{"id":28921,"date":"2026-07-23T07:00:01","date_gmt":"2026-07-23T07:00:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bilnex.io\/en\/latvia-e-invoice-standards\/"},"modified":"2026-07-23T07:00:01","modified_gmt":"2026-07-23T07:00:01","slug":"latvian-e-invoice-standards","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bilnex.io\/en\/latvian-e-invoice-standards\/","title":{"rendered":"Latvia E-Invoice Standards 2026: PEPPOL, UBL, EN 16931"},"content":{"rendered":"<article class=\"article-content-section article-content article-single\">\n<div class=\"container content-area\">\n<div class=\"text-content ce-answer\">\n<p>No, Latvia doesn&#8217;t have its own mandatory e-invoice format that replaces <a href=\"https:\/\/docs.peppol.eu\/poacc\/billing\/3.0\/2025-Q2\/bis\/\">PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0<\/a>. <a href=\"https:\/\/likumi.lv\/ta\/id\/365040-kartiba-kada-organize-un-isteno-strukturetu-elektronisko-rekinu-apriti-un-kada-strukturetu-elektronisko-rekinu-datus-iesniedz-v\">Cabinet Regulation No. 749 of 9 December 2025<\/a> states that the XML structure of any e-invoice submitted to the VID (Latvia&#8217;s State Revenue Service) has to satisfy two requirements at once: it must be written in UBL 2.1 syntax (Universal Business Language, a specific XML file format), and it must follow the PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0 specification&#8217;s rules. The VID <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vid.gov.lv\/lv\/e-rekini\">confirms on its e-invoice page<\/a> that it has no plans to extend or replace this format. Every business has to adapt its own system to PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0&#8217;s rules, not the other way round. B2G e-invoices (business-to-government) and the reporting of that data to the VID are already mandatory today. The B2B obligation, business-to-business, only takes effect on 1 January 2028.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"short-answer-does-latvia-have-an-e-invoice-format-that-repla\">Short answer: does Latvia have an e-invoice format that replaces PEPPOL?<\/h2>\n<p>A common misconception is that Latvia runs its own &#8220;national&#8221; e-invoice format, separate from the PEPPOL standard. The reality runs the other way. <a href=\"https:\/\/likumi.lv\/ta\/id\/365040-kartiba-kada-organize-un-isteno-strukturetu-elektronisko-rekinu-apriti-un-kada-strukturetu-elektronisko-rekinu-datus-iesniedz-v\">Regulation No. 749<\/a> dictates that the XML landing in the VID&#8217;s system has to be written in UBL 2.1 syntax and has to satisfy PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0&#8217;s business and validation rules. In other words, Latvia didn&#8217;t build a competing format. It adopted PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0 as its official profile. If your accounting software already knows how to produce PEPPOL-compliant e-invoices, the technical groundwork for meeting Latvia&#8217;s requirements is already there. What&#8217;s still missing is the right delivery channel to the VID, which we&#8217;ll get to below.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"three-layers-that-get-mixed-up-en-16931-ubl-and-peppol\">Three layers that get mixed up: EN 16931, UBL and PEPPOL<\/h2>\n<p>Confusion sets in because these three terms describe three different layers of an e-invoice, not three rivals competing for the same job.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>EN 16931<\/strong> is the semantic data model: a description of which data fields an invoice must contain, including seller and buyer details, VAT, payment due date, and amounts. Latvia&#8217;s <a href=\"https:\/\/likumi.lv\/ta\/id\/324249-gramatvedibas-likums\">Accounting Law<\/a> defines a structured e-invoice precisely through this standard: the invoice must comply with standard LVS EN 16931-1:2017.<\/li>\n<li><strong>UBL 2.1<\/strong> is the XML syntax: the concrete file format and markup language the EN 16931 data fields get written into. UBL on its own says nothing about whether an invoice meets Latvia&#8217;s requirements; it&#8217;s simply the &#8220;language&#8221; the invoice is written in.<\/li>\n<li><strong>PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0<\/strong> is what&#8217;s called a CIUS (Core Invoice Usage Specification), a narrowed-down usage guide that spells out exactly how to apply the EN 16931 data model within UBL 2.1 syntax, plus its own validation rules on top. The <a href=\"https:\/\/docs.peppol.eu\/poacc\/billing\/3.0\/2025-Q2\/bis\/\">PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0 documentation<\/a> confirms that any document complying with this specification automatically complies with the European standard EN 16931 too.