Latvia's independent review of Rail Baltica is classified as restricted. The Ministry of Transport says publishing it «may harm the decision-making process». It describes the number of questions as possible abuse of rights.
In brief
- Between 13 August and 23 September I filed five freedom-of-information requests with Latvia's Ministry of Transport — 33 questions on the Rail Baltica in-depth review, cost cuts, forecasts, the Daugava bridge and the project's liabilities.
- On 21 September the ministry replied that the Alvarez & Marsal review is restricted because its publication «may harm the decision-making process and cause negative consequences for state interests». Its availability will be decided after the Cabinet's conceptual decisions.
- In the same letter the ministry cites Supreme Court case law on «abuse of rights» and states that it «will not provide separate individual answers to each question contained in the requests».
- On 23 September the State Treasury confirmed that Rail Baltica liabilities are not shown as a separate line item in Latvia's consolidated 2024 annual report. The detail, it says, lies with the ministry.
- A fourth supplement (questions 30–33) on these liabilities was filed on 23 September. No reply yet.
Context
On 10 June 2025 the Cabinet instructed the Ministry of Transport, together with state-owned Latvian Railways, to organise an in-depth review of Rail Baltica. On 31 October 2025 Latvian Railways signed a contract with Alvarez & Marsal Infrastructure & Capital Projects. On 5 February 2026 the ministry took over the contract itself.
The results were discussed at a closed session of the Rail Baltica thematic committee on 12 August 2026. The same day the ministry publicly announced cost-reduction measures for the 33 km «Misa – Latvian/Lithuanian border» section.
These are significant figures. But the announcement did not include the calculation behind them, who prepared it, or the review it comes from. So I asked.
What was asked
| Request | Date | Questions | Topic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Main request | 13.08.2026 | 1–9 | In-depth review |
| Supplement | 13.08.2026 | 10–18 | Cost-reduction measures |
| State Treasury | 10.09.2026 | 1–6 | Liabilities in the consolidated report |
| Supplement 2 | 14.09.2026 | 19–25 | Forecasts and economic case |
| Supplement 3 | 17.09.2026 | 26–29 | Daugava bridge and informing the Cabinet |
| Supplement 4 | 23.09.2026 | 30–33 | Liabilities in annual reports |
By topic
- 1–3Contractor and costHow Alvarez & Marsal was selected, why the ministry took over the contract, what the review costs and how much has been paid.
- 4–9Content of the reviewMinutes of the 12 August session, scenarios and their costs, the 24.8 % calculation, which technical requirements are cut and who originally approved them, redesign costs, who is accountable.
- 10–18Cost reductionWho ordered the calculation, which contractors took part and whether conflicts of interest were assessed, noise barriers and the environmental impact assessment, the frost layer, speed requirements and the risk of EU (CEF) funding corrections.
- 19–25Does it pay offFreight and passenger forecast, whether it was revised after 24 February 2022, cost–benefit analysis after the cuts, how much value stays in Latvia, whether the primary rationale is economic or defence.
- 26–29Daugava bridge and €5.3 bnState and cost of the mothballed structure, who decided to mothball it, and which document informed the Cabinet of the €5.3 bn cost that, according to the Saeima inquiry committee's final report, the ministry knew of in autumn 2021.
- 30–33Liabilities on the state balance sheetWhen Rail Baltica liabilities were first reported, their 2024 amount, and in which line item.
The ministry's reply
On 21 September the Ministry of Transport replied with letter No. 07-02/2818, signed by State Secretary A. Židkovs.
It gave general information: the purpose of the review, the contract history, and that since 1 July 2026 Rail Baltica is coordinated by the Prime Minister, implemented by the Ministry of Transport and its financing overseen by the Ministry of Finance. It pointed to the 2024 cost–benefit analysis on the joint venture's website.
On the review itself, the ministry writes (my translation):
«[..] the review report cannot be released publicly, as its publication may harm the decision-making process and cause negative consequences for state interests. [..] The public interest in receiving the information is therefore currently less protected than the purpose of the restriction.»
