COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Estonia Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2021-07-20
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Estonia, administrative transparency, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.7.2021  SWD(2021) 708 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report    Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Estonia Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report    The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2021) 700 final} - {SWD(2021) 701 final} - {SWD(2021) 702 final} - {SWD(2021) 703 final} - {SWD(2021) 704 final} - {SWD(2021) 705 final} - {SWD(2021) 706 final} - {SWD(2021) 707 final} - {SWD(2021) 709 final} - {SWD(2021) 710 final} - {SWD(2021) 711 final} - {SWD(2021) 712 final} - {SWD(2021) 713 final} - {SWD(2021) 714 final} - {SWD(2021) 715 final} - {SWD(2021) 716 final} - {SWD(2021) 717 final} - {SWD(2021) 718 final} - {SWD(2021) 719 final} - {SWD(2021) 720 final} - {SWD(2021) 721 final} - {SWD(2021) 722 final} - {SWD(2021) 723 final} - {SWD(2021) 724 final} - {SWD(2021) 725 final} - {SWD(2021) 726 final} - {SWD(2021) 727 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

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  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. 

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. 

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 
the 
address 
Government contain information on how they can be legally challenged. 

the  COVID-19  pandemic.  All  COVID-19  pandemic-related  Orders  of 

1 

 
 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM  

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)1.  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  prosecutors2. 
The  Estonian  Bar  Association  is  an  independent,  self-governing  professional  association3. 
Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers can be initiated before the Court of Honour4 by any 
interested  person  or  by  the  board  of  the  Bar  Association5.  Estonia  participates  in  the 
European Public Prosecutor’s Office. 

Independence  

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)6. The level of perceived judicial independence has increased 
for both the general public and companies since 2016. 

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, 

1   The Supreme Court en banc is the highest body of the Supreme Court. It is comprised of all 19 justices of 
the  Supreme  Court.  The  Supreme  Court  en  banc  is  convened  and  chaired  by  the  Chief  Justice  of  the 
Supreme Court. 

2   The  Prosecutor  General  exercises  supervisory  control  in  the  prosecutor's  office,  and  chief  prosecutors 
exercise supervisory control in district prosecutor's offices. Figures 55 and 56, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

3   § 2(1) of the Bar Association Act. 
4   § 15(1) and § 15(3) of the Bar Association Act - The Court of Honour consists of four sworn lawyers elected 
by  the  general  assembly  of  the  Bar  Association,  two  judges  elected  by  the  Court  en  banc  and  one  jurist 
designated by the council of the Law Faculty of the University of Tartu. 

5   § 16(1) of the Bar Association Act. 
6   Figures 48 and 50, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised 
as follows: very low (below 30% of respondents perceive judicial independence as fairly good or very good); 
low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

2 

 
                                                           
by  a  decision  of  the  president  of  the  court,  to  an  administrative  court  for  review  of 
applications  for  detention  of  third-country  nationals7.  This  transfer  is  possible  only  in  an 
emergency situation8 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  safeguards9.  The  same  amendments 
extended  the  possibility  to  transfer  a  case  to  another  court  without  changing  jurisdiction10. 
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 elements11 to another court of the same instance for judgment12. This measure is to be 
used  as  an  extraordinary  one  and  not  to  be  used  as  a  permanent  solution13.  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  time14.  In  that 
situation, the secondment is also limited in time15. 

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  201516,  have  been  revised  to  include  a  procedure  for  collecting  information  on 
candidates17, which should contribute to the transparency of the promotion process of judges. 

7   § 452 (1) of the Courts Act. 
8   Explanatory  memorandum  to  the  Courts  Act  for  §452.  Such  transfer  is  possible  in  an  emergency  situation 
caused by mass immigration, in which administrative courts have to meet short deadlines and for as long as 
necessary until the administrative courts are able again to provide the necessary protection of the rights of 
the parties with their own resources. Although the law does not explicitly mention the specific time limits, it 
reiterates that this secondment is temporary, and its lengths is determined by the Council for Administration 
of Courts. 

