In January, the Administrative District Court partially satisfied Citskovska's application regarding his dismissal, leading to an appeal by Citskovskis against the part of the ruling that denied him dismissal compensation. At the same time, Siliņa appealed the ruling concerning the disciplinary action, which the court had deemed unlawful. According to Citskovskis, the court confirmed the legality of his suspension and ordered the State Chancellery to pay his wages for the illegal suspension period along with statutory interest for the delay.

The case initiated from claims associated with the Prime Minister's orders related to Citskovskis' suspension and the disciplinary action taken against him, as well as the decision of the State Chancellery to release him from his civil service position. The court evaluated the suspension as a preventive measure meant to ensure lawful and efficient actions with public entities. This assessment indicates that the court's scrutiny was focused on both the legal grounds of the suspension and the subsequent actions taken by the State Chancellery.

The implications of this ruling could affect how future cases of civil service dismissals and disciplinary measures are handled within the Latvian government sector. It raises critical questions about the legal processes surrounding such employment actions, the rights of civil servants, and the responsibilities of those in authority when making decisions regarding public officials. This case could set a precedent for similar disputes in Latvia and influence the overarching framework of administrative law in the country.