Pakosta said the necessary amendments are already in the pipeline to allow military‑related matters to be adequately dealt with by the regular courts. The Ministry of Defense also opposes the bill.

Several MPs who have military backgrounds and who are from both coalition and opposition parties initiated the bill, which would establish national‑defense courts that would operate in Estonia during wartime. The bill was submitted to the Riigikogu by Gen. Meelis Kiili, retired (Reform), Gen. Alar Laneman, retired (independent), Col. Peeter Tali, reservist (Eesti 200), Lt. Col. Leo Kunnas, retired (independent), Enn Eesmaa (independent), Vladimir Arhipov (Center), Priit Sibul (Isamaa) and Anti Poolamets (EKRE).

Pakosta told ERR on Friday that she does not see the need for these separate courts even in situations of conflict and national emergency. The court reform bill adopted by the Riigikogu shortly before the summer recess already makes the necessary changes, she said.

"As part of the court reform, it is stipulated that judges specializing in national defence matters will be mandatory. In other words, the issue was resolved through a bill that has already been adopted by the Riigikogu, and as a result it is foreseen that national defense judges must exist within the court system as a mandatory element," Pakosta said.

"As a result of the court reform, the national defense judges that will emerge must receive additional training to fulfill this purpose and must have the necessary knowledge and skills to conduct judicial proceedings during wartime," she added. "How exactly the courts conduct their training plans and how they develop these professional skills specifically for wartime situations will be decided by the courts themselves. But the legislator's intention has been – and this bill was adopted at the end of the Riigikogu's spring session – that judges with separate national defence expertise would exist within the court system, and this resolves the issue as effectively as possible and in the most cost‑efficient way for taxpayers."

Responding to claims that national‑defense courts would speed up justice during wartime, Pakosta said: "No law states that court proceedings must of necessity be slow," adding that urgent cases, such as appointing guardians for orphans, are "already handled very rapidly today."

Pakosta said faster proceedings should be met via wider court reform, not by setting up a new court. "The courts themselves have also pointed out that we often have too many opportunities for appeal... procedural rules need to be changed," she said, adding that speeding up proceedings should be pursued at all times, regardless of the security situation.

Pakosta's ministry itself, the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs, has also expressed opposition to the bill, saying it "does not sufficiently justify the need to create a new special court" and fails to explain why existing courts, greater judicial specialization or additional training could not achieve the same aims.

The Ministry of Defense likewise criticized the MPs' proposal, arguing that appointing judges from existing courts to a new national‑defense court would simply shift workloads rather than reduce them. "The overall workload of the judicial system would not decrease; instead, judges would be moved from the work of one court to the work of another," the ministry stated in a statement.

Supporters of the bill, however, argue that a separate court is necessary for wartime expertise and speed. The explanatory memorandum of the bill to amend the Courts Act (979 SE), submitted by eight members of the Riigikogu, states that the composition of national‑defense courts would combine the legal expertise of professional judges with the military experience and specialized competence of officer judges, with two officer judges serving as lay judges for each professional judge in such a court.

The court would be established as a special court under Article 148 of the Constitution, and its jurisdiction would include criminal, civil, and administrative matters related to national‑defense issues, as well as other proceedings assigned to it, under the MPs' proposal. It would be a court of first instance, whose decisions could be appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

"This gives both military personnel and society the assurance that in difficult situations they will have access to legal assistance, and that it will also be provided in an environment or situation described as war," Kiili said.

Kiili said the bill was prepared with the participation or support of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Rait Maruste, a reserve officers' association member, and Tallinn Administrative Court judge Daimar Liiv, and other experts who see the bill as addressing an important point.

"This is one part of the country's overall preparedness for the worst. A military court is intended only for a state of emergency or a state of war. And it would be activated when that threat is present, and it is intended to ensure military discipline through expedited proceedings," Maruste said Friday.

Maruste said national‑defense courts would get jurisdiction over military personnel charged with offenses including insubordination, desertion, revealing military secrets or destroying military equipment. "These are purely military crimes," Maruste said, explaining that cases would be heard by a civilian judge alongside at least one career military officer, under the bill. He argued that proceedings would need to be expedited because "it is in no way possible to apply modern civilian criminal procedure in a state of war."

Liiv noted the bill is addressing a highly specific type of judicial activity at a very specific point in time. "Essentially, if you look at the activities of national defense courts, which are more commonly known around the world as military courts, they are primarily aimed at matters related to the activities of the military, or in our case the Defense Forces, during times of war or crisis. And they may be somewhat broader than traditional criminal courts, covering military crimes or crimes committed by members of the Defense Forces, plus looting and such international crimes," Liiv said. "And the simplest explanation for why a separate court is needed is that such legal situations practically do not arise in peacetime," he added.

Liiv argued that military cases require specialist expertise beyond that of ordinary judges. "We lack judicial practice," he said, adding that judges must understand "very specific" military rules. "Perhaps the most sensible way would be to do this specifically in the form of a military court," Liiv continued.

Liiv added wartime requires a different legal approach, noting that "a military court helps maintain and reinforce discipline in the armed forces." He argued such courts could also investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity, as in Ukraine, handle cases involving mobilization evasion, and resolve disputes when civilian property is requisitioned for military use during wartime.

National‑defense courts could also deal with wartime civil matters, such as financial disputes involving wounded, missing or killed service members, Liiv continued, stressing the scope of such courts would ultimately be decided by the Riigikogu in any case.

--

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