68 questions to the Ministry of Transport and the government about public money in airBaltic — and what happened next

On 11 August 2026 airBaltic announced a new business plan: the fleet is to be cut from 54 to 36 aircraft by the end of the year, with a gradual increase to around 40 aircraft in 2031. The previous plan for one hundred aircraft is no longer in force.

Funding need: EUR 225 million of interim financing, to be secured by the same collateral package that currently secures the 2029 bonds. In the longer term — recapitalisation with EUR 225 million of new borrowing and EUR 100 million of new equity; part of the existing 2029 bonds to be converted into shares, the remainder to be replaced with new, smaller debt of up to EUR 125 million.

On 17 August a reconvened bondholders' meeting approved the capitalisation of the coupon payments due on 14 August and 14 November — the interest is added to the principal rather than paid in cash — and a temporary waiver of the minimum liquidity requirements until November 2026.

On 20 August the Saeima adopted, under the urgency procedure, the Law on Financial Stabilisation Measures for Air Baltic Corporation AS. 54 members voted in favour, 21 against, one abstained. The President promulgated the law on 25 August and it entered into force on 26 August.

On 25 August the Cabinet of Ministers endorsed the Ministry of Transport's information report, deferring payment of the outstanding state-loan principal of EUR 18 million, the interest and the deferral fee until 30 December 2026, while keeping the 2% annual deferral fee.

The analytical core of the campaign is this: in relation to airBaltic the state is simultaneously shareholder, bondholder and lender.

That is not my interpretation. Those are the legislator's own words. The statement of the Saeima Budget and Finance (Taxation) Committee on the bill says that its purpose is to give the state, as airBaltic's shareholder, creditor and bondholder, the ability to take timely decisions in the company's financial stabilisation process and to act on an equal footing with the other investors and creditors.

The same wording recurs in the Ministry of Transport's statement of 25 August: the state, as shareholder, creditor and bondholder, retains the ability to defend its interests in a coordinated way, on equal terms with other market participants.

Why that is a problem. Each role calls for the opposite course of action:

When one institution holds all three positions, it votes on its own claim, evaluates its own decision and confirms to itself that it has acted as a market participant. It is precisely this last step — the market economy operator principle (MEOP) assessment — that is the cornerstone of EU state-aid rules. If the assessment is not published, it cannot be verified.

Every request contains the same proviso: if a reply is barred by commercial secrecy or ongoing negotiations, please cite the specific legal provision, the date after which the information will become available, and whether it can be provided to a Saeima committee in closed session.

Letter No. 03.2-02/2521 of 20 August 2026, signed by the State Secretary, received at the e-address on 21 August at 08:17. Content: citing Section 4(1) of the Law on Submissions, the ministry forwards the submissions to AS Air Baltic Corporation for consideration on the merits and for a reply. At the same time the ministry asks the company to inform the ministry of the reply given.

Two objections.

First — a law was applied that does not cover these documents. Section 2(2) of the Law on Submissions provides that the law does not apply to information requests that are to be examined under the Freedom of Information Law. All four documents are expressly based on Sections 2 and 10 of the Freedom of Information Law.

Second — forwarding to an entity that is not a public authority. Even if the Law on Submissions applied, its Section 4(1) permits forwarding only to another competent authority. A joint-stock company to which no public administration tasks have been delegated in the relevant field is not an authority within the meaning of that law, and it has no statutory duty to answer a private person's information request. Forwarding to an entity with no duty to reply is, in substance, a refusal to examine the requests — without drawing up the refusal in a form that could be challenged.

And the practical argument, which is not a legal one. The company objectively cannot answer:

• how the State Treasury voted at the meeting of 17 August and on what basis;
• what the Cabinet of Ministers decided at its extraordinary closed sitting on 14 August;
• whether and who prepared the MEOP assessment and whether there has been any communication with the European Commission;
• what the state's total financial exposure is and where the risk ceiling lies.

An additional circumstance. The letter is dated 20 August — the same day the Saeima adopted the airBaltic financial stabilisation law, which lays down a special procedure precisely for the state's participation in this process and obliges the Cabinet of Ministers to report quarterly to the Saeima Budget and Finance (Taxation) Committee.

On 22 August at 09:21 I filed formal objections with a renewed request for replies on the merits. Copies for information — to the Ministry of Finance, the State Treasury and the Saeima Budget and Finance (Taxation) Committee.

On 26 August 2026 at 09:34 a notice arrived from the ministry's e-mail address: under Section 5(3¹) of the Law on Submissions, the reply to the "information request" would be given within one month. The notice gives no registration number, author or signatory.

There are three separate problems here.

