Võtmeteemad
- The perceived level of independence of the judicial system remains high among the general public.
- Specialised departments were established in every court with amendments to the Courts Act.
- Progress has been made in the digitisation of the judicial system.
- The system for providing and remunerating state legal aid requires ongoing review.
- Court proceedings are conducted efficiently, but the increasing workload of judges and generational turnover have an impact.
- Ongoing concerns persist regarding accessing and publishing information.
Political and institutional developments
In the coalition agreement[1] signed in 2023, the government has set a goal to continue with court reforms to make the functioning of courts less bureaucratic. In line with this, the Ministry of Justice sent, in August 2023, a legislative intent of a draft law to stakeholders for their opinions. The legislative intent aims to amend the rules of administrative court proceedings to enable faster and more efficient resolution of complex and voluminous administrative cases.[2]
Additionally, the coalition agreement sets the goal of conducting a review of criminal law and adversarial litigation.[3] In June 2023, the Ministry of Justice convened an expert group for the development of criminal proceedings to identify major issues in criminal proceedings in Estonia and seek the best possible solutions. The Minister of Justice noted the presence of dissatisfaction with criminal proceedings within the field itself as well as in society at large, especially regarding the length of proceedings. The expert group plans to present its initial proposals for potential changes later this year.[4]
In 2022, the crisis of the state legal aid system intensified. The Estonian Bar Association warned that the state legal aid system is not sustainable due to underfunding and this may pose a threat to the right to a fair trial.[5] On 17 November 2022, the Chancellor of Justice proposed to the Minister of Justice to amend the regulation establishing the hourly rates of fees paid to lawyers for providing state legal aid.[6] The Chancellor of Justice found that the provisions regulating the state legal aid system are not flexible enough to achieve a fair outcome in all cases. On 31 January 2023, the Minister of Justice amended the regulation to increase the fees paid to lawyers for providing state legal aid.[7] However, according to the Bar Association, the lawyers’ interest in participating in the state legal aid system remains low, and the system needs a more comprehensive reform.[8]
The Anti-Corruption Action Plan for 2021–2025[9] envisions the adoption of a law protecting whistleblowers reporting workplace violations and the establishment of an electronic notification channel for reporting violations. In 2022, awareness-raising activities were carried out in this regard, including the development of an internal whistleblower hotline at the Ministry of Justice. The Police and Border Guard Board created a confidential email address for reporting violations, and it became possible to submit reports directly to a designated person.[10]
Legislative developments
In February 2023, the Parliament adopted amendments to the Courts Act, establishing specialised departments in every court. The amendments updated the management structure of county courts, transferring them from court-based management to sectoral management. According to the amendments, judges have to apply for positions in either the civil or criminal department of county courts, and in the administrative, civil, or criminal department of circuit courts.[11] Judges have expressed concerns about these changes, noting that specialisation is already provided for in the courts’ work plans, and mandatory specialisation through the creation of departments and middle management structures is unnecessary.[12]
On 24 August 2023, the government approved a draft law on the protection of whistleblowers reporting workplace violations.[13] The draft establishes a framework for receiving reports of violations related to professional activities, providing feedback, and protecting the whistleblower. The draft specifies which institutions and legal entities are obligated to create an internal reporting channel that allows for the confidential reporting of violations.[14] The draft law is linked to the Directive 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and the Council on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law.[15] The NGO Transparency International Estonia has emphasised in its opinion on the draft law that in developing the law, the principle of legal clarity must be considered, enabling ordinary citizens to understand the purpose and application of the law. If the substantive scope of the draft is limited to workplace violations related only to the breach of European Union law, it presents a challenge for the whistleblower to navigate more than 140 European Union legal acts.[16]
On 18 January 2023, the Parliament adopted a new Forensic Examination Act, aiming to ensure greater flexibility in the field of forensics and legal readiness for the transition to fully digital court proceedings.[17]
Case law
In its decision of 7 November 2022, the Supreme Court analysed the constitutionality of the state legal aid system. Although the Supreme Court found that the fee limit in the case under consideration was not in conflict with the Constitution, it also acknowledged that providing state legal aid at the existing fee rates may not be sustainable. The court noted that the fee rates for state legal aid are directly linked to ensuring the right of defence – if an individual cannot receive sufficient legal aid due to the established fee rates for state legal aid providers, it may constitute a violation of their fundamental right of defence.[18]
