Short answer
Four indexed Saeima dossiers are especially useful. Pending bills 1064/Lp14 and 1066/Lp14 form the core of a coordinated 2025 package: one would substantially revise consumer-credit rules, while the other would amend the Credit Information Bureau Law. Pending bill 694/Lp14 contains an earlier, narrower strand on consumer-credit advertising. Enacted dossier 176/Lp14 explains why the Maintenance Guarantee Fund Administration was given access to credit-bureau information about debtors.
The pending texts discuss verified and proportionate creditworthiness inputs, bureau-to-bureau exchange, individual access to consolidated credit information, voluntary credit self-exclusion, human involvement in automated assessments, refusal explanations, debt advice and credit advertising. They are unusually informative policy materials—but they are not current law merely because the MCP can retrieve their full text.
As of 13 September 2026, the MCP described 1064/Lp14, 1066/Lp14 and 694/Lp14 as in debate at second reading and not enacted. Only 176/Lp14 in this selection was marked enacted. The operative rule for any legal decision must therefore be checked in the current Likumi.lv text.
The main dossiers at a glance
This is a selected, topic-driven answer from the indexed 14th Saeima collection, not a claim that no other Latvian bill has ever touched lending or credit information.
Bills 1064/Lp14 and 1066/Lp14 are one policy package
The official submission letter for dates from 26 September 2025. It says the Consumer Rights Protection Law bill should be considered together with amendments to the Taxes and Duties Law and the Credit Information Bureau Law. It identifies the consumer-rights bill as the priority instrument in the package.
That package structure matters. Some proposed duties sit with the lender under consumer law, while supporting data functions sit with licensed bureaux. Reading only one bill would give an incomplete picture.
1064/Lp14: a broad consumer-credit reform
The original bill and annotation for 1064/Lp14 are extensive. They describe implementation of Directive (EU) 2023/2225 and propose changes across the consumer-credit lifecycle.
For creditworthiness, the proposal would require an assessment based on accurate and verified information about income, expenditure and other financial and economic circumstances. The information would have to be necessary and proportionate to the credit's type, duration, amount and consumer risk. It could come from appropriate internal and external sources, including the consumer and lawfully established databases. The assessment would not be allowed to rely only on credit history.
Izvērtējums nav balstīts tikai uz patērētāja kredītvēsturi.
—
The proposal also addresses data circulation. Where a lender lacks sufficient documented information, it would supply and obtain the necessary obligation-performance data through the bureau with which it contracts. That bureau could, on the lender's behalf, request relevant information from the other licensed bureaux. A consumer could similarly ask one bureau to assemble information from the others for a consolidated view of the consumer's obligations and payment performance.
Automation is another major strand. The proposal would require clear notice when a personalized offer is based on automated personal-data processing. If automated processing contributes to creditworthiness assessment, the consumer would be able to request human involvement and an explanation, express a view, and ask for review of the assessment and lending decision. A rejected applicant whose assessment was automated would be informed of human-review and challenge procedures.
Other proposed changes include documented assessment procedures, rules for joint obligations, prompt notice of refusal, access to debt-advice services, limits on unsolicited credit, revised product scope, and conduct and remuneration controls. A lender considering new finance would also have to check a bureau database for an individual's marker that they do not want credit.
1066/Lp14: the bureau-side infrastructure
The companion would amend the Credit Information Bureau Law.
Its most visible proposal is a credit self-exclusion marker. Every individual would be able to register in a bureau database and record that they do not want to receive credit. The marker would be visible to bureau users. After revocation, the bureau would delete it after three days. The annotation presents that interval as a cooling-off period intended to reduce impulsive reversal and fraud risk.
Veiktā atzīme ir redzama ikvienam kredītinformācijas lietotājam.
—
The policy problem is digital impersonation: stolen personal data or authentication tools may be used to conclude fraudulent credit agreements. The explanatory material says one licensed bureau already offered a voluntary marker and the other was developing similar functionality; the bill would create a statutory framework, linked to the lender-side duty proposed in 1064/Lp14.
