Questions about whether a person who has committed an intentional crime has the right to participate in the work of a municipal council arose this fall after Kohtla-Järve council member Anton Dijev was convicted of corruption.

The Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture holds the position that, under current law, individuals with a valid conviction for an intentional crime may not participate in council activities. For example, the financial penalty imposed on Dijev will expire three years after the ruling is enforced.

"The legislator's intent is to exclude individuals with an active conviction for an intentional crime from serving on the council," said Eliko Saks, a local government adviser at the Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture.

Saks explained that under Section 18, Subsection 1, Clause 8 of the Local Government Organization Act (KOKS), a council member's mandate ends prematurely upon the final conviction for an intentional crime.

"Moreover, the law does not provide for a decision by the electoral committee to terminate the mandate early. Rather, the mandate ends automatically upon the legal occurrence of the conviction," said Saks.

"In practice, there have previously been questions about how to apply this provision — specifically, whether it applies if a person is convicted of an intentional crime after running for council but before their mandate begins. The question is whether Section 18, Subsection 1, Clause 8 of KOKS applies in such cases or only if the conviction comes during the term of office. This legal basis for prematurely ending a council member's mandate applies whether the conviction takes effect while the person is actively serving, before their term starts or during a period when their mandate is suspended," Saks explained, adding that under Section 20, Subsections 1 and 4 of KOKS, the electoral committee must now appoint a replacement.

Council chair disagrees

Kohtla-Järve municipal council chair Eduard Odinets disagrees with the ministry's interpretation and believes that Anton Dijev has the right to participate in the work of the new council.

"He has already been punished under the final court ruling and he lost his mandate in the current city council. The new council has not yet officially taken office. To me, denying him the opportunity to serve in the new council would amount to punishing him twice for the same offense," said Odinets, who previously chaired the Riigikogu Legal Affairs Committee.

A replacement has been appointed to the current council in Dijev's place and he was unable to attend the extraordinary session of the Kohtla-Järve city council held last Friday. According to Anna Generalova, chair of the city's electoral committee, it remains unclear whether Dijev has the right to serve in the new composition of the council.

"There have been quite a few opinions on the matter and they are completely contradictory," Generalova said, adding that she is still awaiting a response from the National Electoral Committee.

ERR also requested a comment from the National Electoral Committee, but it referred the matter to the Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture as the most appropriate body to interpret the Local Government Organization Act (KOKS).

Dijev did not report the punishment

In Anton Dijev's case, the situation was further complicated by the fact that his sentence was handed down on September 30 — before the elections — but officially went into effect on September 16, during election week. However, this only came to light a week after the elections.

Anna Generalova also highlighted this nuance. "In this case, it's important to consider how voters view the matter. If the voter is aware of the final court decision and still supports the candidate, then the candidate could be allowed to participate in council work. But if voters are unaware of the conviction, then the mandate ends under the referenced clause. That should be the guiding principle here," she said.

According to Generalova, Dijev failed in his duty as an elected official to inform the municipality about the conviction he received.

The relevant provision of the law is also incomplete. While KOKS requires a council member to notify the city or rural municipality secretary if they lose their seat due to a conviction (or, for example, if they move to a different municipality), it does not specify a deadline for doing so.

This has prompted suggestions that the entire system could be improved so that such information would move automatically between the state and local governments in Estonia's digital infrastructure. After all, Dijev's court hearing was public and the ruling was publicly accessible.

In fact, legal experts consulted by ERR noted that the confusing clause in the Local Government Organization Act could even be interpreted to mean that the restriction applies only to those serving prison sentences. This is especially relevant since the clause has been revised over time and is now composed of two separate parts.

Clarity could come from the courts

The matter will likely end up in court, where the situation can be clarified through legal argument. "Of course, we need clarity. In many cases, it's the courts that end up interpreting the law, even though laws really ought to be understandable to all parties involved," said Kohtla-Järve municipal council chair Eduard Odinets.

Anton Dijev, who received 209 votes in the elections as a candidate on the Center Party list — enough to secure a seat on the council — will have his eligibility determined by the five-member Kohtla-Järve electoral committee after the National Electoral Service officially certifies the election results.

If Dijev is denied the seat he earned in the election, he has the right to contest the local electoral committee's decision before the National Electoral Committee. Conversely, if the decision is in Dijev's favor, others who believe their rights have been violated also have the right to challenge it.

According to Eliko Saks from the Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture, the Local Government Council Election Act gives the right to file a complaint to any individual, candidate, electoral alliance or political party who believes that a contested decision or action has violated their rights.

"A complaint may also be filed with the National Electoral Committee against the decision to register council members, requesting a review and annulment of the electoral committee's decision. The right to submit such a complaint also extends to an alternate member who would be entitled to assume the mandate if the original council member loses their seat early due to a final conviction for an intentional crime," Saks explained.

Decisions by the National Electoral Committee can, in turn, be appealed to the Supreme Court.

--

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