Irreconcilable positions. The letter of 20 August rests on the premise that it is for the company to reply. The notice of 26 August rests on the opposite premise — that the ministry will reply and the time limit runs at the ministry. Both cannot be in force at the same time. If the questions are outside the ministry's competence, it does not count a time limit. If it counts one, there was no basis for forwarding.

Classification versus consequences. The ministry itself calls my documents information requests, yet sets the time limit under a law which, by its own Section 2(2), does not apply to information requests.

An exception invoked without an established ground. In the version in force since 1 March 2026, Section 5(3) of the Law on Submissions sets the general time limit — no later than 10 working days. The one-month period under Section 5(3¹) is an exception, applicable only where additional information must be obtained, cooperation with other authorities is needed, or a large volume of information must be analysed. The notice does not say which of these three grounds was established. Only the provision is cited.

The choice has consequences. Section 10(5) of the Law on Submissions provides that matters arising from Section 5(3¹) are not subject to judicial review. The Freedom of Information Law contains no equivalent exclusion. The choice of applicable law therefore directly determines whether the requester retains any legal remedy.

On 26 August I filed a procedural request for clarification with five questions (P1–P5) — on the status of the 20 August letter, on the ground established, on the applicable law, on the date from which the time limit runs for each of the four documents, and on the registration numbers. Requested reply time — five working days.

While the dispute over which law applies to my questions goes on, decisions are being taken.

On 25 August the Cabinet of Ministers endorsed amendments to the April state-loan agreement. The ministry's statement says expressly that the amendments will be made in accordance with the market economy operator principle and in application of the state-aid rules. The same statement confirms that the State Treasury will continue to represent the state as bondholder and take part in future meetings, supporting the measures approved by the government.

That means the following. The state publicly invokes the market economy operator principle as the legal basis for its actions — and at the same time refuses, or defers by a month, its answer to the questions of who prepared that assessment, by what method, with what conclusion, and whether the European Commission was informed (questions 17–19, 33, 40 and 49).

The second circumstance concerns sequence. The State Treasury voted at the bondholders' meeting on 17 August, agreeing to the capitalisation of its own interest income. The law laying down a special procedure for the state's participation in this process was adopted on 20 August. The vote took place before the law. That in itself does not mean unlawfulness — the government's authorisation to the State Treasury had been given earlier, at the end of July — but it does mean that the structure of the state's claim was changed before the parliamentary framework that now governs such decisions.

On 24 August at 07:30 I published the procedural chronology on three channels: LinkedIn, Facebook and X (a thread of nine posts). Content — the delivery record of the requests, the 20 August letter, both legal objections, and a comparison with the Ministry of Finance's conduct (which, having received the same documents for information only, confirmed registration both times — on 17 August under No. 2026/9785 and on 20 August under No. 2026/9999).

An honest list.

• How the State Treasury voted on each item of the 17 August agenda separately. It is known that decisions were taken; the content and reasoning of the state's vote have not been published.
• Whether a MEOP assessment exists in writing at all for each individual step — the April loan, its extension, the capitalisation of interest, the planned purchase of additional bonds.
• Whether and when there has been communication with the European Commission.
• The company's valuation (pre-money valuation) at which claims will be converted into equity, and who is carrying it out.
• The state's total exposure in a single figure after all the August decisions are implemented.
• The parameters circulating in the public domain — a reduction of the state's shareholding to 25% plus one share and a total recapitalisation of EUR 325 million — have no primary source. In my question 43 I flagged them expressly as unconfirmed and asked for them to be confirmed or refuted. The law itself sets different limits: purchase of newly issued bonds up to EUR 30 million, conversion of the bond claims held by the state up to EUR 50 million.

The figures cited in this article come from public sources. If any of them is inaccurate, I will correct it and mark the correction.

• A reply to the procedural questions P1–P5.
• The ministry's position on the applicable law — on which depends whether a refusal can be challenged in court at all.
• Replies on the merits to questions 1–49.
• The Cabinet of Ministers' first quarterly report to the Saeima Budget and Finance (Taxation) Committee under the new law.
• The actual terms of the interim-financing transaction and whether the state takes part in it on identical terms with the private investors, as publicly claimed.

If replies are not given, or a refusal is not drawn up in the manner prescribed by the Freedom of Information Law, I will use the right under Section 15 of that law to challenge the authority's decision and its actual conduct.

On 4 September 2026, by letter No. 03.2-02/2658, the ministry for the first time replied on the merits to part of questions 1–49. Replies to the questions on the price, term, collateral, priority and lenders of the interim financing (6–12, 31) were refused on the ground that this is inside information within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014, "which may not be disclosed to an individual person before it is announced to the market". Question 47 (priority of the new financing over the state's position) was refused as a commercial secret; on question 48 (change-of-control scenario) the ministry stated that no assessment had been carried out.