9   A judge should not receive a new appointment or be moved to another judicial office without consenting to 
it,  except  in  cases  of  disciplinary  sanctions  or  reform  of  the  organisation  of  the  judicial  system.  See 
CM/Rec(2010)12, para. 52. See also case Bilgen v. Turkey (Application no. 1571/07) of 9 March 2021, paras 
63 and 96. 

10   § 451 (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. 

11   § 451(3) of the Courts Act - The Council for Administration of Courts may establish specified principles for 

referral of matters to another court for judgment. 

12   § 45 (11) of the Courts Act - This is possible if it is evident that it is not possible to ensure administration of 

justice pursuant to the requirements in the court the president made the request  

13   Explanatory  memorandum  of  the  Courts  Act  for  §45  (11) -  if  it  is  evident  that  it  is  not  possible  to  ensure 

administration of justice pursuant to the requirements in the court. 

14   § 583(1) of the Courts Act. 
15   Explanatory memorandum to the Courts Act for §583 – the secondment lasts until resolving the one specific 

matter for which the transfer was made. 

16   The  criteria  are  contained  in  an  appendix  to  the  internal  rules  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  have  been  made 
public as a response to a GRECO recommendation in the Fourth Evaluation round – Evaluation report, para. 
99. 

17   Criteria for Selecting Among the Judges Applying for the Position of Circuit Court Judge and the Procedure 
for Collecting Information on Candidates. Approved by the Supreme Court  en banc on 15 December 2020. 
The procedure for collecting information on candidates existed prior to its inclusion in the appendix to the 
internal rules of the Supreme Court, but it was not public. 

3 

 
                                                           
Career  advancement  for  judges  is  based  on  public  competitions  where  judges18  seeking 
promotion  are  put  on  an  equal  basis  with  candidates  from  other  legal  professions19.  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 exam20 and an evaluation of 
the  candidates’  suitability.  Afterwards,  the  successful  candidates  are  presented  to  the 
Supreme Court  en banc21 who makes a proposal22 for their appointment to the President of 
the  Republic23.  Judges  at  first  instance  courts  are  promoted  to  higher  instance  courts  by  a 
resolution of the Supreme Court en banc24, based on an interview and on the opinion of all 
the  members  of  the  court  for  which  the  person  applied25.  Decisions  on  promotions  or  on 
appointment  may  be  appealed  before  the  Constitutional  Review  Chamber  of  the  Supreme 
Court26.  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 
Chamber27, 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 law28. 

Quality  

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 

18   § 53 of Courts Act. 
19   Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Estonia.  -  Candidates  must  be  experienced  and 

recognised lawyers. 

20   A candidate for a judge of a circuit court (court of appeal) has to have passed a judge’s exam before applying 
or  has  to  be  exempted  therefrom  (e.g.  if  the  candidate  is  already  a  judge  at  a  first  instance  court  or  is 
otherwise exempt under Subsection 66(6) of the Courts Act). There is no separate  exam for a circuit court 
judge. 

21   § 69 subsection 31 of Courts Act - a person affected by a decision of the judge’s examination committee may 
file an appeal against the decision with the Supreme Court en banc within 14 days after the date when he or 
she 
decision.  
§  30  subsection  2(3)  of  Courts  Act  -  the  Supreme  Court  en  banc  shall  resolve  appeals  filed  against  the 
decisions of the judge’s examination committee. 

received 

the 

22   The decision on the proposal is made by a majority vote of the justices of the  Supreme Court en banc who 
are present. – Information received in the context of the country visit to Estonia. (e.g. Supreme court and the 
Council for the Administration of Courts) 

