en Juridica ajakiri 2026/3 http://www.juridica.ee/ http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_3_kas_kohtus_steemi_on_vaja_reformida_ja_millised_on_sellega_seotud_hirmud_&lang=en Over the past year, significant discussion has been sparked within the judiciary by the amendments to the Courts Act and the Codes of Procedure prepared by the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs. These amendments, presented to the judiciary in various versions, aim to modify court organisation and administration as well as the management of proceedings (court reform). This has resulted in a large volume of investigative papers, press articles, appeals, and criticism. Various arguments against the reform have been put forward, ranging from claims of unconstitutionality to allegations of intentions to neutralise the judicial power. A prevailing view in the public eye suggests that no changes to the system are necessary or permissible, and that simply more funding and judicial positions are required. The article analyses the objectives of the reform and the reasons for the opposition, while reflecting on the way forward. In doing so, it does not focus on analysing the specific provisions of the different draft legislation that have reached the public, but rather on fundamental questions. 2026-03-24 11:28:31 Villu Kõve http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_3_kohtureformid_kas_l_putu_k_nlap_ev_&lang=en When observing the development of Estonian courts since the restoration of independence, it appears that in the years immediately preceding and following restoration, the foundation necessary for the functioning of the legal system was laid. This has been followed by larger or smaller changes in the organisation and administration of the courts. Today, we speak of two major reforms which, having fluctuated for several years, occasionally recede and then resurface, giving cause to ask whether we must face an endless ‘Groundhog Day’ of court reforms. The article looks back at the period during which changes reforming the court system of restored Estonia took place and explains what they entailed. Key milestones are marked in the creation of the court system (1990–1993), the years of development (2002–2005), and the periods of reform (2006–2023). The focus of the article is on the reform plans that began vigorously in 2024 and continue in 2026. The article also analyses the objectives of the court organisation reform and its potential impact on the administration of justice, focusing on the effects accompanying the increased specialisation of judges. 2026-03-24 11:31:55 Erkki Hirsnik, Tiina Pappel, Andra Pärsimägi http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_3_curia_semper_reformanda_est&lang=en In the preparation of the court reform, doubt has often been expressed as to whether the court system actually has a problem that requires solving. Every proposed solution may carry risks; consequently, even those who are otherwise dissatisfied may voice the opinion that there is actually nothing wrong with the current situation. The author identifies the harmonisation of the application of law as a primary substantive objective of the court reform. Justice that yields unpredictable outcomes is costly to society. If the outcome of a civil dispute can vary significantly, it provokes at least one party to the legal relationship to litigate, as they may have much to gain and relatively little to lose. Thus, solutions for the structural setup of court organisation should be sought specifically based on the objective of harmonising the law. The keyword here is specialisation. There is no reason why the general principle, ie., that individuals specialised in a task perform that work at the expected quality and relatively faster, should not also apply to the courts. The concept of specialisation inevitably leads to the question of how large judicial institutions should be. Generally speaking, the management systems of large organisations are more professional, and their management costs as a proportion of total expenses are relatively lower. In the courts, management has often been regarded as a minor function and left to the responsibility of support services. This gives rise to development ideas based solely on simple calculations or savings on information technology resources. Routine methods of data collection have evolved that may not clearly highlight the needs of the core activity. To prevent this, court management should be professional, and lawyers should set the tone within the executive management. 2026-03-24 11:36:11 Priit Kama http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_3_kiirus_kohtureformi_peamise_eesm_rgina&lang=en One of the objectives of the ongoing court reform is the speed of proceedings in court cases. What must be done to achieve this declared goal? At first glance, the answer is not difficult to find: one must adhere to the procedural terms set out in the Codes of Procedure. However, does speed equate merely to procedural terms? In the Estonian legal order, the reasonable speed of court proceedings is a subjective right derived from the Constitution. Although the Constitution does not name ‘reasonable speed’ expressis verbis, the Supreme Court has derived it from the interplay between § 15 (the right to judicial protection) and § 24 (the right to a fair court hearing). The nature of the speed of court proceedings is not exhausted by fundamental rights alone. Additional declared objectives of the court reform include high-quality justice that is accessible throughout Estonia, increasing the efficiency of the court system itself, and ensuring the independence and authority of the judiciary, all of which are also linked to the speed of proceedings. In this article, the author discusses the current and previous court reforms, as well as the setting of objectives in law-making in general. The author emphasises that law is created by people and is ultimately directed at people. Human behaviour is characterised by purposefulness. Therefore, it is extremely important to analyse man-made law based on its objective(s). Among the various views presented during the court reform, the author highlights those that, in his opinion, successfully create a cognitive link between the objectives of the reform and the means of achieving them. Finally, the article makes several observations concerning potential developments related to the goal of the court reform to promote the speed of adjudication. 2026-03-24 11:41:34 Raul Narits http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_3_m_tteid_he_kohtu_mudeli_p_hiseadusp_rasusest&lang=en 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. 