INTRODUCTION
Energy poverty is increasingly recognised as a significant social determinant of health, reflecting the intersection of household income, energy costs, housing quality and access to essential energy services. While the health consequences of inadequate heating, cooling, lighting and electricity have received growing attention, the specific position of children remains comparatively underexplored. The study applies a qualitative doctrinal legal methodology, combining analysis of relevant European Union and Latvian legislation and policy frameworks with a comparative study of European and Latvian case law concerning children’s rights, health, social protection, housing and vulnerability. The legal analysis is complemented by a review of relevant scientific literature on energy poverty and children’s health. The findings are synthesised to identify existing legal gaps and to develop a child-sensitive Children’s Energy Health Rights Framework for assessing the adequacy of State protection against energy poverty. Children are not simply smaller members of energy-poor households: their physiological vulnerability, developmental needs, dependence on adults and limited ability to influence their living environment make them particularly susceptible to the consequences of inadequate household energy. Insufficient access to energy can affect children through multiple and mutually reinforcing pathways. Cold or damp homes may contribute to respiratory and other health problems, while excessive indoor heat can create additional health risks. Energy insecurity may also influence nutrition, where households must choose between food and energy expenditure, restrict opportunities for adequate hygiene and affect sleep, emotional well-being, education and participation in everyday life. These effects demonstrate that energy poverty cannot be understood solely as an affordability problem. For children, access to sufficient household energy is closely connected to the conditions necessary for health, dignity, development, adequate housing and social inclusion. This connection is particularly important from a human-rights perspective. International human rights law recognises the child’s right to the highest attainable standard of health and to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development. These rights require more than formal access to healthcare. Children’s health is shaped by the social and environmental conditions in which they live, including housing and access to essential services. Where inadequate household energy exposes a child to conditions detrimental to health or development, energy policy, social protection, housing policy and health policy become interconnected components of the State’s obligations towards children. Yet existing responses to energy poverty are predominantly household-centred rather than child-centred. Eligibility thresholds, income-based benefits, protected-consumer schemes, disconnection safeguards and other forms of financial assistance may provide important protection, but they do not necessarily identify whether a particular child remains exposed to harmful living conditions (Cabrita Gulyurtlu and Voce 2025). A formal universal support measure may, therefore, produce unequal substantive outcomes. The presence of children, their age, health and developmental needs, housing conditions and the duration and severity of energy deprivation may require differentiated forms of protection. This article consequently asks a broader question: what does effective protection of children’s right to health require when household energy deprivation threatens the conditions necessary for healthy development? Rather than conceptualising energy poverty exclusively through affordability or consumption indicators, the article adopts a child-centred human-rights approach and examines the relationship between energy access, social determinants of health and States’ positive obligations. The article makes two principal contributions. First, it reframes adequate household energy as an enabling condition for the effective enjoyment of children’s right to health, thereby connecting legal obligations with the social determinants of health literature. Second, it proposes a Children’s Energy–Health Rights Framework for evaluating whether existing energy, housing, health and social protection measures provide effective and substantively equal protection for children (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966) By bringing these traditionally fragmented policy domains together, the article seeks to provide a conceptual basis for more integrated, preventive and child-sensitive responses to energy poverty.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Access to energy as a prerequisite for the child’s right to health and adequate living conditions
Under Latvian law, access to affordable household energy is not established as an autonomous and universal subjective right of the child to a specified amount of free energy or to an energy price guaranteed by the State. This, however, does not mean that lack of access to energy is legally neutral in relation to the realisation of the child’s right to health. Energy enables the material conditions without which the effective protection of health and the child’s physical development within the household may be compromised, particularly adequate space heating, access to hot water, lighting, food preparation and the safe use of the home (Lambert and McVeigh, 2024).
This functional relationship is explicitly reflected in the Law on the Protection of the Children’s Rights. Section 10(1) provides that every child has the right to living conditions and a favourable social environment that ensure full physical and intellectual development, as well as to adequate nutrition, clothing and housing (Law on the Protection of the Children’s Rights, 1998). Moreover, Section 6(1) establishes the priority of the rights and interests of the child in all legal relationships affecting children, while Section 6(5) qualifies leaving a child without minimum means of subsistence, housing, or care as unlawful conduct or omission (Law on the Protection of the Children’s Rights, 1998).
