Karin Leichter-Tammisto
Legal Adviser to the Chief Justice at the Supreme Court of Estonia

 

Composition and sessions

The Council for Administration of Courts (CAC) is an advisory body convened to manage the judicial system, which, in cooperation with the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs (before 1 January 2025, the Ministry of Justice), administers courts of the first and second instance. According to the Courts Act (CA), the competence of the CAC is to grant approvals and provide positions, as well as to give opinions on matters concerning courts and judges. In addition, the CAC prepares guidelines and recommendations that help ensure the proper administration of justice and a uniform approach by courts in organising their work in situations not regulated by law.

In 2024, the CAC was comprised of the Harju District Court judges Merit Helm and Anu Uritam (alternate member), Tallinn Circuit Court Chairman Kristjan Siigur and judges Virgo Saarmets and Sten Lind (alternate member), Tartu Circuit Court judge Tanel Saar, Supreme Court justices Ivo Pilving and Juhan Sarv (alternate member), Prosecutor General Andres Parmas, sworn advocate Toomas Vaher, Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise (who was represented by Senior Advisor Marju Agarmaa), Chairman of the Constitutional Committee at Riigikogu Hendrik Johannes Terras, member of the Legal Affairs Committee at Riigikogu Eduard Odinets and Deputy Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee at Riigikogu Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart (alternate member). The work of the Council was headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Villu Kõve. The Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs (the Minister of Justice until 22 July 2024) or a representative appointed by them and the chairs and directors of courts participated in the discussions at the CAC sessions as well.

According to the rules of procedure, the CAC convenes in regular sessions four times a year. In 2024, four sessions were held[1]. All minutes of the CAC sessions are available on the website of the courts.

Below, we will discuss some important issues brought before the CAC last year. 

Court Development Plan 2024–2030

The discussion about the need for a new development plan for courts of first and second instance began a couple of years ago, when the end date of the development plan for 2020–2023 prepared by the Ministry of Justice was approaching. While the CAC had decided not to approve the previous development plan and preferred to discuss each individual issue handled by the Ministry of Justice separately,[2] when drawing up the new development plan, the objective was set to have it officially approved at a session of the CAC. The starting point for preparing the new development plan was also somewhat different, as its drafters were judges and court officials instead of ministry officials. Thus, on 21 December 2023, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court formed a working group whose task was to put together a vision and development objectives on six topics: judicial procedure and public service, court management and organisation of administration of justice, digitalisation of courts, court administration, court personnel policy and court communication.[3]

The draft of the development plan was discussed at the CAC sessions on 8 March and on 24 May, as well as at the regular plenary session of judges[4], and it was submitted to the CAC for approval on 19 September. The head of the working group, Tallinn Circuit Court judge Villem Lapimaa, noted that the document reflects the internal perspective of the judicial system on independent and efficient administration of justice. This is not a legal act, but rather a working document for the courts and a management instrument for the chairs of courts.[5] An overview of the feedback received on the development plan was given at the CAC session and its members made some additional proposals. During the development plan round of approval, questions were mainly raised about the merger of judicial institutions, changes in the model of court management, i.e. the division of duties between the chairman, the court management and the court en banc, and the speeding up of court proceedings. The CAC members pointed out that delegating judges’ decision-making powers to judicial clerks should be approached with caution, and more attention should be paid to the external perspective – helping people who turn to court and the quality of service provided to them. It was also emphasised that making court proceedings more efficient must not be done at the expense of the constitutional rights of individuals. It was expressed that the measures to meet the development plan’s objectives should be prioritised to make it clear where resources are planned to be spent first.[6]

It was concluded that the comments on the development plan have been thoroughly discussed in the working group and that it is extremely difficult to prepare a document that is to everyone’s liking. The discussion surrounding the objectives and measures set out in the development plan was appreciated as the bottlenecks in the judicial system were highlighted and proposals for their improvement were made. The members of the CAC decided to clarify in the development plan matters regarding the reserve of judges (substitute judges), the comprehensibility of court decisions, and proactive communication with participants in the proceedings. On 20 September, the next session day, the CAC approved the Court Development Plan 2024–2030 with ten votes in favour, one member abstained. The development plan will be an important reference point in improving the efficiency of the administration of justice as well as in further developing the court as an organisation. Work continues with the preparation of the development plan’s implementation plan.