2026-03-24 11:44:38 Janar Jäätma http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_3_esimese_ja_teise_astme_kohtute_hendamise_ning_asenduskohtunike_instituudi_p_hiseadusp_rasus&lang=en On 25 April 2025, the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs sent out a legislative intent for coordination and opinion. This included proposals for equalising judicial workload, appointing substitute judges, enabling the payment of additional remuneration to judges, and other proposals to increase the efficiency of court work. Among other things, the legislative intent proposes the merger of courts of the same type along with the formation of a court governing body. As § 148 of the Constitution, which sets out the structure of the court system, speaks of ‘district and city courts, and administrative courts’ (clause 1), as well as ‘circuit courts of appeal’, and the plural is also used in § 149(1) and (2), it is justified to ask whether the Constitution presumes the existence of several district, city, administrative, and circuit courts. If so, the merger of courts as proposed is precluded; if not, the planned reform may proceed. With regard to substitute judges, the appointment for a specified term appears problematic at first glance, as § 147(1) of the Constitution establishes that judges shall be appointed for life. This article examines whether the merger of courts and the fixed-term nature of the office of substitute judge are in conformity with or in conflict with the Constitution. Although the merger of courts has been omitted from the latest draft of the court administration reform, it remains an issue that will in all likelihood arise again. This is confirmed by the fact that the Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs has expressed a wish to amend the Constitution to enable the merger of courts. 2026-03-24 11:47:54 Priit Pikamäe, Andra Laurand, Aaro Mõttus http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_3_he_maakohtu_p_hiseadusp_rasusest_ja_otstarbekusest_tsiviilasjade_n_itel&lang=en In April of last year, the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs sent out a legislative intent for feedback, followed by draft legislation for coordination in November. One objective was to encourage judicial specialisation and equalise workloads through the merger of district courts and the nationwide distribution of cases. Following these documents, a lively debate emerged concerning whether the existence of only one district court would be constitutional and expedient. The feedback on the idea of merging courts has been predominantly critical. Merging courts is certainly no panacea and does not reduce the workload of the judicial system as a whole. For the sake of debate, however, this article seeks to explore the potential positive aspects of merging district courts, without opposing other measures that could make the court system more efficient. The article focuses primarily on the adjudication of civil matters and does not address issues related to court management. The article proceeds from the assumption that even in the case of a single district court, it is possible to devise a management model that does not jeopardise judicial independence. 2026-03-24 11:51:12 Martin Raude http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_3_kohtuasutuste_t_korraldus_ja_juhtimine_professionaalse_organisatsiooni_vaatenurgast&lang=en Courts are not ordinary administrative bodies but independent constitutional institutions, and their reform therefore requires particularly careful consideration. Large-scale reforms inevitably entail both gains and losses, which is why academic literature consistently stresses the importance of rigorous preparation and prudent implementation. International experience indicates that mergers of court institutions rarely generate cost savings, productivity gains, or economies of scale. Instead, larger merged organizations often face rising bureaucratic and coordination costs, reduced flexibility, and more pronounced motivational challenges among judges. Court mergers therefore cannot be justified solely on grounds of efficiency; they require other, more compelling rationales. The most appropriate governance model for courts as professional organizations is often a hybrid of collegial and managerialist approaches, where members participate both in preparing and making decisions on work organization and leadership. More effective proceedings depend on leadership that supports judges and creates optimal working conditions. Structural reforms must therefore incorporate the judicial perspective, including the functioning of judges’ immediate teams and related management chains. Judicial specialization is an international trend and is already practiced in Estonia, although in varying forms and scope. However, in a small state with limited resources, narrowly defined specialization is not sustainable, as it reduces flexibility in using judicial and administrative competencies. The extent of specialization must be assessed alongside workload, as balancing specialization with equitable workload distribution is essential. Yet growing workload cannot be addressed indefinitely through redistribution or specialization alone. Comparative experience suggests that the main benefit of mergers has been organizational learning and the diffusion of best practices. Estonia likewise has unrealized potential to improve management and resource use without structural mergers. 2026-03-24 11:55:40 Külli Taro, Tiina Randma-Liiv, Külli Sarapuu http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_3_kohtunike_t_koormus_probleemi_olemus_ja_v_imalikud_lahendused&lang=en The workload of the courts is a topic that has been one of the primary subjects of conversation among judicial colleagues for at least the last five years. From anxious exchanges among judges, this issue has reached the public in various ways, ranging from statements by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to judges being forced to draw attention to the problem in the media through descriptions of their own difficult personal experiences. The progression of the problem has not gone unnoticed by lawyers and attorneys appearing before the courts. At the end of 2021, the Estonian Association of Judges conducted a survey in Estonia concerning judicial workload, which confirmed the extent of the problem. Additionally, in 2023, the Estonian Association of Judges conducted a survey concerning the social guarantees of judges. This article provides an overview of the results of these surveys and the current state of judicial workload and social guarantees. Although the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs has drafted various court reform plans, the Estonian Association of Judges believes these will not help reduce judicial workload or shorten procedural terms. The article seeks an answer to the question of whether, in addition to providing supplementary resources to the court system, any functional solutions exist that would help reduce the workload of the courts. The author considers it vital that, amidst various solutions, the judge as a human being is not forgotten – the court system can never function in the future without well-educated, qualified, and motivated judges. 2026-03-24 12:01:52 Anu Uritam