recorded in the company’s books.

Since the company has invested in public infrastructure items for commercial and not personal reasons, in practice accounting for the cost of developing a public infrastructure item depends on the company’s line of business. These costs are either accrued in inventories under current assets if the company’s core business activity is property development and disposal, or in PPE (with depreciation being included in the value of services rendered) if a public infrastructure item has been built for the company’s own business that is not property sales (e.g. a logistics centre or a shop). Any input VAT paid on the construction of a public infrastructure item is deductible, even though the infrastructure can be used by the public and no consideration has been received for that use.

What are the VAT and CIT implications if a public infrastructure item is transferred to the municipality without consideration (i.e. donated)?

VAT implications

The SRS has not reached a consensus on whether the gift of a public infrastructure item to the municipality in these situations qualifies as a deemed taxable supply (personal consumption) within the meaning of the VAT Act. In our view, if we evaluate the economic substance of the transaction, it is not a deemed taxable supply and should not attract VAT (if the company has invested in a property that qualifies as “used” at the time of transfer to the municipality, the supply should not be recorded as exempt, either).

Passing the public infrastructure item to the municipality raises the next question: Does the deducted input VAT need adjusting? In our view, it does not matter that a public infrastructure item is transferred to the municipality without consideration, because the transfer to the municipality for further management and maintenance does not restrict its further use and does not change its significance in the company’s business. Accordingly, the deducted input VAT needs no adjusting. The SRS has mostly agreed with this view.

Latvia: Risk analysis in transfer pricing documentation

The latest version of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations, which came into force in autumn 2015, substantially widens the range of requirements for analysing risk as part of the functional analysis in a company’s transfer pricing documentation. This article takes a look at details.

Risk analysis

Section D1.2.1 of the OECD guidelines states that the process for analysing risk in a controlled transaction should comprise the following six steps:

  1. Identify economically significant risks with specificity;
  2. Determine how specific, economically significant risks are contractually assumed by the associated enterprises under the terms of the transaction;
  3. Determine through a functional analysis how the associated enterprises that are parties to the transaction operate in relation to assumption and management of the specific, economically significant risks, and in particular which enterprise or enterprises perform control functions and risk mitigation functions, which enterprise or enterprises encounter upside or downside consequences of risk outcomes, and which enterprise or enterprises have the financial capacity to assume the risk;
  4. Determine whether the contractual assumption of risk is consistent with the conduct of the associated enterprises and other facts of the case by analysing (i) whether the associated enterprises follow the contractual terms under the relevant principles; and (ii) whether the party assuming risk, as analysed under (i), exercises control over the risk and has the financial capacity to assume the risk;
  5. Where the party assuming risk under steps 1–4(i) does not control the risk or does not have the financial capacity to assume the risk, apply the guidance on allocating risk;
  6. The actual transaction, as accurately delineated by considering the evidence of all the economically relevant characteristics of the transaction as set out in the guidance, should then be priced, taking into account the financial and other consequences of risk assumption, as appropriately allocated, and appropriately compensating risk management functions.


We have noticed that certain SRS officers who specialise in transfer pricing reviews are already adopting this OECD approach during tax audits and issuing information requests focused on managing various risks.

This means that Latvian taxpayers should control all expenses they incur in their dealings with related companies to ensure that those expenses are deductible for corporate income tax purposes.

For example, corporate groups often have a dedicated purchase company or a purchase department within a group company that selects suppliers, negotiates terms that are favourable to the group, and takes care of ordering, buying and transporting goods for a Latvian taxpayer. Corporate groups typically organise centralised purchases to reduce the group’s total expenses and negotiate favourable terms of purchase, including a bulk discount on goods ordered for the whole group.

However, if the Latvian taxpayer is not involved in the process of selecting suppliers, has no right to reject or change a supplier, and is unable to independently analyse or control purchase prices, there is a high risk that the SRS will find that the expenses the Latvian taxpayer incurs in making purchases beyond his control are not deductible for Latvian tax purposes and should be borne by the group entities that exercise control over those expenses. To mitigate this risk, the Latvian taxpayer’s functional analysis should accurately describe all activities that are associated with control over the Latvian company’s business operations in general and costs in particular.

Ă„nderungen des Einwanderungsgesetzes und der Regeln zur befristeten Aufenthaltserlaubnis in Lettland

Am 1. September 2014 treten die Änderungen zum Einwanderungsgesetz aus dem Mai dieses Jahres in Kraft. Sie beinhalten neue Regeln für Ausländer, die wegen einer Investition in lettischen Grundbesitz oder in ein Kreditinstitut eine befristete Aufenthaltserlaubnis erlangen möchten. Neben dem Kauf von Grundbesitz oder der Unterzeichnung einer nachrangigen Schuldvereinbarung mit einem Kreditinstitut müssen diese Investoren auch Geld an die Regierung zahlen.

Zusatzzahlung an die Regierung

Wenn Investoren zum ersten Mal eine befristete Aufenthaltserlaubnis nach dem Kauf von Grundbesitz beantragen, müssen sie 5 % des Kaufpreises an die Regierung zahlen. Bei erstmaligem Antrag auf befristete Aufenthaltserlaubnis nach einer Investition in ein Kreditinstitut ist eine Zahlung an die Regierung in Höhe von EUR 25.000 fällig.

