Summary

Driving a motor vehicle whilst in an intoxicated state is one of Estonia’s largest traffic problems, both because of its frequent occurrence and its danger. It would therefore be expected that this regulation would be sufficiently applied and the problems discovered be eliminated. Unfortunately court practice indicates otherwise. A good example is the question raised by the Administrative Law Chamber of the Supreme Court already in 2003 regarding the compatibility with the Constitution of Regulation No. 120, 2 April 2001, of the Government of the Republic –“Procedure for establishing the state of intoxication and determining the level of intoxication, and for disputing the decision of determining the level of intoxication“. The Administrative Law Chamber handed the case over to the Supreme Court en banc for its decision, but the latter found that the court does not have the right, within the framework of that specific case, to take a position as regards the matter raised, since it was not an issue of norms associated with the case. The questions of the Administrative Law Chamber, therefore, have remained unanswered. The substantive issues of establishing a state of intoxication also require resolution, beginning with what a state of intoxication actually means and how establishing intoxication should take place. The Supreme Court has attempted to solve the problems through its interpretations but this has not been entirely successful and it is doubtful whether it is at all possible without legal acts being amended. In any case, there is now a broad interpretation of the definition of a state of intoxication, as well as a casual presumption of a state of intoxication, in extra-judicial proceedings and in court practice.