Sworn Advocate, Ph.D., Inese Baikovska
[email protected] 27 August 2020
No. 7-8/20-437
Answer to the request
You have requested statistical information from the Supreme Court of Estonia on review procedure
outcomes in criminal matters from 2015 to 2019.
Chapter 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter CCP)1 regulates the review procedure for
judicial decisions. Grounds for review are stipulated in § 366 of the CCP.
§ 366. Grounds for review
[RT I, 17.04.2012, 4 - entry into force 10.04.2012 - The decision of the Supreme Court en banc declares
§ 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be in conflict with the Constitution to the extent that this
does not prescribe, as a ground for review, the entry into force of a court judgment, made pursuant to
general procedure, which establishes the absence of a criminal act, if a punishment of imprisonment was
imposed for participation in such criminal act on a person by court judgment made pursuant to general
procedure in the criminal matter under review.]
The grounds for review are:
1) the unlawfulness or unfoundedness of a court judgment or order arising from the false testimony of a
witness, knowingly wrong opinion of an expert, knowingly false interpretation or translation, or
falsification of documents, or fabrication of evidence, as established by another court judgment which
has entered into force;
2) a criminal offence which is committed by a judge in the consideration of the criminal matter under
review and which is established by a court judgment;
3) a criminal offence which is committed by an official of the body that conducted proceedings or a
prosecutor in the proceedings of a criminal matter and which is established by a court judgment, if the
criminal offence could have had an effect on the court judgment made in the criminal matter under
review;
4) annulment of a court judgment or order which was one of the bases for making a court judgment or
order in the criminal matter subject to review, if this may result in the making of a judgment of acquittal
in the criminal matter subject to review, or in mitigation of the situation of the convicted offender;
5) any other facts which are relevant to the dealing with the criminal matter justly but which the court
was not aware of while making the court judgment or a court order in the criminal matter subject to
review and which independently or together with the facts previously established may result in a
judgment of acquittal or in mitigation of the situation of the convicted offender or in mitigation of the
situation of a third party whose property has been confiscated on the basis of a court judgment or order;
6) the Supreme Court, under constitutional review procedure, declaring the legislation of general
application or a provision thereof on which the court judgment or order in the criminal matter under
1
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/518052020007/consolide
17 Lossi St, 50093 Tartu, ESTONIA. Tel +372 730 9002, e-mail:
[email protected]
www.riigikohus.ee
review is based to be in conflict with the Constitution;
7) the granting, due to violation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms or a Protocol belonging thereto, of an individual appeal filed with the European
Court of Human Rights against a court judgment or order in the criminal matter subject to review, if the
violation may have affected the resolution of the matter and cannot be eliminated, or if the damage
caused thereby cannot be compensated, in a manner other than by review;
8) entry into force of a court judgment by which the accused is acquitted of the criminal offence of
which a joint principal offender or an accomplice was convicted under simplified procedure in the
criminal matter under review;
9) judgment made under general procedure, which establishes the absence of a criminal act if the person
was convicted in the matter under review for participation in this criminal act.
10) confiscation of assets by a decision from a person who was not joined to criminal proceedings.
Statistics on review proceedings in criminal matters 2015-2019:
In 2019, the Supreme Court of Estonia reviewed 1 criminal matter and the decision of the lower instance
court was not amended due to the absence of the grounds for review.
In 2018, there were no review procedures in the Supreme Court of Estonia.
In 2017, the Supreme Court of Estonia reviewed 5 criminal matters:
2 lower instance court decisions were not amended due to the absence of the grounds for
review;
2 decisions of the Supreme Court annulled a lower instance court decision and the Supreme
Court made a new decision (based on § 366 p 6 of the CCP);
1 decision of the Supreme Court annulled a lower instance court decision and sent it to the
county court for review (based on § 366 p 5 of the CCP).
In 2016, the Supreme Court of Estonia reviewed 1 criminal matter and the Supreme Court annulled a
lower instance court decision and sent it to the county court for review (based on § 366 p 6 of the CCP).
In 2015, the Supreme Court of Estonia reviewed 8 criminal matters:
2 criminal matters were not amended due to the absence of the grounds for review;
1 petition for review was rejected;
1 decision of the Supreme Court annulled a lower instance court decision and the Supreme
Court made a new decision (based on § 366 p 1 of the CCP);
4 decisions of the Supreme Court annulled a lower instance court decision and sent the matter
to the Office of the Prosecutor General for pre-court proceedings to be conducted a new (based
on § 366 p 8 of the CCP).
