Request from the European Commission (EU Justice Scoreboard 2026)

Judicial Independence (2025)

Objective
The objective of this updated questionnaire is to collect factual information on structural guarantees for judicial independence, which cover certain guarantees for the independence of judges and for the independence of the judiciary.
The updated judicial independence questionnaire maintains almost all questions from the 2024 questionnaire and is already prefilled with the replies you have provided in previous years. However, you may adapt the prefilled replies, if the legislation or practice in your country has changed or if you believe the replies should be clarified. Please highlight any such additional changes red.
For this year, we have simplified the questionnaire and removed most of the quantitative questions to reduce your workload. You need to reply only to the questions that are highlighted in yellow. These concern two new questions on appointment/dismissal of lay judges (non-professional judges) and on powers of assemblies of judges/judges’ councils at courts, and a fine-tuned question on probationary period. The replies given in the present questionnaire could later be published.

Respondent’s Information
Member State-Court
Name
Function
Email
Phone
Supreme Court of Estonia
Karin Leichter-Tammisto
Legal Adviser to the Chief Justice
[email protected]
+372 7309022

Additional Information
For additional information regarding the questionnaire, please contact Jože Štrus ([email protected], +32 229-68992), or Georgi Ganchev ([email protected], +32 229-13475) in the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers.

1. AUTHORITIES WITH POWER TO DELIVER THE MAIN DECISIONS ON HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES IN THE JUDICIARY1
Which authorities or bodies have the power to deliver the following decisions in the judiciary?

1.1. Selection, appointment and dismissal of judges and court presidents
[Please insert an “x” into the box that corresponds to the situation in your country; several answers possible; insert "N/A" when the situation is not applicable in your country;
if relevant, you can additionally insert the following explanations:
"FS" (final selection), "CA" (consultative advice – the body can provide its opinion), "MA" (mandatory advice – the body must provide its opinion, the content of which is either binding or not for the deciding authority), "D" (decision). Please insert "OF" (obligation to follow) if the deciding authority has an obligation, either by law or practice, to follow the proposal to appoint or dismiss a judge.]
x) decision establishing there is a vacant judicial position
a) proposal of candidates for the appointment as first or second instance judges
b) decision on the appointment of a first or second instance judge
c) proposal for the dismissal of a first or second instance judge
d) decision on the dismissal of a first or second instance judge
e) proposal of candidates for the appointment as court presidents
f) decision on the appointment of a court president
g) proposal for the dismissal of a court president
h) decision on the dismissal of a court president
i) court/other authority reviewing the dismissal of a court president

x)
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
President of a court: (President of a higher instance court in case of dismissal of I instance court President)









MA
Special chamber of a court:










Higher court:










Supreme Court:

FS
MA
x
D





Council for the Judiciary2: PLEASE NOTE! In Estonia, the Council is only an advisory body to the Minister of Justice, it is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court






MA

MA

OF
Judicial inspection body: Disciplinary Chamber of Judges




D





Other independent body (specify): Judges’ Examination Committee

CA








Ministry/Minister of justice:
D




FS
D
FS
D
D
Other ministry than min. of justice (specify): …










Parliament:










Head of state: President of Estonia on advice of the Supreme Court


D

D





Other (specify): Estonian Internal Security Service

MA








Other (specify): Full Court of a particular court

MA




MA

MA
MA
1.1.1. If any other authority, body or agency is involved in the procedure for appointment of judges, please describe its involvement:
§ 55. Appointment as judge
(1) Judges of a court of the first instance and judges of a court of appeal shall be appointed by the President of the Republic on the proposal of the Supreme Court en banc. The Supreme Court en banc shall first consider the opinion of the full court of the court for which the person runs as a candidate.
Candidates of judicial office also need to pass a security check conducted by the Estonian Internal Security Service before being appointed as judge as all the Estonian judges have by their profession access to all levels of state secrets. The procedure of conducting background checks is also regulated in the Courts Act:

