Riga - Latvia's main opposition party, New Era, approached the constitutional court on Thursday to challenge the legality of the country's border treaty with Russia, signed Tuesday. "The issue is one of statehood... You can't change Latvia's borders just because you want to, you can only change them if the people say so," Krisjanis Karins, a leading party figure, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.
Twenty-one deputies - 18 from New Era and three from government parties - signed a declaration on Thursday asking the constitutional court to review the issue, a court press release said.
The treaty, which was signed in Moscow on Tuesday, legalizes Latvia's border with Russia. As such, it also confirms the outer limit of the EU and NATO.
It has been widely hailed by politicians including the Russian president, the presidency of the EU and NATO's secretary general.
But serious questions must be asked as to the legality of the document, experts say. Latvia's border with Russia was initially defined in a peace treaty signed by the two states in 1920.
But after Soviet forces occupied Latvia in 1940, Stalin annexed the Latvian town of Abrene to Russia.
The two countries' border had followed the line Stalin drew until the new treaty was approved on Tuesday.
According to the Latvian constitution, however, the state's territory can only be changed by referendum. That territory is defined as the provinces of Vidzeme, Kurzeme, Zemgale and Latgale - the latter being the province from which Abrene was removed.
Observers have questioned whether the treaty, which effectively ratifies the loss of Abrene, breaches the law on changing Latvia's territory.
"There is plenty of doubt about the treaty - in the first place, what about Abrene?" political scientist Janis Ikstens asked.
"All our borders were drawn up in 1920. What the constitution talks about is territorial integrity: Latvia is the sum of its parts, and only the people can decide to change that," Karins added.
If the constitutional court does rule against the treaty, one legal solution would be to hold a referendum. That would be a severe blow to the government, which already faces a possible referendum over an attempt to change national security laws.
"If there is a referendum, it will be very serious. But it's not clear what the court will decide," Ikstens pointed out.
According to the court press release, it now has one month to decide whether or not to launch a case over the treaty. That deadline could be doubled in complex cases, the statement added.
