The strategic anti-corruption framework has been revised. The new comprehensive anti-corruption Action Plan 2021-2025 , adopted by the Government in February 2021, has eight main priorities . The plan can be considered as an important step forward compared to the previous strategy, aiming to complete the anti-corruption legal framework with lobbying regulation and legal provisions on whistleblowers’ protection. The implementation of the new Action Plan will be coordinated by the Ministry of Justice through the anti-corruption network .

The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in the public sector in Estonia remains relatively low. In the 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International, Estonia scores 75/100 and ranks 6th in the European Union and 17th globally .This perception has improved over the past five years .

The anti-corruption institutional set-up has not changed compared to the 2020 Rule of Law Report. The Ministry of Justice is in charge of the preparation, oversight and coordination of the anti-corruption Action Plan 2021-2025. The Anti-Corruption Select Committee exercises parliamentary scrutiny over the implementation of anti-corruption measures. The Political Party Funding Supervision Committee oversees political parties’ funding. The Corruption Crime Bureau of the National Criminal Police is a specialised unit responsible for carrying out investigations on corruption cases, and the Internal Security Service is responsible for investigating corruption offences committed by higher state officials and higher local government officials in six larger municipalities. The Prosecutor’s Office supervises and directs pre-trial criminal investigation proceedings on corruption offences and represents the public prosecution in courts.

The justice system continues to work efficiently despite the challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. The length of proceedings and pending cases are among the lowest in the EU. In 2020, civil cases were resolved with the same efficiency as in 2019 in county courts (in 95 days on average), criminal cases were resolved slower than 2019 (on average, in 255 days in general criminal proceedings, 34 days in simplified proceedings, and 47 days in misdemeanour cases). In the first instance courts, administrative cases were resolved slightly slower than 2019 (in an average of 126 days) . The average processing time for appeals was 192 days in civil cases, 51 days in criminal cases and 197 days in administrative cases. The length of court proceedings in civil, commercial and administrative cases is shorter than average in the EU (measured in disposition time) and pending cases are often amongst the lowest in the EU . Compared to 2019, the clearance rate fell slightly below 100%, but courts were generally able to cope with incoming cases.

The advanced level of digitalisation of justice has allowed the continued functioning of the courts without notable disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic. As noted in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, Estonia is among the best performing Member States when it comes to digitalisation of justice. This has allowed a smooth transition from in-person to distance justice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Even before the pandemic, Estonia had already introduced digital court file application, equipped all courthouses with videoconference tools and enabled courts, prosecutor’s offices and legal professionals to work remotely. A virtual courtroom was developed in 2020 to allow for judges, lawyers and prosecutors to participate in remote hearings. This new digital tool does not use commercial cloud products. It allows users to log in without installing any software and allows for streaming and recording the hearings. Every virtual courtroom hearing has a unique name and password, which cannot be reused after the hearing is over. This novelty was accompanied by manuals to help professionals use the new tool. The Supreme Court is developing additional specific training materials and courses to further develop the training in this area. Furthermore, a new version of the e-File, a system for electronic communication in the justice system, is to be presented in 2021, which will allow large files and videos to be uploaded on the online platform.

The promotion of judges was made more transparent. In December 2020, the Supreme Court en banc amended the criteria for evaluation of first instance judges, when they are applying for the position of second instance judges. The criteria, which were first made public in 2015, have been revised to include a procedure for collecting information on candidates, which should contribute to the transparency of the promotion process of judges. Career advancement for judges is based on public competitions where judges seeking promotion are put on an equal basis with candidates from other legal professions. This amended regime is particularly relevant considering that in the coming years a number of judges will retire and need to be replaced by newly appointed or promoted judges. The appointment process of new judges to first and the second instance courts is managed by the Judge’s Examination Committee, based on an oral and a written exam and an evaluation of the candidates’ suitability. Afterwards, the successful candidates are presented to the Supreme Court en banc who makes a proposal for their appointment to the President of the Republic. Judges at first instance courts are promoted to higher instance courts by a resolution of the Supreme Court en banc, based on an interview and on the opinion of all the members of the court for which the person applied. Decisions on promotions or on appointment may be appealed before the Constitutional Review Chamber of the Supreme Court. Concerns have been raised by stakeholders regarding structural impartiality of the justices participating in the appeal procedure, although in practice, to date no one has filed such an appeal. Furthermore, it must be noted that the members of the Constitutional Review Chamber, who have been involved in the decision on promotion or decision on proposal for appointment, have the possibility to withdraw from the process of appeal to address potential doubts about the structural impartiality of the appeal chamber. After a first time judge is appointed to office, the Judges’ examination committee evaluates judges during the first three years, according to criteria set in law.