Developing a new model of court administration

Among other things, the Court Development Plan includes the objective that the judiciary itself is responsible for the management and administration of the courts. To achieve this objective, the establishment of a Judicial Administration Council and its subordinate Court Administration Service to administer court institutions is planned. Once the new model of court administration has taken effect, tasks related to serving local government institutions and the work of judges will also be transferred to the Court Administration Service.[7] Work towards this objective began before the development plan was approved, in the second half of 2023, when a corresponding working group was formed. At the CAC meeting on 8 March 2024, the head of the model of court administration working group, Justice of the Supreme Court Heiki Loot, presented the feedback received during the round of approval on the intention of developing a model of court administration[8]. While the framework of the model was acceptable to the judges, they had questions mainly about the composition and financing of the future Judicial Administration Council. The CAC supported the proposal that the working group would begin developing a draft law amending the CA to change court administration. At the same time, the idea of merging judicial institutions had been floated, and therefore the CAC requested the working group to analyse in the explanatory memorandum of the draft how the planned model of court administration fits into a judicial system with fewer courts.

At the May 24 session, it was found that the proposed model of court administration would also be fitting if a merger of courts was carried out. The working group submitted the amendments to the CA on transforming the model of court administration to the CAC for discussion and opinion. It was noted that the working group had addressed the model’s budgetary issues from several aspects and made proposals on how budget preparation and distribution could take place in the future. It was thought that this issue should be worked on further, but perhaps in some other form of cooperation other than in the same working group. During the preparation of the draft, they came to several fundamental decisions on which they sought the CAC’s opinion. Below are examples of issues that were put to vote and the voting results.

  • Could the hiring rounds for first and second instance judges be announced by the CAC instead of by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? This proposal was supported.
  • Who could decide the transfer of a judge to another court of the same or lower instance? Votes of support were given to both the CAC and the Supreme Court en banc, the latter gaining one vote more.
  • Should the task of raising the maximum service age limit for judges be given from the Supreme Court to the CAC? This proposal was not supported.
  • Should no judges be elected as members of the CAC more than twice in a row? This proposal was not supported.[9]

Taking into account the above decisions of the CAC and the opinion of the Minister of Justice, the working group prepared a draft Act[10] amending the CA, which the Ministry of Justice sent for the official round of approval in the summer of 2024. According to the draft, the majority of court administrative tasks within the competence of the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs will be transferred to the judiciary system; the Ministry would continue to perform court administrative tasks in cases provided for by law.[11] For the organisation and performance of court administrative tasks, the draft law provides for the establishment of the Judicial Administration and Development Council (JADC) and the Court Administration Service. Based on the comments and suggestions provided, corrections were made to the draft and the new version was presented to the members of the CAC for their opinion at the meeting of 19–20 September.

At the September session, the discussion continued on the composition of the JADC to be established. The working group envisions JADC to have nine members: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who would also be the Chairman of the JADC, two circuit judges, three first instance judges – one from each branch of the court – and three external members elected by the six judicial members. However, the draft stipulated that the JADC would consist of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, two circuit court judges, three first instance judges, two members of the Riigikogu, a sworn advocate appointed by the Board of the Estonian Bar Association, the Prosecutor General of the State or a public prosecutor appointed by them, and the Chancellor of Justice or a representative appointed by them. After a thorough discussion, the members of the CAC reached a consensus on a completely new composition, according to which the JADC is comprised of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, five judges elected from different court instances, the Minister of Justice or their representative, and the Chancellor of Justice.

The working group pointed out that a team preparing for the implementation of the draft model of court administration should be quickly put together to start working on the Court Administration Service’s structure, positions, budget and other practical issues. Moreover, since the Ministry of Justice had submitted a preliminary estimate of how much of the budgetary resources could be allocated for the implementation of the model of court administration, the issue of financing the model needed to be resolved. Namely, the working group found that the three positions and 140,000 euros proposed by the Ministry of Justice were not sufficient to implement the new model. No finances were planned for the transition period either.