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Picture an invoice for \u20ac1,500. EN 16931 sets which data fields that invoice needs at all, amounts and the parties to the transaction, for example. UBL 2.1 sets which XML element that amount sits in. PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0 adds the rule that the total has to match the sum of the invoice lines and VAT. Miss that, and validation fails.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"which-formats-theoretically-satisfy-the-eu-standard-and-what\">Which formats theoretically satisfy the EU standard, and what does Latvia&#8217;s VID actually accept?<\/h2>\n<h3 id=\"what-eu-rules-allow-in-theory\">What EU rules allow, in theory<\/h3>\n<p>At EU level, both UBL 2.1 and UN\/CEFACT CII D16B qualify as EN 16931-compliant syntaxes. The <a href=\"https:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/digital-building-blocks\/sites\/spaces\/DIGITAL\/pages\/467108661\/European%2BStandard%2Band%2BSpecifications\">European Commission&#8217;s overview<\/a> names both as valid syntaxes. In theory, there&#8217;s more than one accepted route across Europe.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"what-latvia-s-vid-actually-requires\">What Latvia&#8217;s VID actually requires<\/h3>\n<p>In Latvia, though, that choice has already been made for you. <a href=\"https:\/\/likumi.lv\/ta\/id\/365040-kartiba-kada-organize-un-isteno-strukturetu-elektronisko-rekinu-apriti-un-kada-strukturetu-elektronisko-rekinu-datus-iesniedz-v\">Regulation No. 749<\/a> specifically names the combination of UBL 2.1 and PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0 as the format for the VID&#8217;s system. The VID confirms on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vid.gov.lv\/lv\/e-rekini\">its e-invoice page<\/a> that Latvia&#8217;s national standard has to match the PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0 specification, and that it has no plans to broaden that format.<\/p>\n<p>That gives a direct answer to whether a plain UBL 2.1 XML file satisfies Latvia&#8217;s requirements: it doesn&#8217;t. UBL 2.1 is correct syntax, but without PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0&#8217;s business and validation rules layered on top, it&#8217;s only half the job, like a sentence with correct spelling but no grammar. Your software needs to produce a file that passes both the UBL 2.1 schema check and the PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0 validation rules.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"are-the-peppol-specification-and-the-peppol-network-the-same\">Are the PEPPOL specification and the PEPPOL network the same thing?<\/h2>\n<p>This is where most people get confused a second time. PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0 is a requirement about the document&#8217;s <em>format<\/em>. It doesn&#8217;t mean the invoice has to travel through the PEPPOL network itself, through so-called Access Points. <a href=\"https:\/\/likumi.lv\/ta\/id\/365040-kartiba-kada-organize-un-isteno-strukturetu-elektronisko-rekinu-apriti-un-kada-strukturetu-elektronisko-rekinu-datus-iesniedz-v\">Regulation No. 749<\/a> spells out exactly which delivery channels Latvian businesses can use: the official e-address (Latvia&#8217;s state-run official electronic mailbox, available once a business has an active e-address account), a service provider or operator channel, or another electronic channel, for instance a system-to-system integration, email, or some other electronic delivery method.<\/p>\n<p>The two parties agree on the channel between themselves. If you use the official e-address, its information system automatically forwards the e-invoice notification and data to the VID. If you use an operator or another channel, the XML file has to be submitted to the VID separately, either through EDS (the electronic declaration system), which <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vid.gov.lv\/lv\/e-rekini\">the VID confirms<\/a> only accepts files in XML format, or through an accounting-software API the VID calls E-Invoice API V2, where such an interface exists.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"latvia-s-deadlines-what-s-already-mandatory-in-2026-and-what\">Latvia&#8217;s deadlines: what&#8217;s already mandatory in 2026, and what starts in 2028?<\/h2>\n<p>The timeline runs in three stages, and each stage hits a different set of parties.