Vice-chancellor interferes with administration of justice

Mikk Salu
Copy
Please note that the article is more than five years old and belongs to our archive. We do not update the content of the archives, so it may be necessary to consult newer sources.
Photo: Justiitsministeerium

On the very day that Tallinn Circuit Court pronounced its judgement regarding the land swap case, another extraordinary event took place in the same establishment.

Namely, the court’s chairman Urmas Reinola suddenly called an extraordinary general assembly of judges both of civil, criminal and administrative chambers – to discuss the behaviour of Marko Aavik, Deputy Secretary-General with Ministry of Justice.

The general assembly issued a severe accusation, addressing the Ministry of Justice, Chancellor of Justice, Supreme Court and the Legal Affairs Committee of the Riigikogu, accusing Mr Aavik in intervention in administration of justice and the independence of courts.

The last drop entered the bucket as, a day before, a letter by Marko Aavik arrived at the judges’ mailing list (read by all judges in Estonia) in which he accused the civil chamber of Tallinn Circuit Court in wrong judgements. As an example, Mr Aavik used a civil court decision deemed by him to be legal malpractice.

As the decision has not yet entered into force, Mr Aavik interfered in a pending lawsuit (lis pendens). The court case still being in process, the circuit court letter to Minister of Justice and other institution is not public.

According to circuit court chairman Mr Reinola, the judges are especially shocked by the final sentence if Mr Aavik’s letter.

Namely, Mr Aavik expressed himself in this wise: NB! Judges, should you detect that kind of malpractice among your colleagues, please contact me.

In essence, a high state official calls all judges to tell on their colleagues.

Mr Aavik’s letter concerned the way justice was being administered, rather than its content. More specifically, the letter touched upon how the decision has to be formalised and how Code of Civil Procedure section 444 ought to be interpreted. With the latter, there has been faultfinding before. Now, however, deputy secretary-general decided to tell the court bluntly how things ought to be dome.

According to a judge in the civil chamber, it is not that court judgements could not be criticized or discussed – it is the matter of the timing, the place and the person. A deputy secretary-general in the Ministry of Justice, among other things responsible for guaranteeing the independence of courts, cannot assume the right to say how a court has to decide.

Urmas Reinola added that this was not the first time that Marko Aavik instructs judges how to administrate justice. «We had a similar case last September,» specified Mr Reinola.

Minister of Justice Hanno Pevkur admitted that Mr Aavik made a mistake. Having received the letter by the judges, last Thursday, the minister in turn wrote to his chancellors.

In spite of Mr Pevkur claiming to be resolute with his subordinates, in his written reply to the reporter and in the reporter’s conversation with judges, it is far from clear whether the minister is aware of the depth of the judges’ displeasure and the scope of his deputy secretary’s offence.

Mr Pevkur writes that should an official feel that a court ought to have done something differently, he should keep these ideas and emotions to himself and let the court do its job. At the same time, Mr Pevkur lets it be known that, generally, he agrees with Mr Aavik.

Comments
Copy
Top