§ 54. Assessment of suitability of personal characteristics of candidates for judicial office
(1) The suitability of the personal characteristics of a candidate for judicial office shall be evaluated by the judge’s examination committee. The judge’s examination committee shall take into account in the evaluation of the personal characteristics of a candidate for judicial office the information which is important for the performance of the duties of a judge and the committee can make inquiries.
(1-1) The forms and procedure for the evaluation of the personal characteristics shall be stipulated in the rules of procedure of the judge’s examination committee.
(2) A candidate for judicial office shall pass a security check before being appointed judge, excluding the case if he or she holds a valid access permit to access state secrets classified as top secret or if the time of becoming a candidate he or she occupies a position which provides the right by virtue of office to access all levels of state secrets.
(3) To pass the security check, a candidate for judicial office shall complete the form used to apply for an access permit to state secrets and sign the consent which permits the agency which performs security checks to obtain information concerning the person from natural and legal persons and state and local government agencies and bodies during the performance of the security check, and submit these through the judge’s examination committee to the Estonian Internal Security Service.
(4) The Estonian Internal Security Service performs the security check of a candidate for judicial office pursuant to the procedure prescribed in the Security Authorities Act.
(5) The Estonian Internal Security Service shall, within three months as of receipt of the documents specified in subsection (3) of this section, present the information gathered as a result of the security check to the judge’s examination committee and shall provide an opinion on whether a person who submitted the application meets the conditions for the issue of a permit for access to state secrets.
(6) Relying on the data collected in the course of the security check, a candidate for judicial office may be appointed judge within three years as of the time when the Estonian Internal Security Service forwarded the information collected in the course of the security check to the judge’s examination committee. A person may be appointed judge later than the above term after passing a new security check.
(6-1) The examination committee may apply for:
1) specification and modification of the information gathered in the course of the security check;
2) verification of existence of individual circumstances specified in § 32 of the State Secrets and Classified Information of Foreign States Act within the term specified in subsection (6) of this section.
(6-2) To specify and modify the information specified in subsection (6-1) of this section and verify the existence of circumstances specified in § 32 of the State Secrets and Classified Information of Foreign States Act, a candidate for judicial office shall sign the consent specified in subsection (3) of this section.
(7) The judge’s examination committee shall forward its decision and the documents specified in subsections (3) and (5) of this section to the Supreme Court en banc and notify the examinee of the decision.
§ 54-1. Security check of candidate for Chief Justice of Supreme Court
1) A candidate for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall pass a security check before being appointed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, excluding the case if he or she holds a valid access permit to access state secrets classified as top secret or if the time of becoming a candidate he or she occupies a position which provides the right by virtue of office to access all levels of state secrets.
(2) A person acquires the status of the candidate for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court after the President of the Republic has proposed to the person to apply for the office and the person agrees to it in writing.
(3) The Estonian Internal Security Service performs the security check of a candidate for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court pursuant to the procedure prescribed in the Security Authorities Act.
(4) In order to pass the security check, the candidate for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall submit a completed form for an applicant for a permit to access state secrets to the Estonian Internal Security Service through the Office of the President of the Republic, and also written consent which permits the agency which performs security checks to obtain information concerning the person from natural and legal persons and state and local government agencies and bodies during the performance of the security check.
(5) The Estonian Internal Security Service shall, within three months as of receipt of the documents specified in subsection (4) of this section, present the information collected as a result of the security check to the President of the Republic and shall provide an opinion concerning the compliance of the candidate for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court with the conditions for the issue of a permit for access to state secrets.
(6) In the cases where the authority of the Chief Justice of Supreme Court have terminated prematurely, the security check of the candidate for Chief Justice of Supreme Court shall be performed within one month after receipt of the documents specified in subsection (4) of this section. With the permission of the Security Committee of the Government of Republic, the term for performing the security check may be extended by one month if circumstances specified in clause 33 (24) 1) or 2) of the State Secrets and Classified Information of Foreign States Act arise or if it is possible that circumstances specified in clause 30 (21) 3) or 4) of the State Secrets and Classified Information of Foreign States Act may arise within one month.
(7) Relying on the data collected in the course of the security check, a candidate for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may be appointed to office within nine months as of the time when the agency which performed the security check forwarded the information collected in the course of the security check to President of the Republic. A candidate for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may be appointed to office later than the above term after passing a new security check.
Conclusive remarks on the procedure of appointment of first and second instance judges: The Minister of Justice announces a public competition in order to fill vacant positions of first and second instance judges (§ 53(2) of the Courts Act). An interested person shall submit an application to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court within one month (§ 53(3) of the Courts Act). Candidates for judicial office of first and second instance courts need to pass personality tests and a background check executed by the Judges Examination Committee and a security check conducted by the Estonian Internal Security Service (§ 54 and 54-1 of the Courts Act). Once a person has passed tests, background check and the security check all candidates are interviewed by the Judges Examination Committee in order to assess their personal characteristics. From there on all the materials of the “passed” candidates are submitted to the Supreme Court en banc (to all the 19 justices of the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court en banc makes a proposition to the President of the Republic whom to appoint as judge. Before making the proposition to the President the Supreme Court en banc considers the opinion of the full court of the court for which the person runs as a candidate (opinion of the general assembly of that court). Judges of first and second instance courts are appointed by the President of the Republic. It should also be noted that before applying for a position of a judge all candidates also have to take a judges exam (passing the judges exam is a precondition for applying for the position of a judge).
Explanation about the dismissal of I and II instance judges: According to § 30 (2) p 2 the Supreme Court en banc makes the proposal to the President of the Republic to release a judge from office. The President of the Republic makes the final decision concerning the release of first and second instance judges. Judges can also be removed from office. Judges Disciplinary Committee has the right to impose the disciplinary sanction of removing the judge from office (§ 88 of the Courts Act). The decisions of the Judges Disciplinary Committee can be appealed the Supreme Court en banc who has the power to refuse amendment or to annul the decision and acquit the judge (§ 97 of the Courts Act).
The minister of justice can release the chairman of a court prematurely:
1) at the request of the chairman of a court;
2) upon his or her election or appointment as a judge of European Court of Human Rights, European Court of Justice or other international court institution
3) if a chairman has failed to perform his/her duties;
In the latter case the minister of justice shall consider the opinion of the full court and in case of chairmen of first instance courts also the opinion of the chairman of the circuit court in whose territorial jurisdiction the first instance court is located (§ 12, § 18 and § 24 of the Courts Act). In addition, the Council for Administration of Courts has to approve the premature release of the chairman of a court (§ 41 of the Courts Act).
Should the chairman of a court not agree with the decision of the Minister they have the opportunity to challenge this decision at administrative court (all the way up to the Supreme Court).
1.1.1.1 If one of these bodies is the national security agency (e.g. intelligence department), what is its level of involvement? [several answers possible]
☒ For the specific purpose of granting access to classified information, the national security agency performs a verification procedure based on a questionnaire, for the classified information level (specify) [all levels], as for any other person seeking access to classified information
☐Upon an explicit request, the national security agency checks its records, whether the candidate has been referred to in any way
☐All candidate judges and/or existing judges (specify who) are systematically subjected to a verification procedure by the national security agency
☐Other (specify): …
1.1.1.2. Which body/authority receives the report/information on the security check conducted by the national security agency?
☐Council for the Judiciary
☐Other independent body (specify): …
☐Court responsible for disciplinary measures for judges (e.g. disciplinary senate, civil service court…)
☐Another court / President of another court (specify):
☒Other body/authority (specify): Judge’s Examination Committee (§ 54-1 subsection 5 of the Court Act). The Judge’s Examination Committee forwards its decision and a selection of documents, including the opinion the Estonian Internal Security Service, to the Supreme Court en banc (§ 54-1 subsection 7 f the Courts Act).