A problem of timing. The letter was signed on 4 September — the day after airBaltic itself, on 3 September, publicly announced to the market an agreement on interim financing of up to EUR 257 million (senior bonds, 25% a year, maturing in February 2027; lenders Polus Capital Management and Klirmark Capital 4). The letter also gives no route of appeal. Procedural request P6 points to this contradiction.

A meeting postponed, then gone. The bondholders' meeting originally scheduled for 11 September was moved to 15 September — the chairman of the supervisory board, Andrejs Martinovs, explained that holders needed more time to study the draft decision. On 8 September the Cabinet of Ministers took no decision on the state's participation in the bridge financing; Minister of Transport Rihards Kozlovskis said that "the question of a possible state investment is not currently on the agenda".

Chapter 11. On 14 September 2026 AS Air Baltic Corporation filed a petition for financial reorganisation under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (case No. 26-12188, Judge Lisa G. Beckerman). Public statements mention a debtor-in-possession financing commitment of around EUR 350 million (Strategic Value Partners, Barclays, Hayfin Capital Management, Morgan Stanley, Oaktree Capital Management); the process could run until around June 2027; flights are said to continue as normal. The planned bondholders' meeting was cancelled and the vote on the bridge financing did not take place.

In Latvia's information space this was confirmed not by a ministry statement but by the State Treasury's reply to my request.

On 22 September 2026, by letter No. 2026/3-5.19/899, the State Treasury replied to questions 50, 52 and 56, which were addressed to it directly. The core of the reply: (a) the factual circumstances have changed — airBaltic has entered the Chapter 11 process, the meeting has been cancelled, no vote has taken place; (b) the State Treasury acts solely within the authorisation given by the Cabinet of Ministers; (c) information is provided subject to access restrictions.

The substance of the questions — how it voted, what the exposure is, what the mandate is — is not answered. As in the ministry's letter of 4 September, here too no specific legal provision is cited for each unanswered question and no route of appeal is given, as the Freedom of Information Law requires.

But the main news is the news itself: public money — share capital, bonds, a loan — is tied up in a company that has passed into insolvency reorganisation in another country's jurisdiction.

On 22 September I submitted the sixth supplementary request, this time addressed to the Cabinet of Ministers (State Chancellery) and to the Ministry of Transport as holder of the state's shares.

Procedural request P8 again asks for replies on the merits to the questions previously left unanswered (including 6, 7, 9, 31, 47 and 50–61) insofar as the information is no longer restricted since its announcement to the market or the change in circumstances.

The State Chancellery's reply (25 September). The request was also addressed to the Cabinet of Ministers, but I sent it via the e-address marked "copy". On 25 September the State Chancellery replied by letter No. 6.2.2./2026-FIZ-904-3015 that the Ministry of Transport develops and coordinates aviation policy and is the holder of the state's shares in airBaltic; since the request to the Cabinet had been sent for information and simultaneously to the ministry, the State Chancellery would not forward it and its content "is taken note of". The reply on the merits to questions 62–68 is therefore expected from the Ministry of Transport — within the time limit set by Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Law: 15 days (around 7 October) or, if the information requires additional processing, 30 days.

• The specific Cabinet authorisation to the State Treasury — number, date, minute item.
• The legal provision for each refusal and the route of appeal — both are missing from both replies (the ministry on 4 September, the State Treasury on 22 September).
• The priority, recoverability and timing of the state's claims in the Chapter 11 process.
• The fate of the EUR 18 million loan after 30 December.
• Whether the state has assumed new liabilities in connection with the reorganisation.

• Replies on the merits to questions 50–68 and procedural requests P6–P8 from the Ministry of Transport — on the sixth request around 7 October (the State Chancellery has taken note of it).
• The US court documents are public. The materials in case No. 26-12188 — schedules of assets and liabilities, the debtor-in-possession financing order, the list of creditors, the plan of reorganisation — may show the state's actual position and recoverability directly, including what Latvian authorities have so far not provided. I will follow them and report separately.
• If refusals are not drawn up in the manner prescribed by the Freedom of Information Law, I will use the right under Section 15 of that law to challenge them.

The figures mentioned in the continuation (257, 350, 30, 50, 18 and 594 million euros; 25%) come from public sources and earlier requests; in the requests they are framed as a request to confirm or clarify, not as an assertion. The fact of Chapter 11 follows from the State Treasury's reply of 22 September and the company's public statements.