In its decision of 16 June 2023, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court addressed the substantive examination of the information collection measures under the Security Authorities Act, taking into account the principle of equality of arms, and the problems related to access to information for ensuring the right of defence. The Chamber concluded that if there are no compelling reasons to deny access to information, the defence must be allowed to examine the information. In situations where there are weighty reasons for not including more detailed information that formed the basis for the information collection summary in the criminal file, the defence has the option to request the court to check the legality of the information collection under the Security Authorities Act and, if necessary, ascertain whether the information contained in the summary was indeed obtained through the information collection measures.[19]
In its rulings of 19 June 2023, the Supreme Court took the position that, in certain cases, if a person is arrested for extradition to a foreign country, electronic surveillance or bail can be used as an alternative to detention.[20]
Statistics and surveys
On 5 July 2023, the European Commission published its fourth rule of law report. In the Estonian country chapter, it was highlighted that, overall, 65% of the general public and 59% of companies perceive the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very good’ in 2023. The perceived level of judicial independence among the general public has increased compared to the indicators of 2022 (60%) and 2016 (62%). Among companies, the perceived level of judicial independence has increased compared to 2022 (47%), but remains lower than the level of 2016 (72%).[21]
In the same report, it was found that Estonia’s judicial system remains efficient, although certain delays have been observed in criminal and administrative cases. According to the 2023 EU Justice Scoreboard[22], the duration of proceedings in Estonia is still among the shortest in the EU. In 2022, civil cases in county courts were resolved as efficiently as in previous years (on average within 102 days). Efficiency in criminal cases remained stable, with shorter resolution times than in 2021 (on average 245 days in general proceedings, 33 days in simplified proceedings, and 44 days in misdemeanour cases). Administrative cases in first instance courts took longer than in 2020 (on average 149 days). The duration of court proceedings in civil, commercial, and administrative cases is still shorter than the EU average (based on the time it takes to reach a decision), and the number of pending cases is one of the lowest in the EU. Compared to 2021, the rate of initiated and completed court proceedings slightly decreased from 101% to 99%. Nevertheless, this indicates that the courts generally coped well with incoming cases. Overall, the high level of digitisation in the judicial system has enabled the courts to consistently operate efficiently in recent years.[23] However, the workload of judges has an impact, as indicated by a survey conducted by the Estonian Association of Judges in 2022, according to which 70.5% of respondents, including judges from first and second instance courts, considered their daily workload constantly or mostly excessive.[24]
The European Commission’s report also highlighted that Estonia has made some progress on the recommendation to improve the right of access to information. The Parliament commissioned an independent study[25], to identify key issues related to access to public information, including the controversial role of the Data Protection Inspectorate, which oversees both granting access to information and compliance with data protection principles. The study also found that existing laws, which encourage restrictions to access to information and focus on data protection, do not provide sufficient protection for the right to freedom of information. The study confirmed that rules and practices for information disclosure vary among different government agencies. The purpose of the study was to provide information for further analysis of possible solutions and on whether there is a need to amend the Public Information Act. According to the Media Pluralism Monitor report, the risk level related to the protection of the right to information is still medium but slightly lower compared to 2022.[26]
In May 2023, Civitta Estonia published an analysis commissioned by the Ministry of Justice, aiming to identify experiences and potential challenges related to applying and enforcing restraining orders in cases of domestic violence.[27] The analysis revealed uneven awareness among both victims and law enforcement officials about the possibilities of restraining orders for the protection of victims in Estonia. The authors of the analysis provide recommendations for improving practices related to restraining order applications, mainly focusing on raising awareness and standardising the processing of restraining order requests.[28]
Trends and future outlook
During the reporting period, additional progress has been made in the digital development of the judicial system. The European Commission’s rule of law reports have noted that Estonia is among the Member States whose judicial procedures are the most digitised.[29] In October 2022, the Ministry of Justice introduced a web platform[30] for delivering procedural documents which impose obligations, affect rights, and the receipt of which starts procedural deadlines. This includes notices, summonses, planning documents, court decisions, and fines, the receipt of which must leave a verifiable trace. Furthermore, in August 2023, the government authorised the Ministry of Justice to convene a steering group to more widely implement a central solution for delivering procedural documents.[31]
Recommendations
- The rules for complex and extensive legal proceedings must evolve in favour of procedural efficiency and serve the goal of expeditious processing, but this must not happen at the expense of the fundamental rights of people.
- The state legal aid system continues to require updating to ensure the right to a fair trial and the right of defence.
- The act on the protection of whistleblowers reporting workplace violations should be adopted to contribute to the prevention and early detection of problems and violations, resulting in a reduction in legal disputes and providing better protection for the rights of whistleblowers.
[1] Vabariigi Valitsus. 2023. Koalitsioonilepe 2023–2027.
