Attempts to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure have been ongoing since 2016, but for various reasons they have stalled. In 2023, the Ministry of Justice decided to move forward with the reform in stages.

The bill, discussed again in the Legal Affairs Committee on April 7, aims to make the code more flexible to ensure faster resolution of criminal cases—especially extremely large ones—and to prevent malicious delays in proceedings. The explanatory memorandum also states that the bill aims to increase the openness of court proceedings.

According to the Estonian Media Union, this goal has not been met; instead, the bill moves in the opposite direction, making court proceedings more closed.

The Estonian Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee considered several of the concerns raised by the union justified and has proposed amendments to the bill.

In February last year, the Media Union informed the Legal Affairs Committee that it wished to be included as a stakeholder in the drafting process. At the end of March this year, the union's CEO Väino Koorberg and member Tarmo Vahter participated in a committee meeting.

Koorberg said that simplifying court proceedings must not reduce their openness. In his opinion submitted to the committee, he highlighted as the main issue the fact that conditional‑release orders are not planned to be made public. The Media Union believes they should be.

"Firstly, this would allow the public to follow cases of public interest—whether and when a person sentenced to real imprisonment is conditionally released. Secondly, it would allow monitoring general trends in conditional release," Koorberg explained.

The Tartu Circuit Court expressed a similar view, stating in a letter to the committee that the public often has a justified interest in accessing conditional‑release orders, at least in cases involving serious sentences, and therefore their publication should be considered.

The Media Union also believes that decisions releasing convicted foreign nationals from further imprisonment should be public and include the person's name. According to Koorberg, this is necessary so the public can follow decisions made in high‑profile cases and be informed about them.

Public cannot obtain information about arrests

Koorberg also pointed out that under current law, when an appeal is filed against an arrest order, both the defense and the prosecutor are summoned to the circuit court hearing. Under the bill, however, the appeal could be reviewed in written proceedings if the court does not deem a hearing necessary.

"Thus, a hearing on arrest would take place only if the court considers it necessary or if a party explicitly requests it. This change may have negative consequences both for the person whose arrest is being considered and for their fundamental rights, as well as for the public interest," Koorberg said.

According to the Media Union, it is regrettable that if a person waives a hearing, the public receives no information about the arrest. Koorberg noted that this change harms the public interest, as criminal investigations often last for years before reaching a public trial.

"The current openness of such hearings gives society at least partial insight into what law‑enforcement authorities are doing, and allows reporting on personalized criminal cases involving crimes of public interest," he added.

Koorberg stressed that if oral hearings are no longer mandatory, court proceedings will become more closed. Moreover, the bill does not offer any balancing measures to ensure that public information about such matters remains at least at the current level.

"We see the fact that arrest proceedings would take place hidden from the public as a significant problem and propose that the Legal Affairs Committee consider whether this can be changed," the union stated.

Journalist Tarmo Vahter, who presented the Media Union's views to the committee together with Koorberg, said that Estonia's criminal procedure is more closed than in many other countries, including Finland. For example, unlike in Finland, the name of a person arrested by a county court is not public in Estonia.

Circuit‑court hearings where arrests are contested have generally been public, and Vahter said this has allowed journalists to report important information to the public.

Committee member: there is already too much openness

Valdo Randpere, a Reform Party member of the Legal Affairs Committee, argued that the real problem in Estonia is the opposite—suspects are made public too quickly.

At Tuesday's meeting, Randpere pointed out that in Sweden individuals remain anonymous until a conviction, whereas in Estonia names are published already at the suspicion or indictment stage. He argued that ERR should set an example by not publishing names.

Andreas Kangur, head of the Ministry of Justice's criminal law and procedure division and author of the bill and explanatory memorandum, said the bill actually increases the openness of hearings and decisions. For example, it proposes publishing non‑final court decisions to make proceedings more transparent.

Legal Affairs Committee supports Media Union proposals

Committee chair Madis Timpson (Reform Party) told ERR that the committee took the Media Union's criticism seriously and decided to propose amendments based on it.

According to the proposals, the bill will be amended so that decisions on waiving imprisonment and decisions releasing convicted foreign nationals from further imprisonment will be public.

Timpson said no one in the committee opposed these changes, so they were not even put to a vote.

"If the amendments are approved in the Riigikogu chamber, they will be adopted," Timpson said.

Kangur confirmed that the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Digital Affairs support the Media Union's proposals to publish conditional‑release decisions and decisions releasing foreign nationals from imprisonment, and are ready to incorporate them into the bill. The ministry is also willing to discuss possible balancing measures.

However, the Ministry of Justice does not support requiring the circuit court to hold arrest hearings even when the court does not consider them necessary, solely so that journalists can attend and gain insight into a case where the person has not yet been convicted.

Tarmo Vahter countered that the Media Union's primary goal is to maintain the current level of openness, and it cannot agree with the idea that the public should not know what law‑enforcement authorities are doing when decisions on arrests or asset seizures have already been made.

Regarding the bill's future, Timpson said that in addition to the Media Union, the Bar Association and the courts participated in consultations. The Legal Affairs Committee has now asked the Ministry of Justice to draft compromise wording and continue discussions with stakeholders.

Timpson hopes the Riigikogu will adopt the bill before the summer recess.

In 2025, Estonia climbed to second place in the global press freedom index published by Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

--

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