Input to the 2021 Rule of Law report
Introduction
The Supreme Court is the highest court in Estonia and shall review court judgments by way of
cassation proceedings. The Supreme Court is also the court of constitutional review. For more
information please see: https://www.riigikohus.ee/en/supreme-court-estonia.
Justice System
Appointment and selection of judges and court presidents
As of 2020 it is possible to temporarily involve a judge of county court and circuit court in
composition of administrative court. The chairmen of circuit courts may, by their joint decision,
temporarily send a judge of a county court or circuit court without his or her consent to an
administrative court for review the applications for detention of aliens if this is required for
administration of justice pursuant to the requirements. The Council for Administration of
Courts may establish specified principles for temporary involvement of a judge of a county
court and circuit court in the composition of an administrative court (Section 45-2 of the Courts
Act).
Last year a new institution was introduced – a procedural secondment of judges. The chairman
of a court may send a judge, subject to his or her consent and at the request of the chairman of
another court, to hear a matter in another court of the same or lower instance if this is required
for administration of justice pursuant to the requirements. The judge shall retain his or her
authority of administration of justice also in the court in which territorial jurisdiction is his or
her permanent place of service (Section 58-3 of the Courts Act).
Regarding the retirement regime of judges, a new provision entered into force: the Supreme
Court en banc may, upon the consent of the judge and on the proposal of the chairman of the
court, extend the authority of the judge who has been released from office at his or her own
request or due to his or her age, if this is required for finalising the hearing of the matters
distributed to the judge. In such case the judge shall not lose the right to the receive the judge’s
pension provided them and shall be paid additionally 25% of the salary of the judge. The term
of authority shall be determined by the Supreme Court en banc on the proposal of the chairman
of the court. The authority of a judge may be extended up to the attainment of the last maximum
age of the judge.
As of 1st of July 2020 the Minister of Justice may, with the approval of the Supreme Court en
banc, release the chairman of a court from office prematurely upon his or her election or
appointment as a European Chief Prosecutor, European Prosecutor or European Delegated
Prosecutor of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (next to other possibilities stipulated in
Section 24 (4) of the Courts Act. Additionally, Riigikogu shall release the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court from service on the proposal of the President of the Republic upon his or her
election or appointment as a European Chief Prosecutor, European Prosecutor or European
Delegated Prosecutor of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (Section 27 (5-1 of the Courts
Act). These situations are equivalent to situations when chairman or judges are employed as
judges in international court institutions and etc (Section 58-1 of the Courts Act).
Allocation of cases in courts
As of 30th of June 2020 it is possible to refer a matter to another court without changing
jurisdiction. To specify, at the request of the chairman of a county court or administrative court,
the chairmen of circuit courts may, by their joint decision, refer a matter which can be
determined on the basis of general elements to another court of the same instance for judgment
if this is required for administration of justice pursuant to the requirements, in particular if it is
evident that it is not possible to ensure administration of justice pursuant to the requirements in
the court the chairman of which filed the request, by the measures provided for in subsection
45 (1-1) of the Courts Act. Referral of a matter from a county court is allowed only to another
county court and from an administrative court only to another administrative court. The
distribution of matters referred to another court for judgment shall take place in accordance
with the division of tasks plan of the other court, on a random basis. The jurisdiction of a matter
or the location of hearing a matter shall not change upon referral of the matter to another court
for judgment. The Council for Administration of Courts may establish specified principles for
referral of matters to another court for judgment.
Regarding specialisation of judges, the Council for Administration of Courts shall establish the
specific bases for the preparation of the division of tasks plan of judges, including the principles
of specialisation of judges. Previously the Courts Act stipulated, that the division of tasks plan
shall ensure specialisation of judges to matters involving minors and matters relating to
insolvency. In January 2021 it was added that tasks plan shall also ensure specialisation of
judges to matters relating to insolvency.
Remuneration/bonuses for judges
As mentioned in the previous input to the Rule of Law report, the salary of judges is established
by law in the Salaries of Higher State Servants Act. Additional remuneration for judges is
regulated in Section 76 of the Courts Act. As of 30th of June 2020 and according to Sections
11-1 (3) and 19-1 (3) of the Courts Act some new expenses are reimbursed for the judges: if a
judge hears a matter in a courthouse which is not his or her permanent place of service, travel
and accommodation expenses, as well as other secondment expenses shall be reimbursed to
him or her on the conditions and pursuant to the procedure established under subsection 44 (5)
of the Civil Service Act.
Additionally, if a judge who has been temporarily involved in the composition of an
administrative court hears a matter outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court which is his
or her permanent place of service, travel and accommodation expenses, as well as other
secondment expenses shall be reimbursed to him or her on the conditions and pursuant to the
procedure established under subsection 44 (5) of the Civil Service Act.
2(3)
Significant developments capable of affecting the perception that the general public has of the
independence of the judiciary
The Ministry of Justice is preparing a draft law about the openness court procedures (and in
some way of court judgments). This draft proposes many changes in procedural laws regarding
the publication of first and second instance court judgments which have not entered into force;
data protection questions, the possibility for third persons to see digital case files, questions
about restrictions on public access to court sessions.
