Summary

After increasing the state fees in 2009, the discussion about how justified the extensive increase in state fees had been subsided because of the economic recession. In 2011, along with the recovering economy, the discussion about the rates of state fee has also intensified. While the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of the rates of the state fee generally with caution in 2009, then on 12 April 2011, the Supreme Court en banc in its precedential decision in Wipestrex vs. Republic of Estonia set out to convey a clear message to the legislator about the regulation of the rates of the state fee. According to the Supreme Court en banc, the legislator should quickly analyse state fees in their entirety and lower as soon as possible as well as broadly and systematically their rates to normalise procedure expenses. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court repeated the same message in his overview about the administration of courts, justice, and uniform application of laws given to the Riigikogu on 16 June 2011.

This article examines the purpose of the state fees paid within the framework of civil proceedings and their achievement in reality, the rates of the state fee in Estonia compared to those of the other European countries, and the definition of an unreasonably large state fee in judicial practice. Because of the topic, in several instances, the article resorts to the language of numbers when addressing the reader.