1.1.1.3. Can the candidate/existing judge request a review/challenge the report/findings of the national security agency?
☐Yes
☒No
1.1.1.4. If yes, which authority or body decides on such an appeal/review?
☐Council for the Judiciary
☐Other independent body (specify): …
☐Court responsible for disciplinary measures for judges (e.g. disciplinary senate, civil service court…)
☐Another court / President of another court
☐Higher court / President of a higher court
☐Administrative court / President of the Administrative Court
☐Supreme Court / President of the Supreme Court
☐Constitutional Court / President of the Constitutional Court
☐Other (specify): …
1.1.2. What is the procedure for selecting candidates for becoming judges? [several answers possible]
☒Recruitment through a specific exam or a competition, which includes a specific exam for becoming a judge
☐Recruitment through a vacancy notice without a specific exam
☒ Other (specify):
A person who was worked for at least three years as a sworn advocate or prosecutor, excluding an assistant prosecutor, and runs as a candidate for judicial office within three years after terminating the activities of a sworn advocate or prosecutor shall be exempted from passing a judge’s examination. The judge’s examination committee may exempt from a judge’s examination also a person who has worked in another office or position, if the complexity and responsibility of the office or position correspond to the complexity and responsibility of judicial office.
Different procedure is in place for judges of the Supreme Court. According to § 52 of the Courts Act: “A person who is an experienced and recognised lawyer may be appointed as a justice of the Supreme Court (Supreme Court justice).” This means that in order to become a justice of the Supreme Court there is a public competition but no obligation to pass a specific exam. The procedure of appointing judges of the Supreme Court also differs from that of first and second instance judges as the proposition to appoint a person as a justice of the Supreme Court is made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (once he/she has considered the opinion of the Supreme Court en banc and the opinion of the Council for Administration of Courts). Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the Parliament.
1.1.2.1 Does the appointing authority/body have the power, either by law or constitutional practice, to reject the appointment of a candidate judge? ["Appointing authority/body" is the one, which at the end of the procedure decides on the appointment of a judge, as specified under 1.1.(b) and 1.1.(f).]
☐No, the appointing authority/body has an obligation by law/by constitutional practice (specify which) to follow the proposal to appoint a candidate judge
☒ Yes, the appointing authority/body can decide not to appoint a candidate judge, but cannot choose any other candidate apart from those names submitted by the proposing authority
☐Yes, the appointing authority/body can decide not to appoint a candidate judge and can choose any other candidate, even if the proposing authority did not submit the name
☐Other (specify): …
1.1.3. If a candidate judge is not appointed, is the appointing authority/body required to provide him/her the reasons (e.g. a reasoned explanation)? ["Appointing authority/body" is the one, which at the end of the procedure decides on the appointment of a judge.]
☐Yes
☒ No
1.1.4. If a candidate judge is not appointed, can he/she appeal or request a review?
☒ Yes
☐No
1.1.4.1. If yes, which authority or body decides on such an appeal/review?
☐Council for the Judiciary
☐Other independent body (specify): …
☐Court responsible for disciplinary measures for judges (e.g. disciplinary senate, civil service court…)
☐Another court / President of another court
☐Higher court / President of a higher court
☐Administrative court / President of the Administrative Court
☐Supreme Court / President of the Supreme Court
☒ Constitutional Court / President of the Constitutional Court (which in our case is the Supreme Court) – it should be noted that this has never happened, meaning the provision providing such an opportunity has not been applied in this context.
☐Other (specify): …
1.1.4.2. What was the total number of appeals or requests for a review by unsuccessful candidate judges in 2024?
[If only an estimate is available, add "approx. …" or "fewer than …".]
All requests for appeal/review: ☐:………… / ☐N/A
If possible, specify this number for judges in different areas:
Civil: ☐:………… / ☐N/A
Administrative: ☐:………… / ☐N/A
Criminal: ☐:………… / ☐N/A
If possible, specify what was the total number of judges appointed in 2024: …
1.1.4.3. Does the appointing authority/body have the power, either by law or constitutional practice, to reject the appointment of a candidate for the position of a court president? ["Appointing authority/body" is the one, which at the end of the procedure decides on the appointment of a court president, as specified under 1.1.(f). in the table above]
☐No, the appointing authority/body has an obligation by law/by constitutional practice (specify which) to follow the proposal to appoint a candidate for the position of a court president
☐Yes, the appointing authority/body can decide not to appoint a candidate for the position of a court president, but cannot choose any other candidate apart from those names submitted by the proposing authority