23   § 55(1) of Courts Act. 
24   § 55 (3¹) of Courts Act. 
25   § 55 of Courts Act.  
26   Taking the decision in a five justices panel (out of the 19 justices from the en banc formation). 
27   For the cases of appeal, they sit in a panel of five justices out of nine. 
28   Pursuant  the  requirement  of  §  100  (2)  of  the  Courts  Act  -  Standard  formats  for  submission  of  opinion  of 
president of court and of report of judge-supervisor include consideration of: 1) the procedural statistics of 
resolved  matters,  2)  the  professional  knowledge  and  skills  (according  to  the  list),  3)  the  participation  in 
training (especially the professional skills training program for judges of a court of the first instance and of a 
court  of  appeal  who  assumes  office  approved  by  the  Training  Council),  4)  the  abilities  and  personal 
characteristics. 

4 

 
                                                           
introduced  digital  court 

distance  justice  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  Even  before  the  pandemic,  Estonia  had 
already 
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 hearings29. 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 platform30. 

Efficiency 

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 EU31.  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)32.  In  the  first  instance  courts,  administrative  cases  were  resolved 
slightly  slower  than  201933  (in  an  average  of  126  days)34.  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  EU35.  Compared  to  2019,  the  clearance  rate  fell  slightly  below 
100%, but courts were generally able to cope with incoming cases. 

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

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 

29   Figure 40, 41 and 44, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard – Among other features, the justice system offers: court 
hearings  can  be  conducted  entirely  online;  digital  format  evidence  is  admissible;  initiating  proceedings 
online;  filing  an  application  for  legal  aid  online;  online  access  to  ongoing  and  closed  cases;  official  court 
documents can be served electronically; court fees can be paid online. 

30   Information received in the context of the country visit to Estonia. (e.g. Ministry of Justice). 
31   Figures 6-21, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
32   See  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Estonia,  p.  5  -  In  2019, 
criminal cases were resolved on average in 226 days in general criminal proceedings, 28 days in simplified 
proceedings  and  46  days  in  misdemeanor  cases.  In  the  first  instance  courts,  administrative  cases  were 
resolved in an average of 123 days. 

33   See previous reference - In the first instance courts, administrative cases were resolved in an average of 123 

days. 

34   Input from Estonia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p.4.  
35   Figures 6 – 16, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

5 

 
                                                           
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 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 globally36.This perception has improved37 over the past five years38. 

The strategic anti-corruption framework has been revised. The new comprehensive anti-
corruption Action Plan 2021-202539, adopted by the Government in February 2021, has eight 
main priorities40. 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 
network41.  

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 Plan42. 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 stakeholders43. 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 
society44.  

36   Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2020, p. 2-3. The level of perceived corruption is 
categorised  as  follows:  low  (the  perception  among  experts  and  business  executives  of  public  sector 
corruption scores above 79); relatively low (scores between 79-60), relatively high (scores between 59-50), 
high (scores below 50). 

37   In 2015 the score  was 70,  while in  in 2020, the  score  was 75. The Score significantly  increases/decreases 
when  it  changes  more  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5  points);  is  relatively  stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

38   The Eurobarometer data on corruption perception and experience of citizens and businesses as reported last 
year is updated every second year. The latest data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020) and the Flash 
Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

39   The Anti-corruption National Action Plan 2021-2025.  
40   The eight main priorities of the new Anti-Corruption Action Plan are: (I) Transparency of State Activities; 
(II)  Transparency  of  local  government  activities;  (III)  A  fair  business  environment;  (IV)  Awareness;  (V) 
Protection of whistleblowers; (VI) Sectorial Transparency; (VII) Investigation of corruption offences; (VIII) 
Impact assessment of anti-corruption policies.  

41   Partners  listed  in  the  action  plan  are  the  Police  and  Border  Guard  Board,  the  National  Audit  Office, 

Transparency International Estonia, and the Estonian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. 

42   The Anti-corruption National Action Plan 2021-2025, point 4.  
43   Written contribution received by the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Estonia.  
44   Information received in the context of the country visit to Estonia.  

