Key issues
- Over the past two years, Estonia has worked on bringing domestic legislation into accordance with the EU migration package. The implementation of the amended European Union law and Estonian domestic law is not completely clear, which makes it necessary to monitor how the changes affect the rights of applicants for international protection.
- In both international protection procedures and residence permit procedures for Ukrainian citizens, key issues during the reporting period centered on narrowly defined Estonian public order and security, occasionally overshadowing both people’s fundamental rights and adherence to the general principles of applicable law.
Political and institutional developments
The European Union has adopted several regulations and directives in 2024 in relation to the reform of the migration and asylum legal framework.[1] These also affect the right to international protection in Estonia.
In 2024, the temporary protection measure for Ukrainian refugees was extended until March 2026.[2] The European Commission now supports a transition to other lawful residence statuses for Ukrainian war refugees,[3] but in Estonia this has created difficulties for Ukrainian citizens. The Police and Border Guard Board (PBGB) has begun requiring Ukrainian citizens, who are applying for an Estonian residence permit or an extension of a residence permit, to submit documents related to military service[4], which are not accessible to all Ukrainian citizens. When such documents are not provided, the PBGB has declined to examine residence permit applications. Although the Ministry of the Interior confirmed[5] in 2024 that the absence of a single document is not grounds for leaving an application unexamined, the PBGB continued this practice in 2025.[6] On 29 August 2025, the Tallinn Administrative Court issued a decision[7] declaring that not processing the residence permit applications under such grounds is unlawful, but the PBGB appealed the decision to a higher court.
Fulfilling the requirements for a residence permit is also difficult for single parents who are unable to work full-time while caring for their children, as well as for refugees with no or partial work capacity. The reason is that under the requirements of the current Aliens Act, having a sufficient income and a permanent place of residence in Estonia are generally prerequisites for applying for a residence permit (Aliens Act § 117 subsection 1 points 2–3). The issue was highlighted by Dr. Meltem İneli Ciğer, Associate Professor at Suleyman Demirel University’s Faculty of Law, at the 2024 Finnish European Migration Network conference[8] and again at a conference on the future of temporary protection held at the Estonian Academy of Security Sciences in Tallinn on 28 May 2025[9]. Therefore, in addition to ending the unjustified requirement for documents, Estonia must also find a realistic solution to protect the rights of vulnerable Ukrainian war refugees once their eligibility for temporary protection ends.
Legislative developments
Starting from 1 May 2025, the Social Insurance Board (SIB) stopped paying rent subsidies to families who have received international protection and who were living outside accommodation centres or detention centres at the time of applying. Previously, all recipients of international protection had the right, under § 73 subsection 5 point 1 of the Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens, to receive a one-time allowance covering the costs related to concluding a rental agreement. According to the explanatory memorandum to the law from 2016, it may be necessary to provide rent support through the SIB, i.e. separately from the local municipality, precisely because applicants for international protection gain the right to register their place of residence and receive benefits through the local municipality only once they have rented accommodation and have a rental agreement.[10]
From 1 January 2025, § 38 subsection 3 of the Statutory Fees Act[11] was amended so that an application to extend a residence permit card granted on the basis of international protection is no longer exempt from the state fee. Only the application for an initial residence permit remains exempt.
As a positive development, an amendment to § 27 subsection 4 of the Identity Documents Act[12] entered into force on 26 June 2025, under which beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are also exempt from the obligation to submit the consent of their country of nationality when applying for an Estonian alien’s passport.
Case Law
During the reporting period, the Supreme Court issued several decisions that significantly influenced the practice of the international protection procedure. On 12 December 2023, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment in case 3-22-2509[13], clarifying the procedure for determining refugee status in sur place[14] cases. According to the Supreme Court’s position, the applicant’s activities must be assessed both before and after leaving the country of origin in order to determine whether the later activities are genuine or opportunistic. If the activities emerged only after leaving the country of origin, the applicant must provide convincing reasons demonstrating their genuineness. The risk of persecution must be assessed at the time of the decision (ex nunc), not as of the moment of departure. This change is important because the PBGB had previously taken the view in several cases that if an applicant was not persecuted before leaving, there was no risk of later persecution. In the same decision, the Supreme Court also clarified that assessing the existence of a risk of persecution is not a discretionary decision but an assessment of factual circumstances. Therefore, if the court is convinced that the applicant meets the conditions for receiving protection, the courts must issue a decision obligating the PBGB to grant protection, rather than obligating the PBGB to issue a new decision.