☒Yes, the appointing authority/body can decide not to appoint a candidate for the position of a court president and can choose any other candidate, even if the name was not submitted by the proposing authority – To clarify: the first and second instance court presidents are appointed by the Minister of Justice after having heard the opinion of the full court for which the president is being appointed. The opinion of the full court is not binding to the minister. The Minister of Justice may, but is not obliged to set up a selection board for the position of the president of the court. If the Minister of Justice decides to set up a selection board, which proposes a candidate for the position of a court president, that proposal is also not binding. But it should be noted that the appointment to the position of a court president could only be done on the approval of the Council for Adminsitration of Courts (§ 41 section 1 subsection 5 of the Courts Act): the minister of justice selects a candidate, then presents the candidate to the Council for Administration of Courts for approval.
☐Other (specify): …
1.1.4.4. If a candidate for the position of a court president is not appointed, is the appointing authority/body required to provide him/her the reasons (e.g. a reasoned explanation)? ["Appointing authority/body" is the one, which at the end of the procedure decides on the appointment of a court president, as specified under 1.1.(f). in the table above]
☐Yes
☒No
1.1.4.5. If a candidate for the position of a court president is not appointed, can he/she appeal or request a review?
☒Yes (please specify if procedure is different from the one for candidate judges described above (see 1.1.4.1.)): If a candidate for the position of a court president is not appointed, they can turn to the administrative court to challenge the result of the competition.
☐No
1.1.5. After being first appointed as judges, are they appointed for a probationary period?
☒Yes. Please specify the length of the probationary period: 3 years
☐No
1.1.5.1. What happens at the end of the probationary period?
☐There is no specific assessment of how the judge worked during the probationary period
☐By default, there is no specific assessment of how the judge worked during the probationary period, unless explicitly requested. What triggers this assessment (please specify)?: …
☐There is a mandatory assessment of how the judge worked during the probationary period
☒Other (please specify): All first instance court judges are assigned a mentor for their first year. The mentor-judge submits a report (4 times a year) on the newly appointed judge to the Court President. The Court Presidents submits a report on the newly appointed judge to the Judges’ Examination Committee. The Court President submits the report once a year during 3-year probationary period. The newly appointed judges of second instance are not assigned a mentor; however, their Court President also has an obligation to submit a report to the Judges’ Examination Committee.
If the Court President has nothing negative to report, the 3-year probationary period ends with no further action. If there are problems, the suitability of the newly appointed judge may be re-assessed. This procedure is regulated by § 100 of the Courts Act. According to § 100 section 3: Upon assessment of suitability for the office of judge, the Supreme Court en banc shall consider the proposal of a person or body entitled to commence disciplinary proceedings, the opinion of the judge’s examination committee and other information characterising the work of the judge.
1.1.5.2. Which body performs the assessment of how the judge worked during the probationary period?
☐Council for the Judiciary
☒Other independent body (specify): Judges’ Examination Committee
☐Court responsible for disciplinary measures for judges (e.g. disciplinary senate, civil service court…)
☐Another court / President of another court
☐Higher court / President of a higher court
☐Administrative court / President of the Administrative Court
☒Other (specify): The President of the same Court and the Supreme Court en banc (plenary of the Court)
1.1.5.3. What are the criteria for the assessment of how the judge worked during the probationary period?
☒Quantitative appraisal of judge's work (e.g. based on statistical analysis; please specify): the number of solved cases (compared to the average), the number of decisions that have annulled or changed by the higher court, participation in judicial trainings,
☒Qualitative appraisal of judge's work (please specify): professional skills (including areas that require training), personal characteristics (e.g. relations with other colleagues, tolerance of stress, politeness, dignity, emotional stability etc).
☐Other (please specify): …
1.1.5.4. If the assessment of how the judge worked during the probationary period is not favourable, what happens?
☐Prolongation of the probationary period (please specify the length and procedure): …
☐Dismissal of the judge (please specify the procedure): …
☒Other (specify): According to § 100 of the Courts Act a person may be released from the office of judge due to unsuitability for office only within three years after appointment to office if the judge has been declared unsuitable for office by a decision of the Supreme Court en banc. Upon assessment of suitability for the office of judge, the Supreme Court en banc shall consider the proposal of a person or body entitled to commence disciplinary proceedings, the opinion of the judge’s examination committee and other information characterising the work of the judge.
1.1.5.5. Can judges request review of the assessment of their work during the probationary period?
☒Yes
☐No
1.1.5.5.1. If yes, which authority or body decides on such an appeal/review?
☐Council for the Judiciary
☒Other independent body (specify): The Supreme Court en banc assesses the suitability for office of the judge. For this purpose, a hearing is organised where the assessed judge can voice their arguments/explanations.
☐Court responsible for disciplinary measures for judges (e.g. disciplinary senate, civil service court…)