6 

 
                                                           
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  registered45  and  56  criminal 
proceedings  were  opened46.  The  criminal  justice  system  has  proved  to  be  effective  in 
identifying  corruption  cases:  a  total  of  four  high-level  corruption  cases47  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 corruption48. 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 needed49. 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  timeline50.  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  Parliament51.  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 practice52. 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  principles53,  including  as  regards  revolving  doors54.  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  foundation55.  The  provisions  on 

45   An increase of nine compared to 2019. 
46   Statistics on corruption offences for the year 2020.  
47   Three of them are in the investigative phase; and in one case, the indictment was sent to court. 
48   Input from Estonia for the preparation of the 2020 and 2021 Rule of Law Report, p.14 and p.1. 
49   Information received in the context of the country visit to Estonia.  
50   Anti-corruption National Action Plan, point 7.2. 
51   Memo. “Starting points of the Select Committee on lobby regulation” 11 December 2020.  
52   Good  Practice  In  Communicating  With  Lobbyists  For  Officials,  paras.  8  and  9.  In  practice,  the  actual 
implementation  has  been  supported  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice  through  several  network  trainings  and 
meetings,  a  special  manual  for  disclosing  meetings  with  lobbyists  and  preparation  of  a  uniform  webpage 
section for disclosing meetings with lobbyists. Moreover, interested officials may also attend a new training 
video available online.  

53   Guidelines for ministers and their advisers to avoid conflicts of interest.  
54   This part of the guidelines is analogous to the prohibition imposed on officials by the Public Service Act not 
to take up a position in the management board and control body of a legal person over which it has exercised 
direct or permanent supervision during the past year. 

55   Guidelines for Ministers and their advisers to avoid conflicts of interest, para. 7. 

7 

 
                                                           
implementation require the minister or adviser to familiarise themselves with the guidelines 
and  encourage  the  completion  of  a  dedicated  online  course56.  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  2021-202557.  As  stated  by  the  Group  of 
States against Corruption of the Council of Europe (GRECO)58, the rules on revolving doors 
included in the guidelines represent a concrete and positive step forward59.  

The  Anti-Corruption  Act  has  been  amended  to  extend  the  obligation  to  declare  interests 
also to ministers’ political advisers60. According to GRECO, the amendments as presented to 
the  Parliament  are  a  positive  development61.  On  whistleblowers  protection,  the  legislative 
procedure for a new comprehensive regulation is ongoing and is expected to be concluded by 
the end of 202162.  

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 202063. 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 priority64 – is working on a new legislative reform to 
increase  the  competences  of  the  Committee65.  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 service66. 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  situation67.  In  addition,  guidelines  have  been  adopted  to 

56   Guidelines for Ministers and their advisers to avoid conflicts of interest, paras. 12-13. 
57   Anti-corruption National Action Plan, point 1.1.3.  
58   Fifth Evaluation Round Compliance Report, p. 6 and 7. 
59   Information received in the context of the country visit to Estonia.  
60   Riigikogu  (The  Parliament),  Bills,  Act  amending  the  Anti-Corruption  Act  (implementation  of  GRECO 
recommendations and public restriction of declarations of interests of heads of security agencies) 323 SE. 
61   Fifth Evaluation Round Compliance Report p. 8-9. The new amendment entered into force on the 23 April 

2021.  

62   Information received in the context of the country visit to Estonia. 
63   Act amending the National Audit Office Act, the Party Act and other acts (control body for the financing of 

political parties) 193 SE.  

64   Governance agreement for 2021–2023. 
65   Information received in the context of the country visit to Estonia. 
66   Information received in the context of the country visit to Estonia. 
67   Written contribution received by the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Estonia. The 
guidelines  establish  that  procedures  without  prior  publication  of  a  notice  can  be  used  for  contract  of 
maximum EUR 30 000 for supplies and services and for EUR 60 000 for works.  