Length of proceedings
According to the procedural statistics of 2020, civil cases were resolved in county courts on
average in 95 days (same as in 2019), criminal cases were resolved on average in 255 days in
general criminal proceedings (226 in 2019), 27 days in simplified proceedings (same in 2019)
and 47 days in misdemeanour cases (46 in 2019). In the first instance, administrative cases were
resolved in an average of 126 days (123 in 2019). The average processing time for appeals was
182 days in civil cases (162 in 2019), 51 days in criminal cases (44 in 2019) and 192 days in
administrative cases (197 in 2019). These results are somewhat surprising in a positive way,
taking in consideration the COVID-19 pandemic situation and also the fact that there was
record-breaking amount of incoming civil cases in 2020 (comparing to last seven years). This
resulted in the fact, that the courts made 7% more decisions in civil cases comparing to last year
(in county courts). Additionally, the amount of general criminal proceedings rose 7% and there
were 8% more administrative cases comparing to 2019. The average efficiency in civil matters
of county courts was 98,9% in 2020 (cases finalised vs. incoming cases, including cases left
from last year). The average efficiency in criminal matters of county courts was 100,1%,
misdemeanour matters 99,6% and in administrative matters 92,5%.
In the past year, the Supreme Court has operated at a capacity of 98% (97% in 2018, 102% in
2019).
3(3)
Saatja: Secretariat Network of the Presidents <
[email protected]>
Saaja:
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected], Villu Kõve, Karin Leichter-Tammisto, Kadri Nõmm,
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]
Teema: Letter from Commissionner Didier Reynders - Consultation on the Rule of Law / Lettre de M. le commissaire Didier Reynders - Consultation sur l'état de droit
Dear President,
At the request of President Jean-Claude Wiwinius, please find attached a letter dated 8 February 2021 addressed to him by Commissioner Didier Reynders.
Mr. Reynders is soliciting the Members of the Network by inviting them to take part of the targeted consultation on the Rule of Law for the 2021 report.
The contributions to be provided should contain factual information addressing (1) feedback and developments with regard to the points raised in the country chapters of the 2020 Rule of Law Report and (2) any other significant developments since January 2020 falling under the ‘type of information’ outlined in the questionnaire and in particular with regard to the measures taken in relation to COVID-19.
The input should be inserted in the template for contribution on the following website: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/RuleofLawReportStakeholderConsultation2021.
Mr. Reynders would be grateful if you could send your contribution by 8 March. Any additional information that you may wish to provide later on in the process will of course also be welcome and taken into account to the extent possible.
In case you have any questions, you can contact DG JUST at the following email address:
[email protected] <mailto:
[email protected]> or you can directly contact Jože Štrus (
[email protected] <mailto:
[email protected]> ) or Annegret Kempf (
[email protected] <mailto:
[email protected]> ) from Unit C.1 Justice Policy and Rule of Law of DG Justice and Consumers.
Yours sincerely,
Madame, Monsieur le premier président,
A la demande de M. le président Jean-Claude Wiwinius, nous vous prions de bien vouloir trouver ci-joint une lettre datée du 8 février 2021 que M. le commissaire Didier Reynders lui a adressée.
M. Reynders sollicite à nouveau les membres du Réseau en les invitant à participer à une consultation ciblée sur l’état de droit pour le rapport de 2021.
Les contributions à fournir doivent contenir des informations factuelles concernant (1) les réactions et les développements relatifs aux points soulevés dans les chapitres par pays du rapport de 2020 sur l'État de droit et (2) tout autre développement significatif depuis janvier 2020 relevant du "type d'information" décrit dans le questionnaire et notamment en ce qui concerne les mesures prises en relation avec la COVID-19.
Votre contribution doit être insérée dans un formulaire de réponse figurant sur le site Internet suivant : https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/RuleofLawReportStakeholderConsultation2021.
M. Didier Reynders vous serait reconnaissant de bien vouloir envoyer votre contribution d'ici le 8 mars. Toute information supplémentaire que vous souhaiteriez fournir après ce délai sera bien entendu la bienvenue et sera prise en compte dans la mesure du possible
Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez contacter la DG JUST à l'adresse électronique suivante :
[email protected] <mailto:
[email protected]> ou vous pouvez contacter directement M. Jože Štrus (
[email protected] <mailto:
[email protected]> ) ou Mme Annegret Kempf (
[email protected] <mailto:
[email protected]> ) de l'unité C.1 Politique de la justice et état de droit de la DG de la Justice et des Consommateurs.
Veuillez croire, je vous prie, Madame, Monsieur le premier président, à l’expression de notre haute considération.
Jean-Jacques Arnaldez
Réseau des Présidents des Cours suprêmes judiciaires de l'Union européenne
Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the European Union
5 quai de l'Horloge
75055 Paris cedex 01 TSA 79201