The powers of court presidents have been extended to cover the transfer of judges without consent in extraordinary situations and for a limited time, and to request secondment of judges with their consent. Aiming to address any potential backlogs in the courts and an emergency situation in the case of an increase in the number of incoming migration and asylum cases, amendments of the Courts Act that entered into force in June 2020 allow for transferring judges without their consent. Where necessary for the good administration of justice, a judge may be temporarily transferred, without his or her consent, by a decision of the president of the court, to an administrative court for review of applications for detention of third-country nationals. This transfer is possible only in an emergency situation and is subject to a judicial review before the Supreme Court. The fact that the transfer is temporary, for a specifically determined situation, and subject to judicial review, combined with the fact that the transfer is not decided by the executive power constitute important safeguards. The Council of Europe recommends that the transfer of judges without their consent should be subject to such safeguards. The same amendments extended the possibility to transfer a case to another court without changing jurisdiction. Upon a request of the president of a county court or administrative court, the presidents of circuit courts may, by their joint decision, transfer a case, which can be determined based on general elements to another court of the same instance for judgment. This measure is to be used as an extraordinary one and not to be used as a permanent solution. The same amendments extended the possibility to second judges with their consent. The president of a court may send a judge, subject to his or her consent and at the request of the president of another court, to hear a matter in another court of the same or lower instance when there is actual risk that one court could not solve incoming cases within reasonable time. In that situation, the secondment is also limited in time.

The level of perceived judicial independence has improved considerably and is now high among the general public and average among companies. Amongst the general public, 66% perceive judicial independence to be fairly or very good, which is a considerable increase compared to 2020 (57%), and continues a positive trend. Amongst companies, 57% perceive judicial independence to be fairly or very good, which reversed the previous downward trend (39% in 2020) . The level of perceived judicial independence has increased for both the general public and companies since 2016.

The Estonian court system consists of three levels: four County Courts (hearing all civil, criminal and misdemeanour matters) and two Administrative Courts at first instance, two Circuit Courts at second instance (reviewing decisions of County and Administrative Courts), and the Supreme Court at the highest instance, which reviews court judgments by way of cassation proceedings and is also the court of constitutional review. The Supreme Court administers its own budget and operations, while the courts of first and second instance are administered in cooperation between the Council for Administration of Courts and the Ministry of Justice. The Council for Administration of Courts is a non-permanent body, which, among others, has powers related to the judicial map, the resources of the judiciary and participates in the discussion on administration of the courts. Judges of first and second instance courts are appointed by the President of the Republic on the proposal of the full Supreme Court (en banc). The Prosecutor’s Office is a government agency under the Ministry of Justice, which is independent in the performance of its duties. It is managed by the Prosecutor General, particularly as regards the appointment and career of prosecutors. The Estonian Bar Association is an independent, self-governing professional association. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers can be initiated before the Court of Honour by any interested person or by the board of the Bar Association. Estonia participates in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Estonia continues to improve its well-developed system of checks and balances through new projects aimed at a more inclusive legislative process. The Chancellor of Justice has expanded its competences and received A-status accreditation as a National Human Rights Institution, for full compliance with the UN Paris Principles. The new civil society programme was co-created by the Government and civil society, and emphasises building strategic partnership between Civil Society Organisations and public institutions. The Estonian government declared an emergency situation between March and May 2020. Since then amendments to the legislation gave the Health Board and Government the powers to address the COVID-19 pandemic. All COVID-19 pandemic-related Orders of the Government contain information on how they can be legally challenged.

Regarding media freedom and pluralism, the Government has proposed draft legislation to strengthen the independence of the media regulator and enhance the transparency of media ownership. The right of access to information generally finds legal and formal protection in the Constitution yet actual disclosure practices may vary between public bodies. Since the 2020 Rule of Law Report, the comprehensive framework for the protection of journalists has remained stable. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused declining advertising revenues, which has affected media plurality and journalists in economic terms by lowering the sector’s job security, particularly when it comes to freelancers. The Government has adopted several supporting measures to address these concerns.

The anti-corruption strategic framework has been further developed since last year’s report with a new National Action Plan for 2021-2025, which was adopted by the Government in 2021. The Action Plan strengthens the involvement of ministries in the coordination and implementation of anti-corruption measures and develops civil society’s engagement in addressing anti-corruption issues. As regards the prosecution of corruption, the criminal justice system has proven its effectiveness in identifying high-level corruption cases. Measures to strengthen the preventive side include new non-binding guidelines for lobbying and conflict of interests, although these lack clear implementing provisions. The legislative procedure to adopt comprehensive rules on whistleblowers protection is currently ongoing and it is expected to be finalised by the end of this year. The asset declaration system was updated to oblige ministers’ political advisers to submit a declaration of financial interests. In addition, the Government has announced its intention to strengthen the political party financing framework.