8 

 
                                                           
prevent  corruption  risks  and  to  increase  transparency  in  the  vaccination  campaign  against 
COVID-1968. 

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM 

In Estonia69, the freedom of expression finds legal and formal protection in the Constitution 
of the Republic of Estonia70. Secondary legislation expressly ensures the right of journalists 
to  protect  their  sources  and  fosters  media  freedom  in  the  radio  and  television  sector71.  The 
right  to  information  is  explicitly  recognised  in  the  Constitution,  in  the  Public  Information 
Act72  and  in  the  Personal  Data  Protection  Act73.  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,74 transposing the revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD),75 
which was under preparation in 202076, has now been approved by the Government, and has 
been submitted to the Parliament77. 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  AVMSD78.  The  media 
regulator reports having managed to maintain adequate resources to carry out its tasks, even 
securing some additional human resources79. 

Amendments to legislation are expected to enhance transparency of  media  ownership. 
The transposition of the relevant provisions of the revised AVMSD80 would for the first time 
introduce  a  specific  obligation  for  media  companies  to  disclose  their  ownership  structure81. 
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 

68   Written contribution received by the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Estonia. 
69   In 2021, Estonia ranked 15th in the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index,  which is one 

rank lower compared to 2020 but the ranking among the EU Members remained the same (9th). 

70   Constitution of the Republic of Estonia, Section 44-46. 
71   Media Services Act, §15 and §13. 
72   Public Information Act. 
73   Personal Data Protection Act (Isikuandmete kaitse seadus). 
74   Law amending the Media Services Act. 
75   Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European  Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending 

Directive 2010/13/EU. 

76   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country chapter on the rule of law situation in Estonia, p. 8. 
77   Input from Estonia for the 2021 Rule of Law report, p. 6. 
78   Art. 30 of the revised AVMSD. 
79   Information  received  from  the  Consumer  Protection  and  Technical  Regulatory  Authority  in  the  context  of 

the country visit to Estonia. 
80   Art. 5 of the revised AVMSD. 
81   In  the  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  it  was  noted  that  in  Estonia  there  were  no  specific  legal  provisions 

requiring disclosure of ownership information and that it had raised some concerns (p. 8). 

9 

 
                                                           
channels  are  known  to  the  public82.  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 Estonia83. 

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 revenues84. 

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, broadly85. 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 information86. 

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 202187. 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 
freedom88.  The  first  alert  has  since  been  resolved  and  regarding  the  latter,  the  Government 

82   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Estonia, p. 11; 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country chapter 
on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Estonia,  p.  8;  Business  Register  is  available  here:  https://www.rik.ee/en/e-
business-register. 

83   2021  Media  Pluralism  Monitor,  country  report  for  Estonia,  p.  11.  The  cumulative  market  share  of  Top4 
owners  for  radio  is  74%  and  for  newspapers  68%.  The  cumulative  market  share  of  the  Top4  online  news 
media outlets is approximately 60%. The Top4 index for cross-media concentration is 92%. 

84   International Press Institute, Strong newspaper traditions and trust advance digital subscriptions in Estonia- 

22 December 2020. 

85   Information received in the context of the country visit to Estonia. See also the 2020 Rule of Law Report, 

Country chapter on the rule of law situation in Estonia, p. 8-9. 
86   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Estonia, p. 9. 
87   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Estonia, p. 9. 
88   Reply by the Government of Estonia to the Platform to Promote the Protection of Journalism and Safety of 
Journalists concerning the Results of Investigation Remain Offline Amid Ongoing Lawsuit Against Estonian 
Public 
Pihl. 
The  first  case  concerned  alleged  unauthorised  surveillance  by  journalists  investigating  the  Minister  of 
Education and Science and an allegation that the Minister of Justice had asked the prosecutor’s office to look 
into the  case. The alert is resolved. The authorities clarified that the aim of the Minister of Justice  was to 
seek  information  on  how  the  relevant  law  should  be  interpreted  in  practice  and  not  to  request  opening  an 
investigation. The prosecution has taken no action on this case. The second alert concerned a court-ordered 

Broadcaster 

Journalists 

Kärmas 

Mihkel 

Anna 

and 

and 

10 

 
                                                           
 
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 complaint89. 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 legislation90. 

