The Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs is proposing changes to the Courts Act that would replace the current four district courts, two administrative courts and two circuit courts with three nationwide courts. This plan has drawn criticism from many judges, particularly at the district court level where there are concerns that the consolidation would shift the administration of justice increasingly toward the capital.

District courts also question how the reform would actually make court proceedings more efficient and say the ministry has ignored their suggestions for how such changes could realistically be implemented.

"For some reason, the opinions of those who know the system best — namely, the judges themselves — aren't being heard. Instead, opinions and expert assessments are being commissioned from elsewhere just to validate the idea that this reform is a good one," Tartu District Court Chief Judge Marek Vahing told ERR.

The reform is largely driven by the ministry, but it lacks broad support within the judiciary, said Pärnu District Court Chief Judge Toomas Talviste.

"In my view — certainly from the perspective of Pärnu and Tartu, and I know Harju County Court feels the same — most judges do not support this reform. People don't understand why something so major is being rushed through. It's not going to deliver any meaningful gains," Talviste said.

Vahing added that it's unclear what problem the reform is meant to solve. While it's well known that judges are overwhelmed with caseloads and are unable to resolve cases in a reasonable timeframe, the reform does nothing to address that.

"The number of incoming cases is on the rise and we have significantly fewer judges. The minister isn't filling judicial vacancies, which has led to an increase in workload, and we simply can't keep up. But this reform offers no relief for that," he said.

Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs Liisa Pakosta (Eesti 200) told ERR that, as with any major reform, merging same-level courts has both supporters and opponents within the judiciary. She added that this issue has been under discussion within the court system since 2020.

"The need for court reform comes from the courts themselves — it's not something the ministry just came up with. A good overview of the challenges and solutions is presented by Supreme Court Chief Justice Villu Kõve in his ERR article (in Estonian – ed). Moreover, the ideas for consolidating courts, creating nationwide jurisdictions and establishing specialization departments are all laid out in the courts' own development plan," Pakosta said.

In his article, Kõve noted that the reform would allow judges to specialize and introduce a flexible national distribution system. This would help balance workloads, make substitutions easier and prevent case backlogs.

Chief judges: More work-related trips and higher costs with no fewer sessions

One recurring concern judges have raised is that merging courts and increasing specialization would require them to travel significantly more across Estonia. That aspect has not been thought through at all by the ministry and would certainly not save money, Toomas Talviste noted.

"If, for example, we merge judges from Rapla and Rakvere or Tallinn into a single department handling specific types of cases, doesn't that mean those judges would actually need to travel much more across the country? So the costs could end up being significantly higher than they are now," he said.

Minister Liisa Pakosta has previously said that increased use of written procedures and video hearings could reduce the need for judges to travel. She told ERR that about half of criminal cases and more than 80 percent of civil and administrative cases are handled in written proceedings, meaning the parties never physically set foot in a courthouse.

But according to county courts, the minister's data on written proceedings is somewhat outdated and they argue the share of video hearings should not be expanded at all.

Talviste said the ministry did present data a few years ago showing how many cases were handled in writing without hearings, but that doesn't reflect what's actually happening on the ground.

"In the case of the Pärnu District Court, I can definitely say that this trend doesn't exist. The number of hearings is roughly the same as it was five, seven or even eight years ago. And in smaller centers like Rapla, Paide, Kuressaare and Haapsalu, hearings haven't decreased — if anything, they've increased," he said.

Vahing confirmed the same is true in Tartu County Court — and more: the number of hearings is actually rising.

"The ministry's data is definitely outdated. Today, a large number of hearings are still being held, especially in criminal cases, and in civil cases there's growing emphasis on holding hearings and steering parties toward potential compromises," he said.

According to Tartu District Court Civil Judge Gerty Pau, she prefers for parties to appear in court in person because the outcome is generally very different compared to a video hearing.

"Court is the place where you come to resolve a dispute — not just to hear who is legally right, but to find some peace of mind. When people come into the courtroom, the outcome is completely different than if I'm just another talking head on a screen. I don't want to be just another expert telling a father over video to please pay child support. That simply doesn't work. He needs to come into the courtroom and see that there are real people here — and then there's hope that he'll actually pay," Pau said.

Writing courthouses into the law no guarantee of local administration of justice

The draft bill to amend the Courts Act states that same-level courts will be merged without reducing the number of courthouses. But that doesn't guarantee that actual court proceedings will remain local, said Judge Gerty Pau.

"If we formally keep the courthouses but judges don't physically go there and everything is done by video, then from the standpoint of justice, the building is essentially empty," she said.

The concern among district courts is that if the reform passes in its current form, judicial proceedings will gradually shift toward Tallinn.

"What matters is that courts shouldn't be pulled out of communities just because they're smaller. That's not how government is supposed to work. Fewer people doesn't mean we should shut down the courthouse in Võru. And if judges concentrate in Tallinn, then obviously attorneys will gravitate there too. And if everything moves to Tallinn, then what happens to the rest of Estonia?" Pau said.

"The fear is that when power is pulled away from smaller places, the resources will follow. We're concerned that access to justice will suffer as a result," said Vahing.