The advanced digitalisation of the justice system proved to be a determining factor in ensuring the Estonian justice system’s resilience when faced with the challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. The e-File, a system for electronic communication in the justice system, is being further developed with new functionalities accompanied with training and has contributed to the courts resolving incoming cases efficiently. The powers of court presidents have been extended: where necessary for the good administration of justice, to transfer judges without consent, in extraordinary situations and for a limited time, to transfer cases and to request secondment of judges with their consent. These powers can be used to address any potential backlogs in the courts and emergency situations in the case of an increase in the number of incoming migration and asylum cases. The promotion of judges was made more transparent by amending the criteria for evaluation of first instance judges to include a procedure for collecting information on candidates.

The existing anti-corruption network has received new responsibilities under the 2021-2025 Action Plan. The anti-corruption network’s main objectives are to develop and share best practices, support cooperation and mutual learning and exchange experience, in addition to monitoring the activities foreseen by the Action Plan . The network, which was originally composed of anti-corruption coordinators from each ministry, has now been expanded to include representatives of the police, the civil society, the Parliament, the National Audit Office and occasional external stakeholders . The network is envisaged to meet four to five times a year and, according to the authorities and civil society, it will be a key player in the implementation of the Action Plan. The network is expected to be expanded and strategic partnerships are expected to be further developed. The cooperation between authorities and organisations included in the network is considered good both by the authorities and the civil society.

The criminal justice system for investigating and prosecuting corruption has adequate resources and is functioning well although specialised support to prosecutors is lacking. In 2020, 78 notifications of corruption offences were registered and 56 criminal proceedings were opened . The criminal justice system has proved to be effective in identifying corruption cases: a total of four high-level corruption cases are currently ongoing, including the recent case involving the Porto Franco development project in Tallinn that led to the resignation of the previous Government in January 2021. In the Prosecutor General Office, there are two State Prosecutors and one Assistant Prosecutor working on corruption related offences. In the District Prosecutor’s Office, there are six Specialised Prosecutors and four Assistant Prosecutors responsible for corruption . The human resources dedicated to corruption investigations appear to be adequate, considering the number of ongoing cases. However, specialised support to prosecutors, such as experts in public procurement and auditors, would be needed. The anti-corruption Action Plan envisages that the Prosecutor’s Office will build procedural and analytical capacity in the area of business corruption and financial crimes through contracting auditors and supporting staff, without, however, providing a timeline . There are no new developments in terms of specific anti-corruption trainings for prosecutors and judges.

Non-binding guidelines on lobbying and on conflict of interests have been put in place. On 18 March 2021, the Government adopted two new sets of guidelines. First, the guidelines on “Good practice in communicating with lobbyists for officials” aim to increase the transparency of policy-making and apply to ministers, their advisers, senior officials in ministries, and government agencies, including the Secretary of State. They are of a voluntary, non-binding nature. The guidelines were adopted on recommendation of GRECO who advised to create a general voluntary lobby register, as well as a voluntary lobbying regime for members of Parliament . However, the document does not specify how the implementation will be promoted: the officials subject to the good practice must read the guidelines, and the head of the concerned authority is tasked with the monitoring of their implementation in practice. The second set, the “Guidelines for ministers and their advisers to avoid conflicts of interest” are applicable for ministers and their counsellors only, and list a set of principles , including as regards revolving doors. The principles advise to abstain from moving to the management or supervisory body of private companies and foundations active in the same field of activity within a year after leaving office. The restriction does not apply to other positions in such a company or foundation. The provisions on implementation require the minister or adviser to familiarise themselves with the guidelines and encourage the completion of a dedicated online course. The adoption of these guidelines, along with a new e-training module on communication with lobbyists, are among the deliverables of the anti-corruption Action Plan 2021-2025 . As stated by the Group of States against Corruption of the Council of Europe (GRECO) , the rules on revolving doors included in the guidelines represent a concrete and positive step forward .

The Anti-Corruption Act has been amended to extend the obligation to declare interests also to ministers’ political advisers . According to GRECO, the amendments as presented to the Parliament are a positive development . On whistleblowers protection, the legislative procedure for a new comprehensive regulation is ongoing and is expected to be concluded by the end of 2021 .