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  pandemic91.  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  proportionality92.  According  to  its  rules  of  procedure  and  internal  rules,  the  Parliament 

removal  of  an  investigative  programme  and  articles  by  two  journalists  working  for  the  Estonian  national 
broadcaster in the context of an ongoing lawsuit. The Government replied that the pending lawsuit is a civil 
dispute in an independent court of law where the Government is prohibited from intervening. 

89   § 4 of the Constitutional Review Court Procedure Act - A complaint can be referred to the Supreme Court’s 
Constitutional  Review  Chamber  by  the  President  of  the  Republic,  the  Chancellor  of  Justice,  a  local 
government council and the Riigikogu (Parliament).  
§ 9 of the Constitutional Review Court Procedure Act - Constitutional review on the basis of court judgment 
or court ruling is also possible. 

90   2030 Guidelines for the Development of Legislative Policy.  
91   § 28 of the Communicable Diseases Prevention and Control Act. 
92   All orders of the Government are published and available online - https://www.riigiteataja.ee/index.html and 

https://www.kriis.ee/et. 

11 

 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
supervises the activities of the executive power through the ordinary procedure93. 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 infections94. 

All  COVID-19  pandemic-related  Orders  of  the  Government  contain  information  on 
how they can be legally challenged95. 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 person96. Between spring 2020 and 1 March 2021, approximately 40 complaints were 
received  by  the  Tallinn  Administrative  Court,  of  which  half  have  been  resolved97.  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  treatment98, and was therefore 
invalid99. 

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  rights100.  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 
granted101.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 

93   This  includes  an  interpellation  by  a  Member  of  the  Parliament;  Question  Time  to  Parliament,  when  the 
Prime Minister and ministers answer oral questions from Members of Parliament; a written question from a 
Member of the Parliament; resolving collective proposal. See §139, §142 and Section 147 of the Riigikogu 
Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act. See also Response to Memoranda and Requests for Explanations 
and Submission of Collective Proposals Act  - collective appeal to the Riigikogu with at least 1000 support 
signatures  on  amendments  to  existing  legislation  or  how  to  improve  community  life.  In  connection  with 
COVID-19,  two  collective  proposals  have  been  submitted  to  the  Riigikogu: 15.  December  2020  collective 
proposal  “Corona  measures  are  not  justified.  It  is  time  to  return  to  ordinary  life!”  and  19  May  2020 
collective proposal “We demand that the Government repeal Act 165 SE”. 

94   Input from Estonia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p.10. 
95   “This Order can be appealed by filing a challenge pursuant to the procedure provided by the Administrative 
Procedure Act within 30 days as of the day the relevant person became or should have become aware of the 
Order.  This  Order  can  also  be  appealed  by  filing  an  action  with  an  administrative  court  pursuant  to  the 
procedure  provided  for  in  the  Code  of  Administrative  Court  Procedure  within  30  days  as  of  the  date  of 
publication of this Order.“ 

96   Order of the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court No. 3-19-557 of 05.09.2019. 
97   E.g.  Complaints  have  disputed  the  obligation  to  wear  a  mask,  the  cancellation  of  school  holidays  and  the 

obligation of distance learning. 

98   § 12 of the Constitution. 
99   Judgment of the Constitutional Review Chamber of the Supreme Court No. 5-20-6 of 22 December 2020. 
100  See  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report  Country  chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Estonia,  ,  p.11  -  National 
Preventive Mechanism under the UN Convention Against Torture and the National Monitoring Mechanism 
under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

101  Information received in the context of the country visit to Estonia. (e.g. Office of the Chancellor of Justice). 

12 

 
                                                           
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 decisions102. 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 
Concept103, 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  institutions104.  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-creation105. 