In its judgement on 15 May 2025 in the case 3-23-1317[15], the Supreme Court ordered the PBGB to change its practice regarding the application of prohibitions on entry, finding that a prohibition on entry must not be applied unless there is a specific risk arising from the particular individual. The Court explained that the application of a prohibition on entry and its duration must be clearly justified and proportionate. Previously, the PBGB generally imposed an automatic prohibition on entry of up to five years to the Schengen area on applicants for international protection who had received a negative decision.
Statistics and surveys
In 2024, a total of 1,330[16] people applied for international protection in Estonia through the regular procedure, of whom 1,215[17] were Ukrainian citizens. By the end of 2024, there were 1,369[18] recipients of international protection in Estonia. For comparison, in 2023 Estonia had 3,380 international protection applicants and 3,918 recipients. In 2024, temporary protection was granted to 6,095 applicants in Estonia, and the number of temporary protection beneficiaries reached 35,435 at the end of 2024.[19]
Out of nearly 115 international protection applicants, almost half (55) were citizens of Russia (40) and Belarus (15), although their number has nevertheless decreased nearly five times compared to 2022.[20]
As of September 2025, 788 applications for international protection had been submitted, of which 709 were by Ukrainian citizens, 23 by Russian citizens, and 11 by Belarusian citizens.[21] As of 19 October 2025, 35,012 Ukrainian war refugees held a temporary residence permit based on temporary protection in Estonia, and 4,470 applications for temporary protection had been registered in 2025 up to that date. By 19 October 2025, Ukrainian citizens had submitted 763 applications for international protection.[22]
Promising practices
Previously, international protection applicants in Estonia were not allowed to work during the first six months or until a positive decision was made. Now, international protection applicants who hold a work visa or who submit their application while their residence permit is valid are allowed to work in Estonia for the entire duration of the procedure. This applies even if the validity of the residence permit or visa expires during the procedure before six months have passed.[23]
In October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a ruling (C-608/22 and C-609/22)[24] confirming that women and girls from Afghanistan constitute a distinct group facing persecution, and that their gender and nationality alone are sufficient grounds for granting refugee status. The ruling is based on the finding that women and girls in Afghanistan are subjected to systematic discrimination, for which it is not necessary to prove an individual threat. Estonia has adopted this practice and, in accordance with the guidance of the European Union Court, recognizes Afghan women as refugees.
As a positive ongoing practice, the time spent in Estonia under international protection is counted when calculating the residence requirement for a long-term resident’s permit. This allows refugees, once they have fulfilled other requirements, to apply for a residence permit for a long-term resident after five years of living in Estonia under international or temporary protection, helping to provide refugees with greater stability.
Noteworthy public discussions
On 13 January 2025, the Isamaa parliamentary faction initiated a draft legislation in Riigikogu to close the temporary border line between the Republic of Estonia and the Russian Federation, which the Riigikogu rejected at its session on 20 March.[25] Finland closed its border with Russia on 29 November 2023[26] and, in 2024, adopted a law allowing restrictions on border crossing, including for refugees, which has been compared to human-rights-violating legal amendments and practices implemented on the borders of Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland to prevent the so-called instrumentalisation of migration and asylum.[27] During the legislative process of the bill initiated in the Estonian Riigikogu, public debate focused primarily on the purposefulness[28,29] of closing the border and its impact[30] on neighbouring countries and society. Broader attention was not given to potential human rights violations that could arise from closing the border, including the reception of people in need of international protection. The reception of applicants for international protection is connected to the ability to cross the EU external border. The majority of applicants for international protection, excluding Ukrainians, arrived from Russia as of the end of 2024.[31] Although human rights infringements may appear proportionate for security reasons in a vacuum, in Estonia the measure’s proportionality cannot be determined solely on the basis of comparable practices in other member states.
