The Riigikogu Legal Affairs Committee will discuss at next week's session whether to invite representatives from the Prosecutor's Office and the Ministry of Justice to clarify how the Prosecutor's Office operates and to explain why charges against police executives were pursued through all three levels of the court system, Legal Affairs Committee Chair Madis Timpson (Reform) told ERR.

Last week, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of three former senior police officials — Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) Director General Elmar Vaher and senior officials Eerik Heldna and Aivar Alavere — finding no criminal wrongdoing.

The case, which had been winding through the court system since 2023, centered on allegations of "rotation fraud" and the creation of a fictitious employment relationship to secure a special police pension.

Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs Liisa Pakosta (Eesti 200) on Monday issued an apology on behalf of the state to the former police officials.

--

According to Margus Kurm, Elmar Vaher's defense attorney, the charges brought by the Prosecutor's Office against police executives and the decision to take the case to court were unlawful, as the charges did not, in his view, meet the conditions required by law. What is your assessment of Kurm's claim?

Having reviewed the Supreme Court's ruling, which provides a final judgment that the act we alleged does not constitute a crime, we must acknowledge that the Prosecutor's Office had a different interpretation and we were mistaken in that regard.

As for the initiation of criminal proceedings and the filing of charges, Harju County Court thoroughly analyzed and assessed both the actions of the Prosecutor's Office and the investigative body and found that neither the start of the proceedings nor bringing the case to court was arbitrary or unfounded. Likewise, the court stated that the charges were not filed with malicious intent or without legal basis. Since the court has taken a clear position on this matter, I see no reason to question it.

Kurm argued that, in his view, the prosecutor could not have had sufficient evidence or a firm conviction that taking the case to court would result in a conviction and that this was essentially a kind of legal experiment aimed at achieving clarity in the law. According to Kurm, seeking legal clarity cannot be a valid reason for bringing charges to court. Would the pursuit of legal clarity be a sufficient argument for you to take a case to court?

I've emphasized this repeatedly in the past as well: for a prosecutor to bring charges to court, they must first have a personal conviction that a crime has been committed and that there is enough evidence to prove that claim in court.

On the other hand, it's never entirely out of the question that — even if the prosecutor is convinced of the validity of their claims — the court may ultimately reach a different conclusion, as happened in this case.

In a state governed by the rule of law, it is perfectly normal that not every charge results in a conviction and that the court may interpret the situation differently than the prosecutor did. But yes, ultimately, when a prosecutor goes to court, they must personally believe that a crime has been committed.

You've undoubtedly reviewed the case materials yourself — would you personally have taken this case to court?

I have to admit that I've only reviewed the materials to a limited extent and it's very difficult to assess in hindsight what I would have done in that situation. With the knowledge we have today, now that we have the Supreme Court's position, many people would probably make a different judgment about whether or not to proceed to court.

But yes, it's very hard for me to evaluate what might or could have been done differently based on what was known at the time. I wouldn't want to speculate on that. What I can say is that we will be reviewing the entire investigation within our office and drawing our own conclusions — whether there was something the prosecutor could have done differently and what we can do differently in the future to reduce the likelihood of such situations. That analysis absolutely needs to take place.

Chair of the Riigikogu Legal Affairs Committee, Madis Timpson (Reform), said that he personally would not have taken this case to the Supreme Court. He also said he's now particularly interested in the decision-making process within the Prosecutor's Office — specifically, whether it's really the case that, even in very high-stakes cases, a single senior prosecutor's gut feeling or personal conviction is enough to proceed with charges?

Under current law, it is indeed within the prosecutor's discretion to decide whether or not to appeal a first- or second-tier court ruling.

Recently, within the Prosecutor's Office, we've discussed and tried to steer practice toward ensuring that in very significant cases, we involve more than one prosecutor from the outset — so that the decision doesn't rest solely on one individual's judgment. Unfortunately, we can't afford to do that in every single case due to resource constraints, but at the very least, we aim to involve multiple people in making decisions in weightier matters. We're actively working to expand that practice and make it more standard.

But yes, the law as it stands today does not require a collegial decision-making process or, for example, that a higher-ranking prosecutor make the call. There are no such legal restrictions.

You mentioned the appeal of first- or second-tier court decisions, but who makes the decision on whether to bring charges to court in the first place? Is that decision also made by just one prosecutor?

Yes, the decision on whether or not to take a case to court with charges is also made by the lead prosecutor in charge of the proceedings. And once again, we are increasingly implementing the practice that in major investigations, multiple prosecutors are involved in that decision-making process, so that the decision is more broadly based.

Let me ask about your predecessor, Andres Parmas — how do you assess his actions? After all, he was leading the Prosecutor's Office at the time when charges were filed against the police chiefs and the case was taken to court and he certainly had a say in high-profile matters. Would you have made the same decisions in this case if you were in his position?

It's very difficult to evaluate decisions without knowing the exact information environment in which they were made. Hindsight gives us all perfect clarity. I wouldn't want to speculate on what decisions I might have made if I had been in the same situation.

Margus Kurm's call for parliamentary oversight of the Prosecutor's Office has already begun to gain quiet support. Timpson said that, yes, there are plans to discuss this case in the Legal Affairs Committee next week. In your opinion, is the Riigikogu Legal Affairs Committee the right body to carry out oversight of the Prosecutor's Office?

As I understand it, the proposal was to conduct oversight specifically in relation to this particular case. And here I would return to the point that Harju County Court, in its decision, thoroughly and extensively analyzed the Prosecutor's Office's actions during the pretrial proceedings and the filing of charges and the court issued its assessment. That ruling has now entered into force.

I honestly don't see a basis for any other institution to reassess or review a court judgment. In this regard, I would simply emphasize that in the Republic of Estonia, it is the courts that administer justice and the court has taken a position in this matter.

So in that sense, I see no reason for further external oversight. That said, it doesn't mean we shouldn't analyze how the proceedings were handled. As I've already mentioned, we will definitely conduct an internal review within our office to examine what could have been done better so that the outcome might have been different. That analysis is certainly warranted.

But when it comes to whether another institution should now start reviewing court decisions — that's a proposal I'm inclined not to support.

Kurm argued that the courts don't actually exercise oversight over the Prosecutor's Office and that in such cases it should be either the Ministry of Justice or the Riigikogu that carries out that oversight.

Typically, when issues arise during court proceedings about the legality of actions taken during the pretrial phase or if there's any broader question about whether the Prosecutor's Office or investigative body acted lawfully, it is the court that assesses those matters. And that's exactly what the court (in this case, Harju District Court) did here, conducting a thorough review. I would encourage everyone to read the ruling. The court analyzed the matter in depth and issued its judgment and I see no reason why anyone should now go back and re-evaluate that decision.

Had the court not done so, it would be a different matter — then we could discuss whether and how the situation should be assessed. But in this case, the court has already taken a clear position.

But if the Legal Affairs Committee invites you to a session, will you attend?

Of course.

--

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