The relevance of energy is most apparent in the context of heating. Section 66 of the Law on the Protection of the Children’s Rights imposes an obligation on municipalities to provide assistance and support to families with children, including by ensuring housing and heating for children residing within their administrative territory (Law on the Protection of the Children’s Rights, 1998). Section 67 further provides that the absence of safe housing, heating, clothing or nutrition appropriate to the child’s age and state of health constitutes circumstances endangering the child’s life and health. In such situations, assistance must be provided by municipal and State authorities according to the child’s location (Law on the Protection of the Children’s Rights, 1998). The absence of heating is, therefore, not treated merely as a reduction in material welfare; the legislature has expressly linked it to a potential threat to the child’s life and health.
This interpretation is reinforced by national case law. In case No. SKC-9/2007, the Senate interpreted a child’s housing as a habitable, heated residential space that complies with applicable construction and sanitary requirements (Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia, 2007). This finding confirms that the child’s right to housing encompasses not merely the formal existence of a place of residence but also the quality and habitability of that dwelling, of which adequate heating is a fundamental component. Accordingly, the effective realisation of the child’s right to health cannot be fully secured in the absence of access to energy where energy deprivation results in inadequate housing or living conditions detrimental to health.
The constitutional basis for this interpretation is found in Articles 109, 110 and 111 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia (Satversme). Article 109 guarantees the right to social security in circumstances prescribed by law; Article 110 requires the State to protect and support the family, parents and children; and Article 111 requires the State to protect human health and guarantee a basic level of medical assistance (Constitution of the Republic of Latvia, 1922). The Constitutional Court has held that Article 111 entails positive obligations on the State to respect, protect and fulfil the right to health; the obligation to fulfil requires the adoption of concrete measures necessary for the effective realisation of fundamental rights (Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia, 2013).
At the same time, Article 111 does not, in itself, impose an obligation on the State to guarantee every individual the highest attainable standard of health. The State retains a margin of discretion in allocating resources and selecting appropriate support mechanisms. Nevertheless, it must establish a healthcare and social protection system capable of addressing conditions that materially affect health (Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia, 2013). In the context of energy access, this means that the right to health does not generate an individual entitlement to State-funded coverage of every energy expense or energy-related debt. Rather, the social protection mechanisms chosen by the State must be capable of preventing situations in which a child, because of energy deprivation, is left without adequate heating or safe and habitable housing.
The Constitutional Court, interpreting Articles 1 and 109 of the Satversme, has further held that the minimum level of social assistance must enable access to food, clothing, housing and necessary medical care required for basic subsistence and a life consistent with human dignity (Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia, 2023). The Court has also emphasised that the State cannot transfer responsibility for guaranteeing the minimum core of social rights to municipalities with unequal financial capacities (Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia, 2020). These findings are particularly relevant in situations of energy poverty, because the costs of heating, electricity and other household energy services may constitute an indispensable component of the effective habitability of housing and, consequently, of living conditions compatible with human dignity. In general, renewable energy sources and efficient storage systems can provide cost-effective, long-term solutions for reducing dependence on fossil fuels, despite high initial investment costs (Zemite et al., 2024).
Taken together, these legal standards support a broader conceptualisation of household energy: although access to energy is not an autonomous right, it may operate as an enabling condition for the effective enjoyment of the child’s rights to health, adequate housing, development and a dignified standard of living. This distinction is important because it shifts the analysis away from whether the State must guarantee energy as such and towards whether its legal and social protection framework is sufficiently effective to prevent energy deprivation from undermining children’s fundamental rights.
Direct and indirect mechanisms for the implementation of state obligations
Latvian law distinguishes between two levels of State obligations in relation to household energy deprivation affecting children. The first concerns a direct and urgent duty to intervene where a child lacks adequate heating, and this creates a threat to the child’s life or health. In such circumstances, Section 67 of the Law on the Protection of the Children’s Rights requires State and municipal authorities to provide assistance at the child’s location (Law on the Protection of the Children’s Rights, 1998). This obligation is complemented by Section 66 of the same Law, which requires municipalities to ensure that children have access to housing and heating (Law on the Protection of the Children’s Rights, 1998).
The second level consists of indirect, regular and individualised social protection measures designed to prevent energy costs from resulting in social exclusion or loss of housing. The principal instrument is the housing benefit. Section 32 of the Law on Social Services and Social Assistance includes, among the objectives of social assistance, material support for low-income households to cover housing-related expenditure and assistance in crisis situations (Law on Social Services and Social Assistance, 2002). Section 35 defines the housing benefit as material support intended to cover expenditure associated with the use of housing. Its calculation includes expenditure on thermal energy for heating and hot-water supply, electricity, natural gas, water and other services associated with the use of residential premises (Law on Social Services and Social Assistance, 2002).