☐Higher court / President of a higher court
☐Administrative court / President of the Administrative Court
☐Supreme Court / President of the Supreme Court
☐Constitutional Court / President of the Constitutional Court
☐Other (specify): …
1.1.5.6. Where are the criteria for the assessment of the judge’s probationary period set?
☐Set in law
☐Set in an act adopted by the Council for the Judiciary
☐Set in an act adopted by the Minister of justice
☐Set in an act adopted by a court
☐Other (specify): …
1.1.6. What is the procedure for appointing court presidents?
☐Recruitment through a specific exam or a competition for court presidents (please specify): …
☒Recruitment through a vacancy notice for a court president (without a specific exam) (please specify): Court presidents of first instance courts shall be appointed from among the judges of a court of the first instance and of a court of appeal. The president of a circuit court shall be appointed from among the judges of a court of appeal. The court presidents of first and second instance courts shall be appointed by the minister responsible for the area after having considered the opinion of the full court and after the Council for Administration of Courts has granted approval for the appointment to office.
☐Becoming a court president is a career step (please specify): …
☐Other (specify): …
1.1.7. Once court presidents are appointed, what is their term?
☐Indefinite term
☒Limited term (please specify the length and whether re-appointment is possible): The length of term of court presidents of first and second instance courts is 7 years. No-one can be elected as the president of the same court for two consecutive terms (e.g. Courts Act § 12)
1.1.8. Can judges also be appointed as acting court presidents (ad interim)?
☐Yes (please specify the situations where this is possible and the appointment procedure): …
☒No. According to § 12 section 6 of the Courts Act “In the absence of the chairman of a court, a judge designated by the chairman shall substitute for him or her. If the chairman of a court has not designated an acting chairman, a judge who is senior in office shall substitute for him or her, and where there is equal seniority in office, a judge who is senior in age shall substitute for him or her.”
1.1.9. What are the criteria/conditions for becoming a first or second instance judge or court president (insert a brief list of conditions such as education / age / other requirements or tests)?
First instance judge:
1) citizenship of Estonia; 2) Master’s degree in law; 3) proficiency of the Estonian language; 4) high moral character; 5) abilities and personal characteristics necessary for working as a judge; 6) at least 5 years of work experience in an office or position requiring a Master’s degree in law OR who has worked as a law clerk or judicial clerk for at least three years and; 7) passing of the judge’s examination (unless one is exempted therefrom)
Second instance judge:
1) citizenship of Estonia; 2) Master’s degree in law; 3) proficiency of the Estonian language; 4) high moral character; 5) abilities and personal characteristics necessary for working as a judge; 6) experienced and recognised lawyer; 7) passing of the judge’s examination (unless one is exempted therefrom)
Court president:
None set out in law.
1.1.10. What are the powers of court presidents of first instance courts (if there are different first instance courts, please choose the lowest level)?
Powers relating to the career of judges (Please ensure that the replies are consistent with 1.1., 1.5., 4.1.1.)
☐ Decision establishing there is a vacant judicial position
☐ Decision on the evaluation of a judge
☐ Decision on the promotion of a judge within the same court
Decision on the transfer of judges without their consent:
☐ Between courts
☒ Between sections/chambers of the same court (also when in different geographical locations)
☐ Application of ethical standards regarding a judge
☐ Disciplinary decision regarding a judge (please specify what kind of disciplinary sanction can the court president impose on a judge): …
☒ Decision on the follow-up to a complaint against the judiciary/a judge
☐ Decision on the program/content of training for judges
☐ Selection of the judges that are eligible for training
☒ Conducting an investigation of a disciplinary offence concerning a judge (e.g. conducting a hearing with the concerned judge, examining the court cases by the judge) – to specify, the chairman of a court has the right to commence disciplinary proceedings against the judges of the same court. The chairman who commences a disciplinary proceeding may gather evidence and demand explanations which are necessary to adjudicate the disciplinary matter. The person who commences disciplinary procedure shall forward the disciplinary charges and the related material to the Disciplinary Chamber. For the adjudication of disciplinary matters of judges, the Supreme Court shall comprise the Disciplinary Chamber, which is comprised of five justices of the Supreme Court, five circuit court judges and five judges of courts of the first instance.
☒ Other (please specify): According to § 12(3) of the Courts Act, the chairmen of county courts shall:
1) organise activities in the area of administration of justice;
2) approve the draft budget of the court prepared by the director of court;
3) exercise supervisory control prescribed by law;
4) prepare the draft of the training plan of judges and submit it for approval to the full court, organise and monitor compliance with the plan and present a review on compliance with the plan to the full court at least once a year;
5) perform other duties arising from law and the internal rules of the court.