Yours sincerely
(signed digitally)
Andraš Tšitškan
Head of Legal Information and Judicial Training Department
The Supreme Court of Estonia
2(2)
Sworn Advocate, Ph.D., Inese Baikovska
[email protected] 27 August 2020
No. 7-8/20-437
Answer to the request
You have requested statistical information from the Supreme Court of Estonia on review procedure
outcomes in criminal matters from 2015 to 2019.
Chapter 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter CCP)1 regulates the review procedure for
judicial decisions. Grounds for review are stipulated in § 366 of the CCP.
§ 366. Grounds for review
[RT I, 17.04.2012, 4 - entry into force 10.04.2012 - The decision of the Supreme Court en banc declares
§ 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be in conflict with the Constitution to the extent that this
does not prescribe, as a ground for review, the entry into force of a court judgment, made pursuant to
general procedure, which establishes the absence of a criminal act, if a punishment of imprisonment was
imposed for participation in such criminal act on a person by court judgment made pursuant to general
procedure in the criminal matter under review.]
The grounds for review are:
1) the unlawfulness or unfoundedness of a court judgment or order arising from the false testimony of a
witness, knowingly wrong opinion of an expert, knowingly false interpretation or translation, or
falsification of documents, or fabrication of evidence, as established by another court judgment which
has entered into force;
2) a criminal offence which is committed by a judge in the consideration of the criminal matter under
review and which is established by a court judgment;
3) a criminal offence which is committed by an official of the body that conducted proceedings or a
prosecutor in the proceedings of a criminal matter and which is established by a court judgment, if the
criminal offence could have had an effect on the court judgment made in the criminal matter under
review;
4) annulment of a court judgment or order which was one of the bases for making a court judgment or
order in the criminal matter subject to review, if this may result in the making of a judgment of acquittal
in the criminal matter subject to review, or in mitigation of the situation of the convicted offender;
5) any other facts which are relevant to the dealing with the criminal matter justly but which the court
was not aware of while making the court judgment or a court order in the criminal matter subject to
review and which independently or together with the facts previously established may result in a
judgment of acquittal or in mitigation of the situation of the convicted offender or in mitigation of the
situation of a third party whose property has been confiscated on the basis of a court judgment or order;
6) the Supreme Court, under constitutional review procedure, declaring the legislation of general
application or a provision thereof on which the court judgment or order in the criminal matter under
1
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/518052020007/consolide
17 Lossi St, 50093 Tartu, ESTONIA. Tel +372 730 9002, e-mail:
[email protected]
www.riigikohus.ee
review is based to be in conflict with the Constitution;
7) the granting, due to violation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms or a Protocol belonging thereto, of an individual appeal filed with the European
Court of Human Rights against a court judgment or order in the criminal matter subject to review, if the
violation may have affected the resolution of the matter and cannot be eliminated, or if the damage
caused thereby cannot be compensated, in a manner other than by review;
8) entry into force of a court judgment by which the accused is acquitted of the criminal offence of
which a joint principal offender or an accomplice was convicted under simplified procedure in the
criminal matter under review;
9) judgment made under general procedure, which establishes the absence of a criminal act if the person
was convicted in the matter under review for participation in this criminal act.
10) confiscation of assets by a decision from a person who was not joined to criminal proceedings.
Statistics on review proceedings in criminal matters 2015-2019:
In 2019, the Supreme Court of Estonia reviewed 1 criminal matter and the decision of the lower instance
court was not amended due to the absence of the grounds for review.
In 2018, there were no review procedures in the Supreme Court of Estonia.
In 2017, the Supreme Court of Estonia reviewed 5 criminal matters:
2 lower instance court decisions were not amended due to the absence of the grounds for
review;
2 decisions of the Supreme Court annulled a lower instance court decision and the Supreme
Court made a new decision (based on § 366 p 6 of the CCP);
1 decision of the Supreme Court annulled a lower instance court decision and sent it to the
county court for review (based on § 366 p 5 of the CCP).
In 2016, the Supreme Court of Estonia reviewed 1 criminal matter and the Supreme Court annulled a
lower instance court decision and sent it to the county court for review (based on § 366 p 6 of the CCP).
In 2015, the Supreme Court of Estonia reviewed 8 criminal matters:
2 criminal matters were not amended due to the absence of the grounds for review;
1 petition for review was rejected;
1 decision of the Supreme Court annulled a lower instance court decision and the Supreme
Court made a new decision (based on § 366 p 1 of the CCP);
4 decisions of the Supreme Court annulled a lower instance court decision and sent the matter
to the Office of the Prosecutor General for pre-court proceedings to be conducted a new (based
on § 366 p 8 of the CCP).
Yours sincerely
(signed digitally)
Andraš Tšitškan
Head of Legal Information and Judicial Training Department
The Supreme Court of Estonia
2(2)