By then, it was also known that the judicial system was going to face extensive budget cuts. The Minister of Justice presented three options to the CAC on how to proceed with the draft model of court administration. The options were as follows.

  1. Decisions concerning the management and financial situation are left to the court system. The courts will be transformed into a constitutional institution in the budget procedure, which means the budget procedure will take place at the Riigikogu and the judicial system will have greater independence than is provided for in the draft model of court administration.
  2. The budget of the courts will be subject to a so-called percentage cut, meaning that in each subsequent year the budget will be reduced by 5%, 3% and 2% respectively. The cut will be divided equally between the courthouses.
  3. The draft model of court administration submitted to the CAC will continue to be worked on, the same network of courthouses will remain in place, but budget cuts will be made at the expense of personnel.

The members of the CAC voted in favour of the first option, that is, in addition to changing the model of court administration, the courts of first and second instance would be separated from the Ministry of Justice and reorganised into a constitutional institution.

At the time of the CAC’s December session, it was not yet entirely clear how many budgetary resources the Ministry of Justice would allocate to the judicial system in order to change the model of court administration. Thus, there was a discussion on the pace and stages at which the changes to the model of court administration could be implemented. It was not considered realistic that the date of entry into force could be 1 January 2026 as set out in the draft, since, in addition to the budgetary matters, the issue of who would be responsible for the court information system was yet to be resolved. Some supported moving forward with the model of court administration step by step, while others preferred the concurrent enforcement of more robust changes. Ultimately, this choice will be made by the Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs, while discussions have continued into 2025.

Court budget

In parallel with the two previously examined topics, the undoubtedly most serious issue of 2024 – the court budget cuts – had to be addressed. On 27 August 2024, the Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs cancelled the judicial hiring rounds for four judge positions, justifying this with the Government of the Republic’s aim to cut labour and management costs, as well as operating support and targeted subsidies in the administrative area by a total of 10% over three years: 5% in 2025, 3% in 2026 and 2% in 2027.[12] There were a total of 11 unfilled judge positions in 2024.

In light of the news of the cuts, it was apparent by the time of the CAC’s September session that the restoration of the index provided for in the Salaries of Higher State Servants Act (SHSSA), which had previously been on the table, would be put on hold. The Ministry of Justice was expecting specific proposals for savings from the courts for the session in December. On 6 December 2024, the chief judges, together with the court directors, presented the 2025 budget formulation plan for the courts of first and second instance, including sources to fulfil the 2,007,323 euro cutback task. The plan provided for:

  • the abandonment of the purchase of additional video and remote conference equipment for courtrooms, as well as the abandonment of reimbursement of health and sports expenses for court employees, buying services related to the image of the courts, etc., the layoff of a cross-court specialist and the reduction of central training costs for court officials;
  • the closure of the Põlva building of the Võru courthouse of the Tartu District Court, and to cover budget cuts for 2026, it was proposed to merge the two Pärnu courthouses of the Pärnu District Court;
  • distribution of funds resulting from a decrease in rental costs of the properties according to rental agreements;
  • calculating court cutback amounts in proportion to court budgets and calculating the cutback target for cross-court services (i.e. archive, translation and helpline phone services). Each court decided for itself where to cut back according to the calculations.[13]

In conclusion, the 2025 budget cuts for the judicial system consisted of 669,000 euros or 33% in cuts to civil servants’ labour costs, 441,000 euros or 22% in cuts to court management costs and 897,000 euros or 45% in reductions in property rental costs.

