Foto: BB.LV / вагоны с зерном
According to him, the transportation of Russian grain brings economic benefits to Latvia. The transport infrastructure, businesses, and their employees are involved in this sector, so the ban will inevitably affect business. Pastars emphasized that such dilemmas arise not only with Russian grain but also when discussing other restrictions — for example, banning Russian citizens from purchasing real estate in Latvia or importing Russian books. However, the lawyer believes that economic interests should not prevent the state from making decisions that align with its political position. Pastars pointed out the issue of unilateral restrictions. If Latvia bans certain transactions while Lithuania and Estonia continue to allow them, goods may enter the country through alternative routes. Therefore, it is important not only to impose bans but also to ensure their enforcement. The lawyer also believes that Latvia often exhibits excessive legal caution, fearing contradictions with European Union rules. Meanwhile, Poland and Estonia, in some cases, choose a tougher approach. In Pastars' opinion, there is a contradiction between politicians' statements about the need to limit economic ties with Russia and the reality in which businesses continue to profit from such operations. At the same time, the lawyer emphasized that already concluded contracts cannot be ignored. When imposing a ban, companies need to be given a transition period to fulfill their obligations or adapt to new conditions. This practice is also applied in the European Union when introducing restrictions on the trade of certain goods. "Thus, this is a somewhat delayed measure," concluded Pastars. In his opinion, preparations for stricter restrictions should have begun much earlier.