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"already-mandatory-2025-and-2026\">Already mandatory: 2025 and 2026<\/h3>\n<p>Since 1 January 2025, e-invoicing has been mandatory for the G2G, B2G and G2B segments (invoices between government bodies, and between businesses and government bodies), confirms the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vid.gov.lv\/lv\/e-rekini\">VID<\/a>. Invoices to budget-funded institutions under contracts signed before 31 December 2024 got a transition period under <a href=\"https:\/\/likumi.lv\/ta\/id\/324249-gramatvedibas-likums\">the law<\/a> running until 1 January 2026.<\/p>\n<p>From 1 January 2026, submitting e-invoice data to the VID becomes mandatory for those same G2G, B2G and G2B segments. From that same date, running from 1 January 2026 through 31 December 2027, B2B businesses can submit data to the VID voluntarily. There&#8217;s no obligation yet, but the option already exists (<a href=\"https:\/\/likumi.lv\/ta\/id\/365040-kartiba-kada-organize-un-isteno-strukturetu-elektronisko-rekinu-apriti-un-kada-strukturetu-elektronisko-rekinu-datus-iesniedz-v\">Regulation No. 749<\/a>).<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"starting-2028-b2b-becomes-mandatory\">Starting 2028: B2B becomes mandatory<\/h3>\n<p>From 1 January 2028, B2B becomes mandatory too: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vid.gov.lv\/lv\/e-rekini\">the VID confirms<\/a> that Latvian-registered businesses will have to issue invoices for payment as e-invoices and submit them to the VID at the same time. A handful of exceptions fall outside this rule under the <a href=\"https:\/\/likumi.lv\/ta\/id\/324249-gramatvedibas-likums\">Accounting Law<\/a>: cash-register-supported transactions, certain documents generated in state health or employment agency systems, and internal documents of security and law-enforcement bodies, for example.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"a-practical-checklist-for-your-invoicing-software\">A practical checklist for your invoicing software<\/h2>\n<p>It&#8217;s worth reviewing your software today, well ahead of the 2028 deadline, rather than waiting until it&#8217;s close.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>UBL 2.1 export:<\/strong> check whether your accounting or sales software can produce invoices in UBL 2.1 XML format, not just PDF invoices.<\/li>\n<li><strong>PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0 validation:<\/strong> ask your provider whether the XML file it produces actually passes <a href=\"https:\/\/docs.peppol.eu\/poacc\/billing\/3.0\/2025-Q2\/bis\/\">PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0&#8217;s business and validation rules<\/a>, not just a generic UBL schema check.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Recipient identifiers:<\/strong> make sure the system can store and use the client&#8217;s e-address or other PEPPOL identifiers, not just a name and postal address.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Delivery channel:<\/strong> decide which of the <a href=\"https:\/\/likumi.lv\/ta\/id\/365040-kartiba-kada-organize-un-isteno-strukturetu-elektronisko-rekinu-apriti-un-kada-strukturetu-elektronisko-rekinu-datus-iesniedz-v\">channels listed in Regulation No. 749<\/a> suits you: e-address, operator, or direct integration, and agree on it with your client.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Submission to the VID:<\/strong> check whether your channel forwards data to the VID automatically (as the e-address does) or whether you need to do that separately through EDS or an API.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Deadlines:<\/strong> remember the e-invoice has to reach the VID once, no later than five working days after it&#8217;s sent. If there&#8217;s a system failure, you get three working days after it&#8217;s fixed; for any other delay, you have to notify the VID through EDS and submit the invoices within 30 calendar days of discovering the cause (<a href=\"https:\/\/likumi.lv\/ta\/id\/365040-kartiba-kada-organize-un-isteno-strukturetu-elektronisko-rekinu-apriti-un-kada-strukturetu-elektronisko-rekinu-datus-iesniedz-v\">Regulation No. 749<\/a>).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>If your business already handles B2G invoices or voluntary VID submission today, in the summer of 2026, the 2028 transition is more a confirmation of your setup than a new project. But if every invoice you send is still a PDF typed up by hand, it&#8217;s worth starting the software decision now, not in January 2028.<\/p>\n<h2>FAQ<\/h2>\n<h3>Kas on L\u00e4ti e-arve kohustuslik formaat 2026. aastal?<\/h3>\n<p>L\u00e4ti Maksuamet (VID) n\u00f5uab, et e-arve XML oleks kirjutatud UBL 2.1 s\u00fcnataksis ja vastaks PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0 reeglitele. See ei ole eraldi riiklik formaat, vaid PEPPOL-i standardi \u00fclev\u00f5tmine.