The housing benefit, however, does not constitute a universal mechanism for reimbursing all household bills. Its amount is determined by reference to household income, the guaranteed minimum income threshold, the applicable coefficient and prescribed housing expenditure norms. Actual expenditure is taken into account only up to the limits established by Cabinet regulations or binding municipal regulations (Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia, 2020, para. 10). Where housing expenditure has increased, the social service may, on the basis of an application and supporting invoices or receipts, recalculate the benefit for the preceding three calendar months (Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia, 2020, para. 10.1).
The requirement of an individual assessment by social services is particularly important for households with children. Where the household’s material or social circumstances deteriorate, Section 38 of the Law on Social Services and Social Assistance provides for a reassessment and a decision concerning the amount and form of social assistance (Law on Social Services and Social Assistance, 2002). Social services must also provide information on the right to receive social assistance and material or psychosocial support for overcoming a crisis (Law on Social Services and Social Assistance, 2002). With the exception of the guaranteed minimum income benefit, assistance may be provided in kind or by directly covering the costs of particular goods or services; in appropriate circumstances, this may include payment of an energy bill (Law on Social Services and Social Assistance, 2002).
A further targeted mechanism exists in the form of protected-user status for electricity supply. Under the Electricity Market Law, protected users include low-income or needy persons and households, large families, families caring for a child with a disability and persons with certain categories of disability who use electricity for household needs (Electricity Market Law, 2005). Protected-user status provides a reduction in the cost of electricity supplied as part of the electricity trading service, thereby reducing the household’s total payment during the relevant billing period (Electricity Market Law, 2005). Cabinet Regulation No. 345 provides a EUR 20 reduction for low-income or needy households and families caring for a child with a disability and a EUR 25 reduction for large families (Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia, 2021, para. 3).
The protected-user mechanism is limited to electricity and does not extend generally to thermal energy or natural gas. The housing benefit, therefore, constitutes the broader mechanism for addressing household energy expenditure. Additional protection may be available under Section 5 of the Law on State Support for Energy Supply Costs. Under specified conditions, an energy-poor household may receive support in the form of a reduction in payments for consumed electricity, natural gas and thermal energy, provided that the relevant connection exists and an energy supply contract has been concluded for the residential address (Law on State Support for Energy Supply Costs, 2023).
Administrative case law further clarifies the conditions governing access to housing assistance. In determining entitlement to a housing benefit, relevant considerations include actual residence in the dwelling concerned and documentary evidence, such as invoices, receipts or other records demonstrating the existence of the service and related expenditure (Supreme Court Senate, 2026a,b). At the same time, the case law cautions against an excessively broad interpretation of crisis benefits. The absence of heating in a dwelling and the need to install a heating system do not, in themselves, necessarily constitute a crisis situation, while the repayment of long-standing utility debts has not been regarded as consistent with the primary purpose of crisis assistance (Administrative District Court, 2021; Regional Administrative Court, 2019). In such circumstances, ordinary social assistance mechanisms, particularly the housing benefit, remain the primary instruments unless the situation reaches the threshold of an immediate threat to the child within the meaning of Section 67 of the Law on the Protection of the Children’s Rights.
This two-tier structure is significant from both child-rights and public-health perspectives. It differentiates between immediate protective intervention, triggered where energy deprivation threatens a child’s life or health, and preventive social protection, intended to reduce the risk that energy costs progressively undermine adequate housing, health and social inclusion. The effectiveness of the system, therefore, depends not merely on the formal availability of benefits but on whether these mechanisms identify and respond to the actual circumstances and vulnerabilities of children before deprivation develops into a health-threatening crisis.
European Union law perspective
Under European Union law, access to essential energy services is increasingly linked to the conditions necessary for health and a decent standard of living. Article 2(52) of Directive (EU) 2023/1791 defines energy poverty as a household’s lack of access to essential energy services that underpin basic levels and decent standards of living and health. These services expressly include adequate heating, hot water, cooling, lighting and energy required to power appliances (European Parliament and Council, 2023). The definition is significant because it conceptualises energy deprivation not merely as an affordability problem but as a condition capable of compromising health and adequate living conditions. This approach is complemented by Directive (EU) 2019/944 on common rules for the internal market for electricity. Article 28(1) requires Member States to take appropriate measures to protect customers and, in particular, define the concept of a vulnerable customer. In doing so, Member States may take into account factors including income levels, the proportion of household expenditure devoted to energy, the energy efficiency of homes, critical dependence on electrical equipment for health reasons and age (European Parliament and Council, 2019). Article 28 further requires appropriate protection for vulnerable and energy-poor customers, including measures addressing disconnection.