According to § 58-3(1) of the Courts Act, the chairman of a court may send a judge, subject to his or her consent and at the request of the chairman of another court, to hear a matter in another court of the same or lower instance if this is required for administration of justice pursuant to the requirements. The judge shall retain his or her authority of administration of justice also in the court in which territorial jurisdiction is his or her permanent place of service.
Powers relating to the functioning of the court (Please ensure that the replies are consistent with 1.5., 1.7., 5.2, 5.3., 7.1.1.)
☒ General management of the court – Powers related to the functioning of the court fall mainly in the competence of the court director. According to § 125 of the Courts Act, the director of court shall:
1) organise the administrating of affairs of the judicial institution;
2) organise the use of the assets of the judicial institution;
3) prepare, with the approval of the chairman of the court, the draft budget of the judicial institution and submit the draft budget to the minister responsible for the area;
4) control the budgetary funds of the judicial institution;
5) be responsible for the organisation of accounting of the judicial institution;
6) appoint court officers to office and release them from office;
7) perform other duties assigned to him or her by the internal rules of the court and the court office
☒ Decisions regarding the court building
☒ Decisions regarding the court security
☒ Decisions regarding the implementation and use of Information and Communication Technology in the court
☐ Management of the financial resources of the court
☐ Evaluation of the performance management of the court
☒ Communication with the media
☐ Management decisions regarding court staff other than judges
☐ Decision on the allocation of cases
☒ Decision on the transfer of cases within the same court after they were assigned to the competent judges
☒ Supervision on the allocation of cases (e.g. regular checks of the practice of allocation
☐ Other (Please specify): …
1.1.10.1. If the President of a higher/appeal court has certain additional or different powers over judges or courts within the same jurisdiction (e.g. allocation of financial resources to lower courts, approving the transfer of cases between lower courts), please describe these differences:
The chairman of the Tallinn Circuit Court (the court of appeal) has a very specific competence stipulated in § 24 (3-1) of the Courts Act: The Chairman of Tallinn Circuit Court shall grant his or her consent on the basis of a written request of the Prosecutor General for performance of procedural acts with respect to a member of the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) specified in subsection 382-2 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before obtaining consent for preparation of a statement of charges.
In addition, chairmen of circuit courts shall also exercise supervisory control over judges of the courts of the first instance.
As of 2020 according to § 45-1 (1) of the Courts Act the chairmen of circuit courts may, at the request of the chairman of a county court or administrative court, by their joint decision, refer a matter which can be determined on the basis of general elements to another court of the same instance for judgment if this is required for administration of justice pursuant to the requirements, in particular if it is evident that it is not possible to ensure administration of justice pursuant to the requirements in the court the chairman of which filed the request, by the measures provided for in subsection 45 (1-1) of the Courts Act. Moreover, on the basis of information received pursuant to Obligation to Leave and Prohibition on Entry Act or the Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens, the chairmen of circuit courts may, by their joint decision, temporarily send a judge of a county court or circuit court without his or her consent to an administrative court for review the applications for detention of aliens if this is required for administration of justice pursuant to the requirements (§ 45-2 (1) of the Courts Act).

