The Supreme Court heard complaints from election observers regarding a June 12, 2025 meeting of the National Electoral Committee. During that meeting, the committee declared part of the session closed to the public while discussing the color and security features of this year's local election ballot papers. Observers were also prohibited from recording the meeting in its entirety.

The Supreme Court en banc partially upheld the observers' complaints, ruling that the decision to close the meeting and remove observers from the room was unlawful.

The court noted that election law requires the Electoral Committee to hold its meetings publicly. The committee's role is to ensure that representative bodies exercising public authority are formed in a lawful and transparent manner. Therefore, the requirement for public meetings serves an important democratic function: it raises voter awareness of how elections are conducted, builds trust in the results and helps reduce the risk of electoral fraud.

The Electoral Committee had justified closing the meeting by citing an exception under the Public Information Act, as the discussion involved information about the ballot paper that had been designated internal due to security concerns. However, the Supreme Court found that since the law clearly mandates Electoral Committee meetings be public, the discussion of restricted-access information does not justify closing a meeting.

On the question of the recording ban, however, the court rejected the complaint. The justices held that the ban does not violate observers' right to attend meetings, though it does limit their ability to document alleged violations. At the same time, recording a public meeting may infringe on the privacy rights of those present, including members of the Electoral Committee.

Personal data includes, among other things, participants' appearance, spoken remarks, opinions and judgments, as well as potentially information visible on phone or computer screens. Recording a meeting poses a significant risk to these rights, as the footage could later be shared widely on mass or social media, possibly distorted or taken out of context.

The court also noted that the legal framework governing the Electoral Committee's meetings requires the attention of lawmakers. Current law mandates that meetings be held publicly at all times, yet there may be compelling reasons to allow partial or full closure in certain cases. Moreover, the law does not currently address whether and to what extent restricted information can be meaningfully discussed in an open meeting. For the sake of legal clarity, it would be advisable to set specific rules regarding whether, by whom and under what conditions Electoral Committee meetings may be recorded or streamed live.

The Supreme Court en banc comprises all 19 justices. Justices Nele Siitam and Oliver Kask issued a dissenting opinion, joined by Ivo Pilving and Villu Kõve.

--

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