Discussions are ongoing on the supervision of party financing. A proposal to abolish the Political Parties’ Finance Surveillance Committee and transfer its powers to the National Audit Office was proposed in 2020. Following the change of government, the proposal was dropped and the new Government – who declared strengthening of the supervision of the financing of political parties to be a key priority – is working on a new legislative reform to increase the competences of the Committee. Currently, the Political Parties’ Funding Surveillance Committee is the main body in charge of the scrutiny of political parties’ accounts. It has powers to investigate and report possible misbehaviours and to examine the legality of donations. As for its sanctioning powers, it can impose financial fines and require illegal donations to be returned. According to the Government, several areas may yet be further improved, especially on the powers to request documents and to enforce sanctions when illegal donations are not returned or transferred to the State budget. For instance, currently, the Committee can only request documents from the entities listed in the law, but not from others (third parties).

The COVID-19 pandemic had a limited impact on corruption risks. In the context of the pandemic, there was no major impact on the number of investigations opened by the prosecution service. To prevent corruption risks and to increase transparency in the context of the pandemic, the Government adopted specific guidelines regarding public procurement procedure in special or urgent situation. In addition, guidelines have been adopted to prevent corruption risks and to increase transparency in the vaccination campaign against COVID-19.

III.Media Pluralism and Media Freedom

In Estonia , the freedom of expression finds legal and formal protection in the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia . Secondary legislation expressly ensures the right of journalists to protect their sources and fosters media freedom in the radio and television sector . The right to information is explicitly recognised in the Constitution, in the Public Information Act and in the Personal Data Protection Act . Legislation is pending to transpose the revised Audiovisual and Media Services Directive in Estonia.

The Ministry of Culture has prepared draft legislation to strengthen the independence of the media regulator – the Consumer Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority. The draft law, transposing the revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), which was under preparation in 2020 , has now been approved by the Government, and has been submitted to the Parliament . The draft envisages changes concerning the functions and competences of the national media regulator, which has been operating as an administrative body of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications and currently has no competencies to supervise media content. A specific provision is envisaged to ensure the independence and impartiality of the media regulator in carrying out its tasks, which aims to fulfil the requirements on independence enshrined in the revised AVMSD . The media regulator reports having managed to maintain adequate resources to carry out its tasks, even securing some additional human resources .

Amendments to legislation are expected to enhance transparency of media ownership. The transposition of the relevant provisions of the revised AVMSD would for the first time introduce a specific obligation for media companies to disclose their ownership structure . There are currently no specific legal provisions requiring the disclosure of ownership information, although general information related to entrepreneurship is electronically, publicly, and freely available through the Business Register and the owners of all major channels are known to the public . For the time being, the Media Pluralism Monitor 2021 (MPM 2021) continues to consider the situation concerning transparency of media ownership as one with medium risk pending the adoption of the new law and due to ultimate ownership of media companies not being available to the public in all cases. A high level of news media concentration is observed in Estonia.

The problems for journalists linked to the COVID-19 pandemic are mainly seen as economic. According to stakeholders, the pandemic has affected media pluralism and protection of journalists primarily in economic terms by lowering the sector’s job security, particularly when it comes to freelancers. To alleviate the impact of the publishers’ declining advertising revenues caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ministry of Culture opened two crisis aid application rounds in 2020 to support the financial sustainability of publishers of daily and/or weekly newspapers, including local newspapers. Furthermore, the VAT rate for electronic publications was reduced from 20 to 9 %, which is the same level as for paper publications. The increased digital subscriptions have helped the publishers to alleviate the impacts of the declined advertising revenues .

The right of access to information finds legal and formal protection in the Constitution, yet its practical implementation may vary. As was the case last year, stakeholders indicated that the public administration in certain cases tends to deny and/or delay access to public information. Some ministries, reportedly, interpret the defined exceptions regarding the disclosure requirements, such as data protection, broadly . This leads to a divergence in practice regarding access to information. This finding is corroborated by the MPM 2021, which maintains a medium risk with regard to the protection of right to information.

No major systematic threats to journalists have been reported. Since the 2020 Rule of Law Report, the comprehensive framework for the protection of journalists has been stable. The fact that defamation is not decriminalised and carries a fine or prison term of maximum two years is still considered a risk by MPM 2021. Since the 2020 Rule of Law Report, two new alerts were created on the Council of Europe’s Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists. The alerts concern acts having chilling effects on media freedom . The first alert has since been resolved and regarding the latter, the Government replied that it concerns a civil dispute in an independent court of law where the Government is prohibited from intervening.