These provisions do not automatically confer vulnerable-customer status on every household with children. The scope of protection depends on the criteria established by Member States and on the circumstances indicating vulnerability or energy poverty. Nevertheless, children constitute a particularly relevant group within this assessment. Directive (EU) 2023/1791 expressly identifies children among groups that may be particularly exposed to the risk or adverse effects of energy poverty. Article 24 accordingly requires Member States to prioritise energy-efficiency and related consumer-protection measures among people affected by energy poverty, vulnerable customers, low-income households and, where applicable, people living in social housing (European Parliament and Council, 2023).
The Court of Justice of the European Union has not recognised an autonomous and unconditional individual right to energy. Its case law nevertheless confirms that EU energy-market liberalisation does not prevent Member States from adopting specific measures designed to protect vulnerable consumers. In Viesgo Infraestructuras Energéticas, C-683/19, the Court examined a national regulated electricity discount intended to protect vulnerable consumers. The Court accepted, in principle, that consumer-protection objectives may justify public-service obligations in the electricity sector, while emphasising that their design and financing must comply with EU requirements, including transparency, non-discrimination and proportionality.
This judgement is particularly relevant to energy poverty because it demonstrates that protection of vulnerable consumers constitutes a legitimate public-interest objective within the internal electricity market. At the same time, vulnerability does not remove the requirement that national interventions be legally structured, objectively justified and proportionate. Accordingly, EU law provides Member States with regulatory space to establish social tariffs, discounts or comparable mechanisms but requires such measures to operate within the broader principles governing the internal energy market.
A complementary dimension emerges from the Court’s case law on equality and access to electricity services. In its jurisprudence concerning electricity-metering practices, the Court has held that an apparently neutral practice may constitute indirect discrimination where it places persons belonging to a protected group at a particular disadvantage, unless it is objectively justified and proportionate. The Court has also required consideration of whether less restrictive, technically and financially feasible alternatives exist. Although this line of case law does not establish a substantive entitlement to a particular quantity of energy, it demonstrates that the organisation and delivery of electricity services remain subject to EU fundamental rights and non-discrimination requirements (Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989).
The relationship between market regulation and social protection is also reflected in Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2019/944. Although electricity suppliers are generally free to determine supply prices, EU law expressly permits Member States, subject to prescribed conditions, to intervene in electricity pricing for energy-poor or vulnerable household customers. The Court’s more recent energy-market jurisprudence confirms the continuing relevance of this regulatory space and the need to balance market principles with consumer protection.
In addition to individual consumer protection, EU law imposes structural obligations addressing energy poverty. Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 requires Member States, through their integrated national energy and climate plans, to assess the number of households experiencing energy poverty. Where significant levels of energy poverty are identified, national plans must include an indicative objective for its reduction (European Parliament and Council, 2018). This constitutes a systemic policy obligation, rather than an individual entitlement to State payment of a particular energy bill. Its significance lies in requiring energy poverty to be identified, measured and incorporated into national energy and climate governance.
These obligations must also be interpreted in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 24 requires that the child’s best interests constitute a primary consideration in all actions relating to children. Article 34(3) recognises the right to social and housing assistance intended to ensure a decent existence for persons lacking sufficient resources, while Article 35 recognises the right of access to preventive healthcare and medical treatment and requires a high level of human health protection in the definition and implementation of Union policies. These provisions bind Member States when they are implementing EU law and do not extend the competences of the Union. (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2016).
Taken together, EU legislation and CJEU case law establish a multilayered model of protection rather than an autonomous right to energy. At the structural level, Member States must identify and address energy poverty. At the regulatory level, EU law permits and, in defined circumstances, requires differentiated protection for vulnerable and energy-poor consumers. At the fundamental-rights level, implementation must comply with principles including non-discrimination, proportionality, human health protection and, where children are affected, the best interests of the child (General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, 2000).
From a child-rights perspective, the critical issue is, therefore, not whether EU law guarantees every child a predetermined quantity or price of energy. The more relevant question is whether the combined operation of energy, social, housing and consumer-protection measures is capable of preventing energy deprivation from reaching a level at which a child’s health, development, adequate living conditions or human dignity are materially compromised. This provides the conceptual bridge between energy poverty as an energy-policy category and energy poverty as a determinant of children’s health.