<\/p>\n<h3>Mis vahe on EN 16931, UBL 2.1 ja PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0 vahel?<\/h3>\n<p>EN 16931 on semantiline andmemudel, mis m\u00e4\u00e4rab, milliseid andmev\u00e4lju arvel peab olema. UBL 2.1 on XML-failivorming, kuhu need andmed kirja pannakse. PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0 lisab kitsendused ja valideerimisreeglid, tagades, et arve vastab t\u00e4pselt n\u00f5uetele.<\/p>\n<h3>Millal muutub B2B e-arve L\u00e4tis kohustuslikuks?<\/h3>\n<p>B2B e-arve kohustus j\u00f5ustub 1. jaanuaril 2028. Alates 1. jaanuarist 2026 kuni 31. detsembrini 2027 saavad ettev\u00f5tted andmeid VID-le esitada vabatahtlikult.<\/p>\n<h3>Kas PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0 t\u00e4hendab, et arve peab liikuma PEPPOL v\u00f5rgustiku kaudu?<\/h3>\n<p>Ei. PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0 on dokumendi formaadi n\u00f5ue, mitte edastuskanal. Arve v\u00f5ib edastada e-adressi, operaatori v\u00f5i otseintegratsiooni kaudu, kuid XML-fail peab vastama PEPPOL-i valideerimisreeglitele.<\/p>\n<p><script type=\"application\/ld+json\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@type\":\"FAQPage\",\"mainEntity\":[{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"Kas on L\u00e4ti e-arve kohustuslik formaat 2026. aastal?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"L\u00e4ti Maksuamet (VID) n\u00f5uab, et e-arve XML oleks kirjutatud UBL 2.1 s\u00fcnataksis ja vastaks PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0 reeglitele. See ei ole eraldi riiklik formaat, vaid PEPPOL-i standardi \u00fclev\u00f5tmine.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"Mis vahe on EN 16931, UBL 2.1 ja PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0 vahel?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"EN 16931 on semantiline andmemudel, mis m\u00e4\u00e4rab, milliseid andmev\u00e4lju arvel peab olema. UBL 2.1 on XML-failivorming, kuhu need andmed kirja pannakse. PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0 lisab kitsendused ja valideerimisreeglid, tagades, et arve vastab t\u00e4pselt n\u00f5uetele.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"Millal muutub B2B e-arve L\u00e4tis kohustuslikuks?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"B2B e-arve kohustus j\u00f5ustub 1. jaanuaril 2028. Alates 1. jaanuarist 2026 kuni 31. detsembrini 2027 saavad ettev\u00f5tted andmeid VID-le esitada vabatahtlikult.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"Kas PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0 t\u00e4hendab, et arve peab liikuma PEPPOL v\u00f5rgustiku kaudu?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Ei. PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0 on dokumendi formaadi n\u00f5ue, mitte edastuskanal. Arve v\u00f5ib edastada e-adressi, operaatori v\u00f5i otseintegratsiooni kaudu, kuid XML-fail peab vastama PEPPOL-i valideerimisreeglitele.\"}}]}<\/script><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<style>.ce-answer{max-width:760px;margin:0 auto;padding:8px 20px 48px;line-height:1.65}.ce-answer h2{margin:1.5em 0 .55em;line-height:1.3}.ce-answer h3{margin:1.1em 0 .45em}.ce-answer p{margin:0 0 1em}.ce-answer ul,.ce-answer ol{margin:0 0 1em;padding-left:1.4em}.ce-answer li{margin:.25em 0}.ce-answer table{border-collapse:collapse;width:100%;margin:0 0 1.2em}.ce-answer th,.ce-answer td{border:1px solid #ddd;padding:8px 10px;text-align:left}.ce-answer blockquote{border-left:3px solid #ccc;margin:1em 0;padding:6px 14px}.ce-answer sup a{text-decoration:none}.ce-answer-title{margin:.6em 0 .4em}<\/style>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>PEPPOL BIS Billing 3.0, UBL 2.1 and EN 16931 aren&#039;t three competing standards. They&#039;re three layers of Latvia&#039;s e-invoice requirement.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-28921","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bilnex.io\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/28921","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bilnex.io\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bilnex.io\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bilnex.io\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bilnex.io\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28921"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bilnex.io\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/28921\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bilnex.io\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28921"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}