Abschnitt 23 (1) des Einwanderungsgesetzes enthält nun § 31. Dieser stellt ab dem 1. Januar 2015 eine neue Rechtsgrundlage für eine befristete Aufenthaltserlaubnis dar: ein Ausländer kauft unverzinsliche Staatsanleihen für Sonderzwecke mit einem Nominalwert von EUR 250.000 und zahlt EUR 25.000 an die Regierung.

Eine Investition in unverzinsliche Staatsanleihen zieht die Anwendbarkeit derselben Abgaberegeln nach sich, wie für andere Investitionen. Das bedeutet, dass Investoren Dokumente in Lettland einreichen können und der Antrag auf befristete Aufenthaltserlaubnis keiner Aufforderung bedarf.

Änderungsvorschläge zur entsprechenden Kabinettsverordnung Nr. 564 über Aufenthaltserlaubnis und technische Aspekte bei der Beantragung einer befristeten Aufenthaltserlaubnis sind den Staatssekretären bei einem Treffen vorgelegt worden.

Diese Regeln sehen vor, dass die zusätzliche Zahlung an die Regierung nach Erlass der Entscheidung über die Erteilung einer befristeten Aufenthaltserlaubnis zu erfolgen hat. Falls eine Person innerhalb von vier Monaten nach dieser Entscheidung keine Aufenthaltserlaubnis erhalten hat, kann sie einen Rückerstattungsantrag stellen.

Austausch von Steuerinformationen in Lettland

Im letzten Jahr ist Lettland dem globalen Forum für Transparenz und Austausch von Informationen zu steuerlichen Zwecken beigetreten. Innerhalb dieses multilateralen Rahmens wird die Arbeit im Bereich Transparenz und Austausch von Informationen seit 2000 von OECD-Mitgliedern und Nichtmitgliedern ausgeübt. Das Forum umfasst aktuell über 120 Staaten, die gemeinsam eine Standardisierung, Automatisierung und Förderung des grenzüberschreitenden Austauschs von Steuerinformationen anstreben.

Eine Errungenschaft des Forums ist die Entwicklung einheitlicher Standards zum Informationsaustausch. Die Mitglieder des Forums fĂĽhren Begutachtungen (sog. „Peer Reviews“) zur ĂśberprĂĽfung des Fortschritts zu einem vollständigen und effektiven Informationsaustausch durch. Sie identifizieren dadurch Methoden, durch die Staaten schneller Abkommen ĂĽber den Austausch von Steuerinformationen unterzeichnen können.

Die Peer Reviews bestehen aus zwei Stufen. Die erste Stufe beinhaltet die ĂśberprĂĽfung des Rechts- und Verwaltungssystems eines Staats im Hinblick auf Ăśbereinstimmungen mit den Anforderungen an den Austausch von Steuerinformationen. Auf der zweiten Stufe geht es um einen praktischen Ăśberblick ĂĽber Potenzial fĂĽr die Durchsetzung von Standards in diesem Staat.

Für Lettland wurde die erste Stufe des Reviews Ende des Jahres 2013 durchgeführt. Auf Grundlage dieser Ergebnisse ist im April 2014 ein Bericht veröffentlicht worden, der die rechtlichen und administrativen Details des Austauschs von Steuerinformationen zusammenfasst und Empfehlungen zur Verbesserung des bestehenden Systems gibt.

Aus der Sicht der Steuerpflichtigen kann gesagt werden, dass sich Lettland sehr aktiv an der Verbesserung des grenzĂĽberschreitenden Austauschs von Steuerinformationen beteiligt.


Ă„nderungen des lettischen Umsatzsteuergesetzes

Die Regierung bespricht Vorschläge zur Änderung des Umsatzsteuergesetzes zur Ver-abschiedung von zwei Ratsrichtlinien, die den Ort der Lieferung bestimmter Dienst-leistungen und die Anpassung des Status von Drittgebieten betreffen. Darüber hinaus sollen bereits bestehende nationale Bestimmungen zur Neuanmeldung von Umsatz-steuerpflichtigen verbessert werden.


Ă„nderung des Ortes der Lieferung bei Dienstleistungen

Durch Artikel 5 der Richtlinie 2008/8/EC wird die Richtlinie 2006/112/EC hinsichtlich des Ortes der Lieferung bei Dienstleistungen geändert. Artikel 5 besagt, dass ab dem 1. Januar 2015 sämtliche Mitgliedstaaten den Ort der Lieferung für Telekommunika-tionsdienstleistungen, Rundfunk- und Fernsehdienstleistungen sowie für elektronisch erbrachte Dienstleistungen, die an nichtsteuerpflichtige Personen erbracht werden (sog. System einer einzigen Anlaufstelle), ändern werden.