102  See also https://www.oiguskantsler.ee/en/other-duties. 
103  The mission and goals of the civil society are written down in a strategy document called the Estonian Civil 
Society  Development  Concept,  known  as  the  EKAK.  This  strategy  document  defines  the  mutually 
complementing roles of public authorities and civil society. The EKAK contains principles, mechanisms and 
priorities  for  cooperation  in  shaping  and  implementing  public  policies  and  building  up  civil  society.  The 
EKAK deals with cross-sectoral issues such as participation in policy making, funding, outsourcing public 
services, awareness and civic education, volunteering, philanthropy. 

104  Input from Estonia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p.11. 
105  Information received in the context of the country visit to Estonia.  

13 

 
                                                           
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law report 
can  be  found  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-
law/rule-law/rule-law-mechanism/2021-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation. 

Guidelines 

2030 
- 
Development 
https://www.just.ee/sites/www.just.ee/files/oiguspoliitika_pohialused_aastani_2030_sk_luhike_versio
on.pdf  

Legislative 

Policy 

the 

for 

of 

Anti-Corruption Select Committee of the Parliament (2020), Starting points of the Select Committee 
on lobby regulation- 11 December 2020. (https://www.riigikogu.ee/wpcms/wp-
content/uploads/2020/12/Riigikogu-korruptsioonivastase-erikomisjoni-lähtepunktid-lobitöö-
käsitlemisel.pdf). 

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2021),  2021  Media  pluralism  monitor. 
https://cmpf.eui.eu/media-pluralism-monitor/mpm-2021  

Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists, 
https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom/the-platform. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. 

Directive  (EU)  2018/1808  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14  November  2018 
amending  Directive  2010/13/EU  on  the  coordination  of  certain  provisions  laid  down  by  law, 
regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media 
services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities L 303/69. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2020),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

ECtHR 
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0309JUD000157107. 

judgement 

9  March 

of 

2021, 

Bilgen 

v. 

Turkey, 

1571/07, 

Estonian  Government  (2020),  Reply  by  the  Government  of  Estonia  to  the  Platform  to  Promote  the 
Protection  of  Journalism  and  Safety  of  Journalists  concerning  the  Results  of  Investigation  Remain 
Offline Amid Ongoing Lawsuit Against Estonian Public Broadcaster and Journalists Mihkel Kärmas 
and  Anna  Pihl 
(https://rm.coe.int/estonia-reply-eng-results-of-investigation-remain-offline-amid-
ongoing/1680a134c9). 

Estonian  Government  (2021),  Executive  agenda  of  the  Government  -  11  March  2021  session 
(https://valitsus.ee/uudised/valitsuse-113-istungi-kommenteeritud-paevakord). 

Estonian  Government  (2021),  Good  Practice  In  Communicating  With  Lobbyists  For  Officials 
(https://www.korruptsioon.ee/en/conflict-interests/good-practice-communicating-lobbyists). 

Estonian 
Governance 
(https://valitsus.ee/en/governance-agreement-2021-2023). 

Government 

(2021), 

agreement 

for 

2021–2023. 

Estonian  Government  (2021),  Guidelines  For  Ministers  And  Their  Advisers  To  Avoid  Conflicts  Of 
(https://www.korruptsioon.ee/en/conflict-interests/guidelines-ministers-and-their-advisors-
Interest 
avoid-conflicts-interest). 

Estonian Government, Anti-corruption strategy 2013-2020. 

