The international standards and major democratic legal systems do not recognize release on such grounds. The closest status to Estonian judges during their first three years of tenure is that of judges on probationary appointment. It may be discussed whether Estonia should be considered to have career judiciary. But even if to agree with that, the situation of judges, who may at any point of the first three years of their career be released, is substantially more vulnerable than that of judges on probationary period. Hence it should not be taken as granted that the tolerance of the international standards may be extended to this situation.
Similar concerns arise about the fifth ground.
In many countries judiciary have vigorously fought against the government's right to release judges on the ground that there is no need for having that many judges. The solution have been that, yes government may terminate the office, but the government has to provide the judges the same remuneration as they had before the termination. As Estonian statute does not refer to guarantees on remuneration it may be concluded that the referred provision is not in full accord with the need for independent judiciary. So long the President has never exercised his right to release judges on the ground of unfitness. Some success could have argumentation referring to Art.