«The question of the availability status of [..] the review report and further Cabinet decisions is to be decided after the Cabinet adopts conceptual decisions on the further implementation of the Rail Baltica project.»
The ministry then turns to the requester. It reminds that private persons must exercise rights «in good faith» and cites the Supreme Court's finding that «the number of submissions, their frequency, repeated submissions with minor nuances» indicate abuse of the applicant's rights. Its conclusion:
«The Ministry will not provide separate individual answers to each question contained in the requests.»
What was not answered. What the review costs and how much has been paid. How the contractor was selected. How 24.8 % and €108 m were calculated. Which contractors helped prepare the measures and whether conflicts of interest were assessed. Whether dropping noise barriers complies with the environmental assessment. Whether lower speed requirements put EU funding at risk. Whether the freight forecast was revised after 2022. What is happening with the Daugava bridge structure. Which document told the Cabinet about €5.3 bn.
The public websites the ministry referred to do not answer these questions. That is why they were asked.
My reply
On 22 September I replied. Asking more questions than a ministry can quickly answer is a capacity issue, not abuse; requesting information on public spending is a press function protected by Article 100 of the Constitution, the Press Law and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. If the ministry considers the request abusive, it should name the specific legal norm. If it lacks resources, it should say so and set a reasonable extended deadline.
To remove the argument that the questions were not about documents, I narrowed the request to six existing documents: the Alvarez & Marsal report in redacted form; the decision that classified it; the contract price and amount paid; the 12 August minutes; the 2024 cost–benefit analysis (direct link); and the Cabinet decision of 10 June 2025.
The Treasury: liabilities not shown separately
On 10 September I asked the State Treasury how Rail Baltica liabilities appear in Latvia's consolidated 2024 annual report. Its reply No. 2026/8-5.19/905 of 23 September:
«[..] in the consolidated 2024 annual report of the Republic of Latvia, Rail Baltica project liabilities are not shown as a separate balance-sheet or off-balance-sheet liability item.»
They are included in the Ministry of Transport's figures and aggregated in off-balance-sheet note KB.9.5. The Treasury does not track project contracts, and for the first year, amount and trend the «detailed information is held by the Ministry of Transport».
This is a methodological answer, not a breach: a consolidated report shows line items, not projects. But the result is that the liabilities of a multi-billion project are not separately visible on the state balance sheet. On 23 September I sent these questions (30–33) to the ministry the Treasury pointed to. No reply yet.
Why this matters before 3 October
Fact. The independent review of one of Latvia's largest public investments is restricted. Its availability will be decided after the government's conceptual decisions. Parliamentary elections are on 3 October. The project's liabilities are not separately visible in the state's consolidated report.
Interpretation. The order is reversed: first the decision, then the public learns what it was based on. Each institution points to the next — the Treasury to the ministry, the ministry to websites. The specific number disappears in between. It is the same structural pattern I documented in the airBaltic case.
What this article does not claim. It does not claim that information is being hidden deliberately or that any law has been broken. The ministry may restrict access; that decision can be reviewed by a court.
Voters choose the people who will take the decision. They cannot see the review it will rest on.
Three questions anyone can ask a candidate:
- Have you read the Alvarez & Marsal review? Do you support publishing a redacted version before the government decides?
- What is the total of Rail Baltica liabilities on the state balance sheet, and where can it be seen?
- Is the project's primary rationale today economic or defence — and which document says so?
What next
Under Article 14 of the Freedom of Information Law, institutions must reply within 15 working days — for supplement 4, by 14 October. A refusal can be appealed to the administrative court. I will update this article when replies arrive.
Sources
All requests were signed with a qualified electronic signature and filed via Latvia's official e-address system. Documents are in Latvian; quotations translated by the author.
- Ministry of Transport, 12.08.2026 — sam.gov.lv
- LSM.lv, 12.08.2026 — lsm.lv
- Ministry of Transport letter No. 07-02/2818, 21.09.2026; State Treasury letter No. 2026/8-5.19/905, 23.09.2026
- Final report of the Saeima parliamentary inquiry committee on Rail Baltica
- Freedom of Information Law — likumi.lv/ta/id/50601