The recent victory of the Estonian Human Rights Centre in the Tallinn Administrative Court marks a significant step forward in the protection of human rights and equal treatment. As a result of this strategic case, the court deemed the decision of the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) to disregard a Ukrainian citizen’s residence permit application due to the absence of a military ID or exemption certificate as unlawful. This case highlights the importance of discretion and the application of legal principles in administrative procedures.

Since 2019, Ukrainian citizen Dima has lived in Estonia and, in April 2024, submitted an application to the PPA for a temporary residence permit, intending to reside permanently in Estonia. The PPA dismissed his application, claiming that because Dima did not submit a military ID or exemption certificate, they could not assess whether he posed a risk to public order or Estonia’s national security.

EHRC’s refugee law attorneys argued that Dima could not provide the requested documents due to restricted access to Ukraine’s electronic systems. Additionally, the PPA had not considered alternative ways to process his application, as would be required by the principle of investigation and the exercise of discretion.

The Tallinn Administrative Court found that the PPA had not sufficiently considered whether the lack of a military ID truly prevented a substantive review of the residence permit application. The court emphasized that, according to applicable laws (VMS § 31(2) and HMS § 38(3)), an application may only be dismissed if it lacks an essential piece of evidence directly impacting the procedure’s outcome. The court also noted that the PPA should have explored other options to assess whether Dima posed a threat to public order or national security. The court’s decision, which requires the PPA to reassess Dima’s application on its merits, sends a clear message that residence permit applications must be processed lawfully and judiciously, taking into account the specifics and individual evidence of each case.

Dima’s case vividly demonstrates the importance of strategic litigation in protecting human rights. This court victory is significant not only for Dima but also for many others who have faced unreasonable or substantively irrelevant demands when applying for residence permits. It holds symbolic importance on both individual and societal levels, as the work of EHRC’s attorneys aims to improve the PPA’s practices in handling residence permit applications. With this victory, we have not only defended an individual’s rights but also advocated for adherence to legal principles in Estonia, ensuring fair treatment for all.

See also: Estonian Human Rights Centre Challenges State Arbitrariness in Court