The CAC did not support the above-mentioned budget preparation principles. It devised its own position and presented it to the Government of the Republic and the Finance Committee of the Riigikogu. The CAC found that the proposed budget preparation principles do not ensure the sustainable functioning of the administration of justice. The cutbacks in personnel and properties have an impact on the court system’s ability to adjudicate court matters, as well as on procedural time periods. The CAC pointed out, among other things, the following:

  • savings have already been achieved with the unfilled judge positions and the reduction in the SHSSA index, which should be included in the budget cut;
  • The budget cuts of district, administrative and circuit courts as constitutional institutions should be abandoned without being supported by amendments to the law that would reduce the workload of the courts to an equivalent extent;
  • the strain on the state budget due to the costs of court proceedings and the number of court matters should be reduced by updating state fees according to inflation.[14]

At the last session of the year, it was clear that the 2025 budget cut plan could no longer be postponed and the CAC gave the Ministry of Justice consent to the closure of the Põlva building of the Võru courthouse of the Tartu District Court from 1 January 2025 and the merger of the two courthouses of the Pärnu District Court from 30 June 2025 (the building on Kuninga Street in Pärnu will remain, the building on Rüütli Street will be closed).

The CAC stressed that work on the 2026 budget must begin immediately, including the issue of the Jõhvi and Rapla courthouses. According to the CAC, extensive cuts would significantly impair the courts’ activities.

Other matters

Analysis of the slowing of proceedings

The report by the chairs of courts presented at the March session of the CAC revealed that almost all courts are concerned about the length of proceedings. The number of incoming cases has not increased much, quite the opposite, but their processing times are getting longer. A discussion on the causes of this was held and it was found that an analysis should be conducted or at least a task should be launched on how to analyse the increase in processing times while the number of cases is decreasing. A working group was formed, consisting of the Chairman of the Tallinn Circuit Court Kristjan Siigur and Circuit Judge Villem Lapimaa, the Director of the Supreme Court Üllar Kaljumäe, and the analyst of the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs Külli Luha. At the May session, the working group presented a plan for analysing whether court matters have become more complex or whether there have been changes in judges’ procedural practices. Three years were examined:

  • 2017, when each judge was assigned a judicial clerk;
  • 2021, which was the first full year of COVID-19 (according to the hypothesis, smaller court matters were adjudicated this year);
  • 2023, which showed the most recent state of affairs.

Workload points or the work volume of court matters was proposed as the baseline for the analysis. In more detail, the workload of cases adjudicated based on workload points, the efficiency of adjudicating cases and the average processing time were studied. The data of district court judges who worked full-time in the selected three years were examined.[15]

The initial analysis did not reveal whether or how court matters have become more complex or time-consuming. However, it was observed that the generational change of judges has a significant impact on the duration of proceedings: in the years under observation, 20–40% of judges did not work full-time, while the workload of a first instance judge is 90% in the first six months of taking office (subsection 37(1²) of the CA). Generational change has a particularly significant impact in smaller courts.[16] It was also confirmed that in 2021, smaller court matters were adjudicated, with a small number of parties to the proceedings, with whom it was possible to conduct a hearing online.

In the autumn, an analysis of the 2023 court proceeding times in civil cases in district courts was presented in CAC. In addition to the above, it was pointed out that although a starting judge has a reduced workload, this does not mean that they will adjudicate cases more slowly. On the contrary, starting judges are quick to process cases. Judges who are about to leave the judicial system (retiring) take the longest time to adjudicate cases. Overall, 2023 was a year of good procedural efficiency, although at the beginning of the year, the courts had a larger backlog[17] compared to the previous two years.[18] A similar analysis is planned for the processing times of judges handling criminal and misdemeanour matters and administrative matters.

Approvals in personnel matters

At the 8 March meeting, the CAC was asked for approvals on making various personnel decisions. Thus, the CAC granted the Minister of Justice approval to appoint Kristjan Siigur as the Chairman of the Tallinn Circuit Court. The CAC also granted the Minister of Justice approval to appoint Marek Vahing as the Chairman of the Tartu District Court. Kristjan Siigur heads the Tallinn Circuit Court as of 17 May 2024 and Marek Vahing heads the Tartu District Court as of 5 April 2024.

In addition, the Chair of Tartu District Court, based on subsections 1 and 2 of Section 99¹ of the CA, proposed to the CAC to increase the maximum service age limit of Tartu District Court judge Ülle Raag by one year, to which the CAC gave its consent. The proposal was justified by the need to disperse the change of judges and the resulting additional workload increase in the court. Tartu District Court experienced significant turnover of judges in 2023–2024: a total of eight judges retired or moved to another court.