Pakosta, however, argued that the reform would actually improve and solidify the regional balance.

"Since the courthouses will remain where they are, people's access to court registries and courtrooms will stay the same. The permanent duty stations of judges and court staff will also remain tied to specific courthouses. What's more, these requirements will now be written into law, where they weren't before — so in fact, the level of certainty will increase," she said.

Could specializations drag out proceedings instead?

District courts have also voiced criticism of the reform's aim to increase judicial specialization. According to Judge Gerty Pau, this wouldn't reduce workload — particularly in civil disputes, where the legal areas and regulations often overlap.

Tartu District Court Chief Judge Marek Vahing added that research suggests specialization tends to lengthen court proceedings rather than speed them up.

"In some respects, the draft bill is contradictory — it tries to achieve one goal with a measure that may actually work against it. Specialization tends to lead to longer case processing times and if the goal is to make the court system more efficient, this approach won't deliver that," Vahing said.

Pärnu District Court Chief Judge Toomas Talviste said that specialization would make sense if statistics showed that county court rulings were increasingly being overturned — but in fact, the opposite is true.

Minister Liisa Pakosta, however, said that greater specialization among judges and their support staff would improve subject-matter expertise, make court decisions more predictable and speed up proceedings.

"The larger the institution, the greater the ability to specialize. For example, the criminal division at Harju District Court has eight areas of specialization — Tartu has none. The prosecution and police are significantly more specialized than the criminal divisions of the courts. But district court criminal divisions are much smaller than those of the prosecution or police and divided into four, they simply can't specialize to a comparable degree," Pakosta said.

Judges: Two things should not have been put in the same bill

The so-called first phase of the court reform involves separating the administration of first- and second-tier courts from the Ministry of Justice. Among other things, this would allow courts to participate in state budget negotiations — something judges welcome. The initiative originally came from the Estonian Judges' Association. However, district courts are unhappy that this measure has been bundled with other reforms proposed by the ministry.

"To be perfectly honest, this is being used against us to some extent," said Tartu District Court's Marek Vahing. "Judges will be put in a difficult position: on one hand, we strongly want greater independence from the Ministry of Justice and we're very much in favor of that part of the reform. But unfortunately, it comes packaged with another part that merges the courts — something most judges oppose. So we're being forced into a corner by this reform."

Pakosta responded that combining the administrative and structural changes into a single draft bill was recommended by a majority of experts involved in two discussions on court reform held by the Riigikogu Constitutional Committee, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

There is also the question of whether the changes are in line with the Estonian Constitution. The Constitution currently requires that Estonia have more than one district court, administrative court and circuit court. Vahing argued that this means a broader public debate is needed on how many courts Estonia truly needs — and if necessary, the Constitution should be amended.

"If we determine that the Estonian state cannot afford to maintain eight courts, then we should begin with constitutional amendments and go through clear, inclusive public processes to determine what number of courts is optimal for Estonia," he said.

Pakosta countered by citing a legal analysis commissioned from the University of Tartu's Faculty of Law and led by former Supreme Court Chief Justice Priit Pikamäe. The analysis concluded that the Constitution does allow the merger of same-level courts.

"This is permissible as long as the locations of courthouses are clearly defined, so that parties to proceedings know where hearings will take place and judges have certainty about their permanent duty stations. Based on this, the location of courthouses will now be explicitly set out in the Courts Act," Pakosta said.

Vahing: The current system is functional

According to Tartu District Court Chief Judge Marek Vahing, the ministry appears eager to push the reform through as quickly as possible, with many of the details being left for later.

"This is being done hastily and without proper consideration. It's one of the biggest judicial reforms in the past 20 years. The last time courts were merged was in 2006. We've been working under the current system for two decades and it works. The consolidation we have now is already the most efficient setup: four district courts, two administrative courts, two circuit courts. We have four police prefectures and four district prosecutor's offices. But for some reason, they want to go a step further and eliminate structural units, simply to reduce the number, without considering the consequences," Vahing said.

There is also no clear explanation for how a single large district court would actually be managed, noted Pärnu County Court Chief Judge Toomas Talviste.

"No one has presented any kind of analysis or vision of what the management structure of this new large county court — encompassing two-thirds of all judges in Estonia — would look like. That part of the draft doesn't even exist. We've been given no picture or understanding of how such a large court would be run," he said.

Justice Minister Liisa Pakosta responded that, as minister, her focus is on the concerns of people and businesses who rely on the courts, and the simple facts show that problems are piling up.

"Between 2020 and 2024, the average processing time in district courts increased by 11 percent, in administrative courts by 21 percent and in circuit courts by 44 percent. At the same time, personnel costs for resolving cases rose by 85 percent. The numbers show that simply pumping in more taxpayer money won't improve the situation. Doing nothing will only make it worse," she said.

"The solution has to be comprehensive — not just increasing flexibility through nationwide case distribution and specialization in merged courts, but also updating procedural law, improving the courts' IT systems and moving certain matters out of the court system entirely. In other words, reforming court administration is only one part of the broader judicial reform," Pakosta added, emphasizing that the goal of the reform is not just to achieve some cost savings.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!