Estonian court acquits former police top brass

The Harju County Court acquitted on Monday former national police chief Elmar Vaher, former head of the Central Criminal Police Aivar Aivar Alavere and former top-ranking officer Eerik Heldna of the charges brought against them.

The first-instance court found that under section 33, subsection 1, of the Civil Service Act, the purpose of rotation may be to enhance an official's competence and motivation or to promote cooperation between authorities.

Because the law uses the word «or» in listing the purposes, it does not require all conditions to be met simultaneously. The objective of rotation is considered fulfilled even if the sole purpose is to increase the official's competence and motivation. The law does not require that cooperation between agencies be promoted in every instance of rotation.

The court noted that no evidence was presented in the criminal case to suggest that Heldna's competence or motivation did not increase during the rotation. It found it evident that Heldna's work at the defense forces' intelligence center and the Tax and Customs Board gave him new knowledge and experience, which in turn improved his professional capabilities.

The fact that Heldna did not begin performing duties at the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) immediately in April 2019 does not mean he lacked the intention to do so in the future. The mere fact that he was not required to begin duties right away, but could do so after the rotation ended, does not make the order assigning him to the position a forgery.

According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the state must cover legal costs in the case of an acquittal. Therefore, the court ordered the state to reimburse Alavere 14,178 euros, Heldna 23,307 euros, and Vaher 19,839 euros for legal expenses.

The defense attorneys for Alavere, Heldna, and Vaher also filed claims for damages caused by the criminal proceedings. Claims for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages were filed on behalf of Heldna and Vaher, while Alavere's claim was for non-pecuniary damages only.

The court found that no procedural rights had been violated in the case and therefore rejected Alavere's claim for non-pecuniary damages.

Since Vaher was deprived of his liberty for one working day, the court awarded him compensation of 65.30 euros for that day. The remainder of his non-pecuniary damages claim was rejected.

In Heldna’s case, the court awarded compensation for 40 percent of the net salary he lost due to his suspension from the police and Border Guard Board and the restriction on exercising public authority between May 8, 2023, and May 7, 2024, totaling 9,314.80 euros. He was also awarded 130.60 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from lawful detention as a suspect.

According to the charges, Heldna, with the assistance of Vaher and Alavere, caused a misconception of existing facts in the Social Insurance Board to the effect that he had completed 25 years of service as a police officer on May 5, 2022. Based on this misconception, the Social Insurance Board began paying him a superannuated pension, as provided for by law.

In February 2019, Heldna allegedly made an agreement with Vaher to be formally placed in the service of the Police and Border Guard Board and immediately returned to his previous position at the intelligence center of the defense forces, where Heldna was already employed, and where his employment relationship was never actually interrupted. Furthermore, Vaher and Alavere arranged for him to be assigned to the Central Criminal Police's secret witness protection unit, the charges say.

According to the charges, on the same day, orders were issued which formally placed Heldna in the service of the Police and Border Guard Board and rotated him back to his existing position. As per the charges, Heldna, Vaher and Alavere were all aware that Heldna had no intention of taking up duties with the Police and Border Guard Board, and the apparent appointment was arranged for the purpose of allowing Heldna, who was working in another agency, to have the possibility to qualify for a police pension in the future.

In its description of the alleged offense, the prosecution cited legal provisions relevant to determining eligibility for a police pension and the requirements for rotation under civil service law. The only legal basis cited in the charges was a violation of section 33, subsection 1, of the Civil Service Act.

The judgment has not yet entered into force. Appeals may be filed with the Tallinn Circuit Court within 30 days.