CONCLUSION
The effective realisation of the child’s right to health cannot be considered in isolation from the material conditions in which the child lives. Access to essential household energy services including adequate heating, hot water, electricity, lighting and energy necessary for the safe and effective use of the home may constitute a necessary precondition for the effective enjoyment of the rights to health, adequate housing, development and a dignified standard of living.
The analysis does not support the existence of an autonomous and unconditional subjective right of every child to a predetermined quantity of free energy or to an energy price guaranteed by the State. Such a conclusion would extend beyond the existing legal framework. Rather, the relevant legal obligations arise where inadequate access to energy interferes, or creates a sufficiently serious risk of interfering, with rights that are already legally protected. The decisive legal question is, therefore, not whether a child has a freestanding ‘right to energy’ but whether the State has established an effective framework capable of preventing energy deprivation from undermining the child’s health, safety, dignity, development and adequate living conditions. The State’s obligations in this field are consequently multilayered and differentiated according to the nature and severity of the risk. Where the absence of heating or another essential energy service creates a real and immediate threat to a child’s life or health, the legal framework requires effective and timely intervention. Public authorities must be capable of providing assistance where the child is located, while municipalities bear particular responsibilities for ensuring that children are not left without adequate housing and heating. In such circumstances, protection cannot depend exclusively on ordinary benefit procedures or on the household’s capacity to resolve energy deprivation independently.
Below this threshold of immediate danger, the State’s obligations are primarily implemented through social protection, housing assistance, energy regulation and targeted consumer-protection mechanisms. Housing benefits, protected-customer schemes, energy-poverty measures and individualised social assistance, therefore, perform a function that extends beyond income redistribution. Where energy deprivation affects the conditions necessary for a child’s health and development, these instruments become part of the institutional architecture through which positive human-rights obligations are implemented. EU law reinforces this interpretation. Directive (EU) 2023/1791 expressly conceptualises energy poverty by reference to the inability to access essential energy services necessary for basic and decent standards of living and health, while requiring Member States to protect and empower people affected by energy poverty and vulnerable customers. It specifically recognises children as a group particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of energy poverty. Directive (EU) 2019/944 further requires Member States to establish safeguards for vulnerable customers and permits vulnerability to be assessed by reference to factors including income, energy expenditure, housing energy efficiency, health-related dependence on electrical equipment and age. The current EU framework also requires protection of vulnerable and energy-poor customers against electricity disconnection. The case law of the Court of Justice provides an additional safeguard against treating energy vulnerability as a matter of unfettered national discretion. In Viesgo Infraestructuras Energéticas (C-683/19), concerning a regulated discount for vulnerable electricity consumers, the Court recognised the protection of vulnerable consumers within the framework of public-service obligations, while requiring the mechanisms chosen by Member States to comply with principles including transparency and non-discrimination. The significance of this jurisprudence is not that EU law creates an individual right to State-funded energy but that social protection within energy markets forms part of a legally structured system subject to EU-law safeguards. A child-rights approach nevertheless requires more than the formal availability of assistance. The effectiveness of protection must be assessed by reference to outcomes. A formally accessible benefit or tariff reduction cannot be regarded as sufficient where, in practice, a child continues to live without adequate heating or other essential energy services and this materially compromises health, safety or adequate living conditions. Equally, a system that intervenes only after energy deprivation has developed into an acute health emergency risks reducing positive obligations to crisis management rather than prevention. This analysis, therefore, supports a Children’s Energy–Health Rights Framework based on four interrelated dimensions: access to essential household energy services; affordability and continuity of supply; child-sensitive identification and assessment of vulnerability; and effective protection and remedies. The framework shifts the analytical focus from the formal existence of energy-support measures to their capacity to protect the individual child from foreseeable harm.
Accordingly, the central legal proposition advanced in this article is that household energy should be understood as an enabling condition for the effective enjoyment of children’s established rights rather than as a separate autonomous right. Where insufficient access to essential energy services creates a foreseeable and preventable risk to a child’s health, development, dignity or adequate living conditions, the issue ceases to be exclusively one of energy affordability or social policy. It becomes a question of the effectiveness of the State’s positive obligations towards the child. This approach provides a basis for moving from a predominantly household-centred model of energy poverty towards a child-sensitive model of rights protection, in which energy, health, housing and social policy are assessed as interconnected components of the conditions necessary for children to live and develop in health and dignity.