Trends and outlook
The migration and asylum package[32] coming into force in 2026 marks a new era in international protection law. One change introduces an obligation for EU member states to implement border procedures, which has not previously been used in Estonia. Under Articles 15 and 16 of the European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 adopted as part of the new package, the Estonian state will be required to ensure free legal aid at all stages of the international protection procedure, including during the administrative process. Additionally, under the draft amendment[33] to the Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens, § 58 subsections 2–4 are intended to be revised to allow multiple individuals to be detained simultaneously in the event of an emergency caused by mass migration, and to grant the PBGB or the Security Police the authority to detain applicants without a court order for up to seven days.[34] Furthermore, under the new § 44 of the act, a movement restriction limited to a specific county is planned to be imposed on all applicants for international protection.[35]
Case study
In 2025, a transgender international protection applicant arrived at a detention center, where their stay resulted in a more-than-three-month interruption of hormone replacement therapy, which they had been taking for the previous six years. At that time in Estonia, § 2 of the regulation “Uniform Requirements for Medical Procedures for Gender Transition”[36] stipulated that prescribing hormone therapy in Estonia required a psychiatrist’s decision and a medical history indicating a transgender identity for at least two years prior to the decision. There were no exceptions for individuals who had previously been on hormone therapy and were in the process of gender transition or had already completed the transition as desired. Although, with the help of representatives, it was possible to secure through the courts access to a psychiatric consultation and priority appointments with a medical council and endocrinologist, neither the Police and Border Guard Board nor the detention center’s healthcare provider independently took effective steps to ensure the continuation of hormone therapy. Requests were met with responses citing procedural complexity or referrals to other authorities. This case demonstrates that, at the time, access to hormone replacement therapy was not guaranteed for transgender applicants for international protection in Estonia whose sex had not been updated in their official documents. The numerous restrictions in place at the time constituted an extraordinary barrier to care, violating not only the right to privacy and the right to health established in applicable regulation but also the fundamental right to equal treatment of transgender individuals. Hopefully, the regulation that came into effect on 1 September 2025 will reduce the disproportionate infringement of these fundamental rights.[37]
Recommendations
- Ensure the availability of lawyers and legal professionals specialising in international protection who provide applicants with direct and timely legal advice in accordance with high professional standards, involving interpreters as needed.
- Establish a substantive and comprehensive vulnerability assessment framework and ensure adequate training for officials, enabling lawful procedures while preventing vulnerable individuals from being placed in border procedures.
Refrain from imposing county-level movement restrictions on applicants for international protection.
[1] Euroopa Komisjon. 2024. Pact on Migration and Asylum, 21.05.2024.
[2] EUR-Lex. 2025. Komisjoni Teatis EL Parlamendile, Nõukogule, Euroopa Majandus- ja Sotsiaalkomiteele ning regioonide komiteele. Prognoositav ja ühine euroopalik tulevikutee ELis viibivate ukrainlaste jaoks, COM(2025) 649, 04.06.2025.
[3] Ibid.
[4] ERR. 2024. Impulss: sõjaväepiletita ukrainlane säilitas kohtu abil Eesti elamisloa, 15.10.2024.
[5] Siseministeerium. 2024. Siseministeerium: sõjaväepileti puudumine ei välista ukrainlastele elamislubade andmist, 02.08.2024.
[6] ERR. 2025. Ukraina IT-spetsialist võitleb õiguse eest Eestisse elama jääda, 26.03.2025.
[7] Tallinna Halduskohtu 29.08.2025 otsus asjas 3-25-572.
[8] Dr Meltem Ineli Ciger. 2024. „Ajutise kaitse saajate tulevik Soomes ja ELis“, lk 7, 27.11.2024.