IV.Other Institutional Issues related to Checks and Balances

Estonia is a parliamentary republic with a single-chamber Parliament, where the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Review Chamber can carry out ex-post constitutional review, including, under certain conditions, based on a constitutional complaint. In addition to the justice system, the Office of the Chancellor for Justice (ombudsperson) plays a role in the system of checks and balances. Involvement of the public and stakeholders is supported by advanced Information and Communication Technology tools.

The Ministry of Justice continues to develop a project to further improve the process of enactment of laws. The Ministry of Justice is working on new ways to improve the legislative process, notably as regards stakeholders’ consultation. The “Co-creation workspace project” aims to improve the law-making process and in particular stakeholders’ involvement. It aims to ensure that legislative policy is inclusive, foreseeable and knowledge-based and to provide citizens with a good overview of what the Government is planning at a very early stage. It should also increase transparency and simplify coordination by using modern digital tools. The timeline for the implementation of the project is part of the new 2030 Guidelines for the Development of Legislative Policy that were adopted by Parliament in November 2020. In general, these guidelines aim at ensuring a coherent basis for legislation and providing stakeholders and society with clear expectations on which to base their participation in the legislative process. Ultimately, the objective is to increase the quality and reduce the volume of new legislation .

Amendments to the legislation gave the Health Board and Government the powers to address the COVID-19 pandemic without establishing an emergency regime. As noted in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, Estonia declared an emergency situation from 12 March 2020 to 18 May 2020, and appointed the Prime Minister as the manager of the emergency situation. The legislative orders of the Prime Minister in this role were open to judicial review before the Administrative Court but not subject to parliamentary nor presidential scrutiny. On 17 May 2020, the Parliament passed amendments to the Communicable Diseases Prevention and Control Act that gave the Health Board and the Government the power to adopt measures for the prevention and control of the COVID-19 pandemic . Based on this legislation, the Government may establish temporary restrictions, where each restriction should correspond to the scope and purpose of the problem at the time, and should be in line with the principle of proportionality. According to its rules of procedure and internal rules, the Parliament supervises the activities of the executive power through the ordinary procedure. During the pandemic, the Parliament has remained operational and a number of measures have been adopted to minimise physical contacts and thus reduce the risk of infections.

All COVID-19 pandemic-related Orders of the Government contain information on how they can be legally challenged . In addition, the Supreme Court has held that a person may challenge a general order within 30 days as of the date on which the order has an effect on that person . Between spring 2020 and 1 March 2021, approximately 40 complaints were received by the Tallinn Administrative Court, of which half have been resolved . One request to initiate a constitutional review was submitted to the Supreme Court. In this case, the Constitutional Review Chamber declared a clause of a regulation of the Minister of Culture that established conditions for Government support for performing arts institutions to be incompatible with the constitutional requirement of equal treatment , and was therefore invalid .

The Office of the Chancellor of Justice received A-status accreditation as a National Human Rights Institution. In 2019, the procedure for accreditation before the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) started and was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In December 2020, the process was completed and the Chancellor of Justice received the accreditation. As described in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, it received new tasks as a National Human Rights Institution, including action related to the UN treaties and mechanisms for the protection of human rights . Because of its enlarged mandate, the Chancellor of Justice received additional human and financial resources, which appear to be sufficient to fulfil its tasks adequately. Moreover, in case of insufficient resources, the institution may request funds from the Parliament, which are usually granted .In addition to its new functions, and aside of the normal Ombudsperson tasks, the Chancellor of Justice has several other powers. The Chancellor has the right to file a request for a constitutional review, and the right to initiate disciplinary proceedings against judges and plays the role of an intermediary between the citizens and the Supreme Court. The institution itself is the filtering mechanism for citizen’s request for constitutional review, which are eventually sent to the Constitutional Review Chamber of the Supreme Court. Upon its own initiative or a request by a citizen, the Chancellor may initiate disciplinary proceeding against judges, which are limited to the behaviour and the fulfilment of judges’ duties and cannot concern the merits of their decisions. This power is exercised in cooperation with the Supreme Court in order to avoid overlapping requests and proceedings.

The Civil Society Programme for 2021-2024 was created in cooperation between the Ministry of Interior and civil society. Based on the Estonian Civil Society Development Concept, the Government promotes civil society through the new Civil Society Programme for 2021-2024, which replaced the previous Civil Society Development Plan 2021-2030. In the new programme, more emphasis is placed on building strategic partnership between Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and public institutions. This practice of cooperation has been implemented since the inception of the programme, whereby CSOs were involved in the process, and stakeholders described the work between the Ministry of Interior, responsible for the project, and the CSOs on this project, as a co-creation.