If the draft legislation sent for coordination by the Ministry of Justice is approved, Estonia's four district courts would be merged into a single district court, the two circuit courts into one circuit court and the two administrative courts into one administrative court.

The Supreme Court's full panel discussed the draft amendments to the Courts Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure on November 25. The panel decided that the Supreme Court does not support the proposed consolidation of same-level courts into nationwide institutions. The position was supported by a strong majority of Supreme Court members: 16 in favor, two against and one impartial.

That said, Chief Justice Villu Kõve noted that while he, the director and a minority of judges see several detailed issues with the bill, the reorganization of the court system should move forward.

However, the majority of Supreme Court justices found that the initial concept of the bill already raised constitutional concerns and that the management analyses and governance model included in the draft only deepened these concerns.

"The Constitution clearly mandates the plurality of district, administrative and circuit courts, thereby safeguarding the independence and effectiveness of the judiciary. The creation of nationwide courts may not be a mere semantic issue. The draft would replace today's autonomous and democratically managed courts with centrally and autocratically managed structures. A judge must be independent not only from the other branches of power but also within the judiciary itself."

The main argument in favor of consolidation presented in the draft is the flexible reallocation of cases between regions. Supreme Court justices concluded that merging the courts is neither necessary nor reasonable for balancing differences in caseload.

Excessively broad opportunities to reassign court cases nationally would pressure judges to favor written proceedings or remote hearings over in-person sessions. The justices argued that written communication or interaction via remote means does not provide participants the same level of procedural protection as direct oral hearings.

They also emphasized that creating nationwide courts would create strong pressure to consolidate the administration of justice outside Tallinn.

"While the bill formally guarantees the preservation of court buildings, the law cannot determine what types of cases or in what volume will be heard at any given courthouse. That will be dictated by an internal work distribution plan within the nationwide court. Since holding hearings in peripheral areas is more expensive, the court president and leadership will face constant financial pressure to reduce the number of cases handled outside the capital. A real example of such attrition has been the decline of the Pärnu courthouse of the Tallinn Administrative Court."

Tartu Circuit Court judges: The bill creates problems instead of solving them

The draft has also drawn criticism from other quarters. Judges at the Tartu Circuit Court noted that there is no justification for the expedited processing of a bill that would deeply reform the entire court system and said it reflects an unwillingness to meaningfully listen to the judiciary.

According to the circuit judges, the bill is unconstitutional and threatens the independence of the judiciary. They added that while the draft does raise several real issues, the proposed solution — merging the courts — not only fails to resolve those problems but creates additional ones.

"The court system will not become faster or more efficient as a result of this bill. Nor will it generate cost savings. Instead, it will centralize court administration, concentrate judicial power and decision-making in Tallinn, reduce access to justice outside the capital and weaken the security of the Estonian state."

The Tartu Circuit Court judges also noted that public communication around the court reform has been misleading.

Harju District Court: Judges will not have the inner freedom to make decisions that inconvenience the state

Judges at the Harju County Court also announced that they do not support the proposed restructuring of the court system as put forward by the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs. They pointed to a similar negative experience in Poland.

"Limiting judicial independence is likely unconstitutional. Judges would lose the right to decide on their own specialization. The bill would allow for judges to be reassigned to another division or procedural group against their will. A judge cannot be truly independent in making decisions that may be inconvenient for the state if the consequence could be forced reassignment. Judges' connection to a particular courthouse becomes merely symbolic. The same tactics were used in Poland."

They also emphasized that the draft does not guarantee litigants the right to have their case heard at the nearest courthouse.

"If a single judge is expected to hold hearings across the entire country, access to justice in rural areas will inevitably decline. Justice, resources and personnel will gravitate to wherever court leadership is based. This will ultimately lead to the closure of smaller courthouses and reduced access to justice in rural communities. A courthouse video terminal cannot replace an in-person hearing."

The judges further argued that the proposed changes would increase costs rather than reduce them, as the expenses related to digital infrastructure and the travel time and workload of judges across the country have not been factored in.

They also pointed out that Estonia already has one of the most efficient court systems in Europe, despite being overloaded by about 50 percent — a burden that leads to burnout.

"Redistributing cases within an overburdened system does not reduce the overall load. The draft endangers the proper functioning of the judiciary. It is incomplete — key provisions on unified court administration and procedural code amendments are missing."

Office of the Prosecutor General in favor but with caveats

The Prosecutor General's Office submitted its opinion through Chief State Prosecutor Taavi Pern, who noted that the prosecution is not fundamentally opposed to the stated goals of consolidating the courts — namely, establishing a clear and effective management model, enabling more flexible distribution of judges' workloads and supporting judicial specialization.

However, Pern pointed out a key concern raised by several prosecutors: one of the most difficult aspects of court proceedings is already arranging for participants to appear in court.

"The difficulty isn't just the distance between participants and courthouses — it also lies in the organization of public transport within and between counties. For example, someone might be able to get from Tartu to Võru by bus at the end of a court day, but then find there's no connection from Võru to Värska. The Prosecutor's Office believes that changes to the court system must not increase the distance — literally or figuratively — between court proceedings and those involved. While judicial specialization and targeted training do help in resolving specific legal disputes, these goals cannot be achieved effectively if participants are unable to attend court hearings due to distance."

The Prosecutor's Office also stressed the importance of keeping pretrial and surveillance judges in close proximity to prosecutors.

"Since criminal proceedings are not yet fully digital, prosecutors must be able to hand over voluminous case files to courts in physical form without having to travel long distances."

Pern also noted that the draft's explanatory memorandum does not indicate how much the prosecution's travel and lodging expenses could rise if prosecutors are required to travel across the country to various courthouses.

--

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