____________________________

[1] In 2024, regular sessions were held on 8 March, 24 June, 19–20 September and 6 December.
[2] Minutes of the 103rd session of the CAC, 7 December 2018, pp. 12–13. – https://www.kohus.ee/sites/default/files/dokumendid/103._protokoll_07.12.2018.pdf (12.03.2025).
[3] Directive of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of 21 December 2023 on the formation of a working group on the Court Development Plan. – https://adr.rik.ee/riigikohus/dokument/14970212 (12.03.2025).
[4] V. Lapimaa. ‘Presentation of the Summary of the Court Development Working Group’ at the XXIII Plenary Session of the Judiciary, 30 May 2024. Watch on YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lABJChpZes (12.03.2025).
[5] Minutes of the 130th session of the CAC, 19–20 September 2024, page 3. – https://www.kohus.ee/sites/default/files/dokumendid/130.%20protokoll%2019.-20.09.24.pdf (12.03.2025).
[6] Minutes of the 130th session of the CAC, 19–20 September 2024, pp. 4–6. – https://www.kohus.ee/sites/default/files/dokumendid/130.%20protokoll%2019.-20.09.24.pdf (12.03.2025).
[7] Court Development Plan 2024–2030. Approved at the 130th session of the CAC on 19–20 September 2024, page 5. –  https://www.kohus.ee/sites/default/files/dokumendid/Kohtu_arengukava_2024-2030.pdf (12.03.2025).
[8] Legislative intent to draft the Act amending the Courts Act (model of court administration), 2 February 2024. – https://eelnoud.valitsus.ee/main/mount/docList/b896254f-41da-42e6-990a-b1ca77a9577f#BVifA7ac (12.03.2025).
[9] Minutes of the 129th session of the CAC, 24 May 2024, pp. 14–16. – https://www.kohus.ee/sites/default/files/dokumendid/129.%20istungi%20protokoll%2024.05.24.pdf (12.03.2025).
[10] Act on Amendments to the Courts Act and Related Amendments to Other Acts (model of court administration), 12 July 2024. – https://eelnoud.valitsus.ee/main#fSTVfSz4 (12.03.2025).
[11] According to the explanatory memorandum to the draft, tasks that would remain within the competence of the Ministry include, for example, determining the working area of courts, determining the total number of judges, determining the number of lay judges in District courts, the tasks of the responsible user of the court information system, providing an opinion on the objectives of courts of first and second instance, establishing the internal rules of the office, and reviewing the applications for compensation for damage caused by the court. Also included are tasks related to policy-making in a broader sense, i.e. the levers necessary for shaping legal policy: legislation concerning court organisation and court proceedings, court budgets and data analysis. Explanatory memorandum to the draft Act on Amendments to the Courts Act and Related Amendments to Other Acts (model of court administration), page 1. – https://eelnoud.valitsus.ee/main#fSTVfSz4 (12.03.2025).
[12] Repeal of Directive No. 42 of the Minister of Justice of 30 May 2024, 27 August 2024 – https://adr.rik.ee/jm/dokument/15987017 (19.03.2025).
[13] Working document of the CAC, submitted to the session of 6 December 2024.
[14] Appeal of the CAC regarding the budget of the courts of first and second instance for 2025–2027, 6 December 2024. – https://adr.rik.ee/riigikohus/dokument/16339733 (19.03.2025).
[15] Minutes of the 129th session of the CAC, 24 May 2024, page 7. – https://www.kohus.ee/sites/default/files/dokumendid/129.%20istungi%20protokoll%2024.05.24.pdf (12.03.2025).
[16] Minutes of the 129th session of the CAC, 24 May 2024, page 7. – https://www.kohus.ee/sites/default/files/dokumendid/129.%20istungi%20protokoll%2024.05.24.pdf (12.03.2025).
[17] Court matters that have been pending for more than one year are considered backlogged.
[18] Minutes of the 130th session of the CAC, 19–20 September 2024, pp. 22–25. – https://www.kohus.ee/sites/default/files/dokumendid/130.%20protokoll%2019.-20.09.24.pdf (12.03.2025).