Bei diesem System kann ein Dienstleistungsanbieter eine Website in dem Mitglied-staat nutzen, in dem er als EU-Anbieter für Telekommunikations-, Rundfunk- und Fernsehdienstleistungen sowie elektronisch erbrachte Dienstleistungen angemeldet ist. In diesem Staat kann er auch eine Umsatzsteuererklärung für seine Dienstleistun-gen an nichtsteuerpflichtige Personen in anderen Mitgliedstaaten abgeben. Durch dieses System wird der aktuelle Umfang der Geschäftstätigkeit deutlich erweitert, da es von steuerpflichtigen Personen aus EU-Mitgliedstaaten sowie von Personen aus Drittstaaten genutzt wird.


Ă„nderungen des Status von Drittstaaten

Die französischen Departements in Übersee werden als Drittstaaten behandelt. Der Europäische Rat hat entschieden, Mayotte ab dem 1. Januar 2014 als Gebiet in äu-ßerster Randlage der EU anstelle eines Überseestaates zu behandeln. Dadurch gelten die europäischen Steuergesetze für Mayotte.


Wiederanmeldung von Steuerpflichtigen

Absatz 70 des Umsatzsteuergesetzes beinhaltet Bedingungen für eine Wiedereintra-gung eines Umsatzsteuerpflichtigen in das Umsatzsteuerregister, nachdem dieser gelöscht wurde, weil sein Geschäft ausgesetzt worden ist, er nicht in seinem gemel-deten Büro erreichbar war oder weil er von den Steuerbehörden angeforderte In-formationen zurückbehalten hat.

Die Absätze 66, 67 und 70 des Umsatzsteuergesetzes müssen geändert werden, um die Wiederanmeldung eines Umsatzsteuerpflichtigen zu ermöglichen, der nach dem Umsatzsteuergesetz angemeldet sein müsste, aber es versäumt hat, Unregelmäßig-keiten zu berichtigen, die eine Löschung aus dem Register vor Eröffnung des Insol-venzverfahrens ausgelöst haben. Die Änderungen sehen vor, dass ein Umsatzsteuer-pflichtiger, der vor Eröffnung des Insolvenzverfahrens aus dem Register gelöscht wurde, nach dem in Absatz 66 beschriebenen Verfahren wieder angemeldet wird, selbst wenn die Bedingungen aus Absatz 66 (1) nicht erfüllt sind.

Regeln zur Beschäftigung von Ausländern in Lettland

Das Innenministerium hat neue Regeln zur Beschäftigung von Ausländern vorbereitet. Diese Regeln ersetzen die aktuelle Kabinettsverordnung Nr. 553 zur Arbeitserlaubnis für Ausländer. Die Verordnung bestimmt wie und wann eine Arbeitserlaubnis bei Beschäftigung erteilt wird. Die neuen Regeln konkretisieren außerdem Fälle, in denen Arbeitgeber eine freie Stelle registrieren müssen.


Die neuen Regeln stellen sicher, dass Arbeitserlaubnisse nicht mehr ausgestellt werden, und dass Informationen über die Beschäftigung eines Ausländers beim Register für Arbeitserlaubnisse angezeigt werden. Das Recht des Ausländers auf Zugang zum Arbeitsmarkt wird auf seinem Visum oder in seiner Aufenthaltserlaubnis vermerkt.


Die neuen Regeln setzen die Richtlinie Nr. 2011/98/EU vom 13. Dezember 2011 um. Sie regeln ein einheitliches Antragsverfahren für eine kombinierte Aufenthalts- und Arbeitserlaubnis für Drittstaatsangehörige im Hoheitsgebiet eines Mitgliedstaates sowie ein gemeinsames Bündel von Rechten für Arbeitnehmer aus Drittstaaten, die sich rechtmäßig in einem Mitgliedstaat aufhalten.


Die Bestimmungen, die die Kategorien der zur Beschäftigung berechtigten Ausländer beinhalten, sind nicht mehr Bestandteil der aktuellen Regeln. Diese Bestimmungen sind bereits in Änderungsentwürfen des Einwanderungsgesetzes enthalten.


Die neuen Regeln werden auĂźerdem folgende Themen adressieren:


  • Einträge auf dem Visum oder der Aufenthaltsgenehmigung zur Bestätigung des Zugangs des Ausländers zum Arbeitsmarkt;
  • die Fälle, in denen ein Arbeitgeber eine freie Stelle bei der nationalen Arbeitsagentur anzeigen muss oder nicht;
  • auf welche Art und Weise ein Recht auf Beschäftigung entzogen werden kann; und
  • die Menge an Informationen, die beim Register fĂĽr Arbeitserlaubnisse einzutragen sind und wie diese Informationen genutzt werden können.


Insgesamt sind die Regeln willkommen, da sie das alltägliche Leben von Arbeitgebern und beschäftigten Ausländern vereinfachen. Falls ein Ausländer eine Arbeitserlaubnis benötigt, ist diese leicht verfügbar. Die aktuellen Regeln ziehen Probleme nach sich. Die Arbeitserlaubnis wird im DIN A4-Format ausgestellt, das man nicht täglich bei sich trägt, und das häufig verloren geht.


Wann die neuen Regeln in Kraft treten, ist bislang noch nicht bekannt. Mit aller Wahrscheinlichkeit werden sie zusammen mit den Ă„nderungen des Einwanderungsgesetzes in Kraft treten.