[9] Euroopa Rändevõrgustik. 2025. EMN Eesti konverents „Ajutisest kaitsest pikaajaliste lahendusteni“, 28.05.2025.
[10] Riigikogu. 2016. 20281 SE II Muudatusettepanekute loetelu välismaalasele rahvusvahelise kaitse andmise seaduse ja sellega seonduvalt teiste seaduste muutmise seaduse eelnõule, lk 18-19, 09.03.2016.
[11] Riigi Teataja. 2024. Riigilõivuseadus, RT I, 31.12.2024, 19.
[12] Riigi Teataja. 2025. Isikut tõendavate dokumendide seadus, RT I, 26.06.2025, 2.
[13] Riigi Teataja. 2023. Riigikohtu halduskollegiumi 12.12.2023 otsus asjas 3-22-2509, 12.12.2023.
[14] A sur place refugee is a person who was not a refugee at the time of leaving their country of origin, but who became a refugee after leaving his country of origin, because his situation or the situation in his country of origin changed later.
[15] Riigi Teataja. 2025. Riigikohtu halduskolleegiumi 15.05.2025 otsus asjas 3-23-1317, 15.05.2025.
[16] Eurostat. 2025. Asylum applicants by type, citizenship, age and sex – annual aggregated data, veebis 29.08.2025.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Euroopa Rändevõrgustik. 2025. Rändestatistika 2020-2024. Rahvusvaheline kaitse – Politsei- ja Piirivalveameti andmed, lk 23.
[19] Eurostat. 2025. Database, veebis 29.08.2025.
[20] Ibid.
[21] PPA kogutud statistilised andmed seisuga 30.09.2025.
[22] Siseministeerium. 2025. Statistika Ukraina sõjapõgenike kohta, veebis 17.11.2025
[23] Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet. 2025. Info seoses sõjaga Ukrainas, veebis 17.11.2025.
[24] EUR-Lex. 2024. Euroopa Liidu Kohus. C-608/22 ja C-609/22, 04.10.2024.
[25] Riigikogu. 2025. Riigikogu otsus „Ettepaneku tegemine Vabariigi Valitsusele sulgeda Eesti Vabariigi ja Vene Föderatsiooni ajutine kontrolljoon“ 562 OE, 13.01.2025.
[26] The Guardian. 2023. Finland closes entire border with Russia after tensions over asylum seekers, 28.11.2023.
[27] Amnesty International. 2024. Finland: Emergency law on migration is a “green light for violence and pushbacks at the border”, 10.06.2024.
[28] Eesti Päevaleht. 2025. Eduard Odinets: kas piiri sulgemine Venemaaga teenib Eesti julgeolekut? Vaevalt, 16.01.2025.
[29] Delfi. 2025. „Iga Venemaa liigutuse peale ei peaks tõmbama saba jalge vahele.“ Riigikogus arutatakse Eesti-Vene piiri sulgemist, 19.03.2025.
[30] Õhtuleht. 2024. KEELATUD KAUP JÕUAB VAENLASENI: miks hoiab Eesti lahti piiri Venemaaga? 21.04.2024.
[31] Eurostat. 2024. Asylum applications – annual statistics, 14.03.2025.
[32] Euroopa Komisjon. 2024. Pact on Migration and Asylum, 21.05.2024.
[33] Eelnõude Infosüsteem. 2025. Välismaalasele rahvusvahelise kaitse andmise seaduse eelnõu, 25-0698/01, 26.06.2025.
[34] Eelnõude Infosüsteem. 2025. Välismaalasele rahvusvahelise kaitse andmise seaduse eelnõu, 25-0698/01, lk-d 30-31, 26.06.2025.
[35] Eelnõude Infosüsteem. 2025. Välismaalasele rahvusvahelise kaitse andmise seaduse eelnõu, 25-0698/01, 26.06.2025, lk-d 23-24.
[36] Riigi Teataja. 2025. Soovahetuse arstlike toimingute ühtsed nõuded, RTL 1999, 87, 1087, 31.08.2025.
