Summary

There has been a long-standing debate over whether a single-court model is necessary. After a winding journey marked by significant highs and lows, the court reform reached the draft legislation stage, although its processing could not be completed. The draft legislation had two primary objectives. First, to reform court administration, and second, to reform court organisation. In its proposed form, the draft contained several problems, both in terms of the solutions offered and from a constitutional perspective. This article does not focus on the major issues concerning court administration, but rather on the constitutionality of a single-court model – specifically in the context of both courts of first and second instance. The author first provides an overview of the legislative history of § 148 of the Constitution and subsequently analyses what constitutes a judicial body within the meaning of said section. The author maintains that linguistic, historical, and systematic arguments for interpreting the Constitution – including fundamental rights – support the understanding that, regarding the organisation of the state, there must be two or more judicial bodies of the first and second instance, as opposed to a single judicial body. At the same time, the author emphasises that this does not mean the discussion on elevating the court system to a new level should cease. The question is how to achieve this. While the system chosen by Estonia was simple, it struggles in situations where the same institution must resolve a high volume of simple mass cases alongside complex, detail-oriented, and extensive legal disputes. In the long term, the effective functioning of the system in its current form is not sustainable.