Top court: Electoral Committee cannot make decisions without meeting
Members of the National Electoral Committee cannot make decisions solely by email correspondence but must convene a meeting, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
On August 25–26 this year, members of the National Electoral Committee exchanged emails to make three decisions, two of which concerned election complaints while the third approved the allocation of funds for local elections.
In response, Sulev Švilponis and the NGO Fair Elections Estonia filed a complaint, asking the court to declare the decisions unlawful because they had been made without a meeting. The complainants argued this hindered their work as election observers.
The committee defended its use of email by pointing to the short deadlines for resolving election complaints and the difficulty of finding a time that suited all members for a meeting.
The Supreme Court's Constitutional Review Chamber upheld the complaint. The chamber noted that while private and public decision-making bodies can sometimes adopt resolutions without convening a meeting, by voting remotely, the law specifies that the National Electoral Committee must conduct its work through meetings. This means it cannot make decisions without convening one.
A meeting, the court said, requires a direct, real-time and observable discussion, whether held in person or electronically. Before a meeting, members may still share materials and exchange views on issues — by email, message or phone — but a meeting cannot be reduced to the mere formal approval of a pre-made decision.
Short notice justified
The NGO Fair Elections Estonia also challenged the National Electoral Committee's meeting held on September 2, arguing that the notice period had been too short. The committee defended the roughly 24-hour notice by citing the short deadlines for handling election complaints.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that such short notice could restrict observers' rights, but in this case found it justified. The committee is required to resolve election complaints within five working days, and the court noted it is important to take into account that committee members must balance these duties with other professional responsibilities.
The chamber nevertheless stressed that if a meeting is scheduled to take place only in person, potential observers should be notified of the option to attend electronically when a shorter-than-usual notice period is given.
--
Editor: Urmet Kook, Marcus Turovski