European Commission (2019-2021), EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report - The rule of law situation in the European 
Union. 
Explanatory memorandum of the Courts Act for §45 (11) 
Explanatory memorandum to the Courts Act for §452 

14 

 
Explanatory memorandum to the Courts Act for §583 

GRECO  (2013),  Fourth  evaluation  round  –  Evaluation  report  on  Estonia  corruption  prevention  in 
respect of members of Parliament, judges and prosecutor. 

GRECO (2021), Fifth evaluation round – Compliance report on Preventing corruption and promoting 
integrity in central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies. 

International  Press  Institute  (2020)  Strong  newspaper  traditions  and  trust  advance  digital 
subscriptions in Estonia- 22 December 2020 (https://ipi.media/strong-newspaper-traditions-and-trust-
advance-digital-subscriptions-in-estonia/). 

KredEx,  extraordinary  measures 
impact  of  corona  crisis. 
(https://www.riigikontroll.ee/DesktopModules/DigiDetail/FileDownloader.aspx?FileId=14763&Audit
Id=2517). 

for  companies 

to  relieve 

the 

Ministry of Finance (2020), Guidance on public procurement in the context of an emergency situation 
and 
its  consequences  (https://www.rahandusministeerium.ee/et/juhised-riigihangete-kohta-seoses-
eriolukorraga-ja-selle-tagajargedega). 

Ministry  of 
(https://www.kriminaalpoliitika.ee/kuritegevus2020/korruptsioon-ja-majanduskuriteod/). 

(2020),  Statistics  on 

corruption  offences 

justice 

the 

for 

year  2020 

Ministry  of  Justice,  The  Anti-corruption  plan  2021-2025  (Anti-Corruption  Action  Plan  2021-2025  | 
The Estonian Patent Office (korruptsioon.ee)). 

National Audit Office (2020), KredEx extraordinary measures for companies to relieve the impact of 
corona crisis (https://www.riigikontroll.ee/tabid/206/Audit/2517/language/en-US/Default.aspx).  

Reporters without Borders – Estonia (https://rsf.org/en/estonia). 

Riigikogu  (The  Parliament),  Bills,  Act  amending  the  Anti-Corruption  Act  (implementation  of 
GRECO  recommendations  and  public  restriction  of  declarations  of  interests  of  heads  of  security 
agencies) 323 SE. https://www.riigikogu.ee  

A  training  video  on  lobbying,  which  includes  a  test  to  be  completed  after  each  module.  Please  see 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5ay5g2dC0U 

Transparency International (2021), 2020 Corruption Perception Index. 

15 

 
Annex II: Country visit to Estonia 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in March 2021 with: 

  Anti-corruption Select Committee 
  Consumer protection and Technical Regulatory Authority 
  Estonian Association of Judges 
  Estonian Bar Association 
  Estonian Internal Security Service 
  Estonian Press Council and Estonian Association of Journalists 
  Ministry of Culture 
  Ministry of Finance 
  Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
  Ministry of Interior 
  Ministry of Justice  
  Network of Estonian Non-profit Organizations.  
  Office of the Chancellor of Justice 
  Political Party Funding Surveillance Committee 
  State Audit Office 
 
  The Prosecutor’s Office 
  The Supreme Court and Council for the Administration of Courts 
  Transparency International Estonia 

the Police and Border Guard Board 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings: 

  Amnesty International 
  Center for Reproductive Rights 
  CIVICUS 
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe 
  Conference of European Churches 
  EuroCommerce 
  European Center for Not-for-Profit Law 
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom 
  European Civic Forum 
  European Federation of Journalists 
  European Partnership for Democracy  
  European Youth Forum 
  Front Line Defenders 
  Human Rights House Foundation  
  Human Rights Watch  
 
ILGA-Europe 
 
International Commission of Jurists 
 
International Federation for Human Rights 
 
International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN) 
 
International Press Institute 
  Netherlands Helsinki Committee  
  Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Philanthropy Advocacy 
  Protection International  

16 

 
 
  Reporters without Borders 
  Transparency International EU 

17