The bill also proposes a one-stop access route. An individual could obtain consolidated credit information about themselves through a bureau, rather than collecting it separately from multiple controllers. The annotation says this is intended to help individuals see complete information, control assessments made about them and support meaningful debt counselling. Data assembled for that request would be passed to the individual rather than retained as a new bureau record.
The two dossiers therefore divide responsibility deliberately: 1066/Lp14 would create the marker and individual-access mechanism; 1064/Lp14 would tell lenders how to use relevant information in credit decisions.
Bill 694/Lp14: the advertising strand
The is a mixed consumer-law dossier. Much of it concerns environmental claims, product durability and repair information, but its annotation also describes a consumer-credit working group and proposed implementation of advertising requirements from Directive (EU) 2023/2225.
That credit strand would replace the existing broad national advertising prohibition with more specific controls. The explanatory material describes standardized information presented clearly and through a representative example, together with a warning that borrowing money costs money. It also identifies advertisements to be prohibited, including messages that imply credit will improve a consumer's financial position or that a credit already registered in databases has little influence on a new application assessment.
This illustrates why full-document Fetch matters: the credit provisions are embedded inside a broader consumer-law bill.
Dossier 176/Lp14: bureau information beyond ordinary lending
The amended the Maintenance Guarantee Fund Law and was proclaimed on 2 November 2023.
Its explanatory material discusses credit-bureau data from a different angle. The Fund Administration needed information about maintenance debtors' financial obligations to evaluate claimed repayment capacity, choose recovery measures and identify situations in which a debtor sought a low payment arrangement while taking on new credit commitments.
The annotation distinguishes obligations being performed from overdue obligations and explains how bureau information could be combined with income, vehicle, land and enterprise-register data. It also discusses the need for a specific legal basis, referring to the Credit Information Bureau Law and the public-interest or official-authority basis in GDPR Article 6(1)(e).
This is useful history for understanding why a public authority may receive credit information. It does not mean that every public body—or every private scoring user—has the same access or purpose. The authority, purpose, data scope and current enacted wording must each be checked.
How much legal weight do the materials carry?
A Saeima dossier can explain the problem behind a proposal, its expected effects and the legislature's understanding of EU obligations.
But the hierarchy remains clear:
- A pending bill states a proposal, not an operative rule.
- An annotation explains the proposal; it does not enact text and cannot override the statute.
- Committee reports and proposal tables may change the bill after the original annotation was written.
- An enacted dossier proves legislative history, but current duties must be read from the applicable consolidated law version.
The practical research sequence is therefore dossier, latest parliamentary stage, enacted instrument if any, and current consolidated text. Dates should be preserved at every step.
MCP source-quality findings
Production Discovery, Latvian-language Search, exact flow-to-document enumeration and exact-sourceRef Fetch all worked for the rendered documents. The source currently reports 1,448 flows and 12,659 attached documents.
Two known defects reproduced. Pending flows expose the existing law they target under a field called enactedLawKey, which can imply enactment that has not occurred. The flows also count rendered and electronically signed versions as separate attachments even though the EDOC copies are marked unsupported and the readable content survives in parallel rendered copies. Fresh evidence was added to .
A separate arithmetic problem appeared in Discovery: the profile labels 1,448 as a count of “flows plus non-summary documents” even though it separately reports 1,448 flows and 12,659 documents. That source-profile inconsistency is tracked in .
Conclusion
The most important pending package is 1064/Lp14 plus 1066/Lp14: lender-side consumer-credit duties and bureau-side data infrastructure designed to work together. Bill 694/Lp14 supplies the advertising strand, while enacted dossier 176/Lp14 shows a distinct public-debt-recovery use of bureau information. These materials explain policy direction and legislative purpose. They must always be paired with stage, enactment status and the current Likumi.lv text before being converted into a compliance rule.
Sources
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific matter. Laws, facts and procedural deadlines may change the result. Follow the linked primary sources and obtain local advice before acting.