[2] Justiitsministeerium. 2023. Ministeeriumi ettepanek muudaks keeruliste haldusasjade lahendamise efektiivsemaks, 08.08.2023.
[3] Vabariigi Valitsus. 2023. Koalitsioonilepe 2023–2027.
[4] Justiitsministeerium. 2023. Ekspertide juhtgrupp hakkab arendama süüteomenetluse valdkonda, 22.06.2023.
[5] ERR. 2022. Advokatuur: riigi õigusabi süsteem vajab reformimist, 10.06.2022.
[6] Õiguskantsler. 2022. Ettepanek riigi õigusabi osutamise eest makstava tasu määrade kohta, 17.11.2022.
[7] Riigi Teataja. 2023. Justiitsministri 26. juuli 2016. a määruse nr 16 „Advokaadile riigi õigusabi tasu maksmise ja kulude hüvitamise kord” muutmine, RT I, 03.02.2023, 51.
[8] Euroopa Komisjon. 2023. 2023. aasta aruanne õigusriigi kohta. Peatükk õigusriigi olukorra kohta Eestis, 05.07.2023.
[9] Justiitsministeerium. Korruptsioonivastane tegevuskava 2021–2025.
[10] Euroopa Komisjon. 2023. 2023. aasta aruanne õigusriigi kohta. Peatükk õigusriigi olukorra kohta Eestis, 05.07.2023.
[11] Riigikogu. 2023. Kohtute seaduse muutmise ja sellega seonduvalt teiste seaduste muutmise seadus 633 SE.
[12] Euroopa Komisjon. 2023. aasta aruanne õigusriigi kohta. Peatükk õigusriigi olukorra kohta Eestis, 05.07.2023.
[13] Justiitsministeerium. 2023. Valitsus kiitis heaks tööalasest rikkumisest teavitajate kaitse eelnõu, 24.08.2023
[14] Eelnõude Infosüsteem. 2023. Tööalasest rikkumisest teavitaja kaitse seadus.
[15] Euroopa Liidu Teataja. 2019. Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiiv (EL) 2019/1937, 23. oktoober 2019, liidu õiguse rikkumisest teavitavate isikute kaitse kohta, L 305/17.
[16] Ühing Korruptsioonivaba Eesti. 2023. Seisukoht tööalasest Euroopa Liidu õiguse rikkumisest teavitaja kaitse seaduse eelnõule, 13.10.2023.
[17] Riigikogu. 2023. Kohtuekspertiisiseadus 644 SE.
[18] Riigikohtu põhiseaduslikkuse järelevalve kolleegiumi 07.11.2022 otsus kohtuasjas nr 5-22-2.
[19] Riigikohtu kriminaalkolleegiumi 16.06.2023 otsus kohtuasjas nr 1-21-5633.
[20] Riigikohus. 2023. Riigikohus: väljaandmisasjades saab vahistamise asendada elektroonilise valve või kautsjoniga, 19. juuni 2023.
[21] Euroopa Komisjon. 2023. 2023. aasta aruanne õigusriigi kohta. Peatükk õigusriigi olukorra kohta Eestis, 05.07.2023.
[22] Euroopa Komisjon. 2023. 2023 EU Justice Scoreboard, 08.06.2023.
[23] Euroopa Komisjon. 2023. 2023. aasta aruanne õigusriigi kohta. Peatükk õigusriigi olukorra kohta Eestis, 05.07.2023.
[24] Eesti Kohtunike Ühing. 2022. EKoÜ töökoormuse küsimustik I-II astme kohtunikele, 20.01.2022.
[25] Pild, M., Turk, K., Kose, K., Lehemets, M. 2022. Avaliku teabe kasutamise võimalused, Arenguseire Keskus.
[26] Euroopa Komisjon. 2023. 2023. aasta aruanne õigusriigi kohta. Peatükk õigusriigi olukorra kohta Eestis, 05.07.2023.
[27] Tirs, K., Lee, K.-A., Viks-Binsol, P. 2023. Lähenemiskeelu taotlemise ja kohaldamise analüüs, Civitta Eesti AS.
[28] Justiitsministeerium. 2023. Analüüs: teadlikkust lähenemiskeelu võimalustest tuleb parandada, 30.06.2023.
[29] Euroopa Komisjon. 2023. 2023. aasta aruanne õigusriigi kohta. Peatükk õigusriigi olukorra kohta Eestis, 05.07.2023.
[30] Registrite ja Infosüsteemide Keskus. Dokumentide kättetoimetamisportaal.
[31] Justiitsministeerium. 2023. Valitsus kiitis heaks dokumentide kesksele kättetoimetamisele ülemineku, 18.08.2023.