As of 2023 according to § 24 section 3-3 the chairman of Circuit Courts of Appeal organise the participation of law clerks in the prospective judicial candidates training programme.
1.1.10.2. If the President of the Supreme (Administrative) Court has certain additional or different powers over lower instance judges or courts (e.g. allocation of financial resources to lower courts, approving the transfer of cases between lower courts), please describe these differences:
The President of the Supreme Court has several additional powers over lower instant judges or power that the other chairmen of the courts do not have. For example, the Council for Administration of Courts, which is responsible (in co-operation with the Ministry of Justice) for the administration of the first instance and courts of appeal, is chaired by the President of the Supreme Court.
According to § 38 (4) the Court en banc, which is comprised of all Estonian Judges, shall be chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court unless the Court en banc decides otherwise.
According to § 59 and § 60 of the Courts Act the President of the Supreme Court shall organise the maintenance of service records and personal files of judges. Paragraph 84 (5) enacts that an extraordinary holiday for up to one year without pay may be granted to a judge by the President of the Supreme Court with the consent of the full court of the court where the judge is employed. Paragraph 99 (2) stipulates that on the proposal of the President of the Supreme Court, the judges of a court of the first instance and judges of a court of appeal shall be released from office by the President of the Republic.

The president of the Supreme Court has the right to commence disciplinary proceedings against all judges (§ 91 (2) of the Courts Act).
1.1.10.3. If the President of the court exercises these powers together with others (e.g. board, court vice-president), please explain:

1.1.11. Can a person who is currently not a judge, be appointed as a temporary judge (outside the probationary period, if this exists)?
☒No
☐Yes
1.1.11.1. If yes, under what circumstances can such temporary judges be appointed (e.g. emergency situation in the courts), which authority or body decides on such appointment, and do they have the same independence guarantees as regular judges?



1.1.12. If there are non-professional/lay judges in your country, please explain the bodies and authorities involved in their appointment and dismissal
[Please insert an “x” into the box that corresponds to the situation in your country; several answers possible; insert "N/A" when the situation is not applicable in your country;
if relevant, you can additionally insert the following explanations:
"FS" (final selection), "CA" (consultative advice – the body can provide its opinion), "MA" (mandatory advice – the body must provide its opinion, the content of which is either binding or not for the deciding authority), "D" (decision). Please insert "OF" (obligation to follow) if the deciding authority has an obligation, either by law or practice, to follow the proposal to appoint or dismiss a judge.]
☐Not applicable
a) proposal of candidates for the appointment as non-professional/lay judges
b) decision on the appointment of a non-professional/lay judge
c) proposal for the dismissal of a non-professional/lay judge
d) decision on the dismissal of a non-professional/lay judge



a)
b)
c)
d)
President of a court:




Special chamber of a court:




Supreme Court:





Council for the Judiciary:





Judicial inspection body:




Other independent body (specify): …





Ministry/Minister of justice:





Other ministry than min. of justice (specify): …





Parliament:





Head of state: if applicable- on advice of …





Other (specify): …





Other (specify): …






1.1.13. If there are bodies consisting of judges in your country (e.g. assembly of Supreme Court judges, council of judges at each court, board of a court) that are other than councils for the judiciary, please explain their powers/competences:
Powers relating to the career of judges
☐ Opinion on a candidate for a judge within the same court
☐ Opinion in the process of an evaluation of a judge within the same court
☐ Opinion in the process of the promotion of a judge within the same court
☐ Opinion in the process of application of ethical standards regarding a judge within the same court
☐ Opinion in the process of disciplinary proceedings regarding a judge within the same court
☐ Other (please specify): …
Powers relating to the functioning of the court
☐ General management of the court
☐ Decisions regarding the court building
☐ Decisions regarding the court security
☐ Decisions regarding the implementation and use of Information and Communication Technology in the court
☐ Management of the financial resources of the court
☐ Evaluation of the performance management of the court
☐ Communication with the media
☐ Management decisions regarding court staff other than judges
☐ Decision on the allocation of cases
☐ Decision on the transfer of cases within the same court after they were assigned to the competent judges
☐ Supervision on the allocation of cases (e.g. regular checks of the practice of allocation
☐ Other (Please specify): …

1.2. Selection, appointment and dismissal of Supreme Court judges and the President of the Supreme Court
[Please insert an “x” into the box that corresponds to the situation in your country; several answers possible; insert "N/A" when the situation is not applicable in your country;
if relevant, you can additionally insert the following explanations:
"FS" (final selection), "CA" (consultative advice – the body can provide its opinion), "MA" (mandatory advice – the body must provide its opinion, the content of which is either binding or not for the deciding authority), "D" (decision). Please insert "OF" (obligation to follow) if the deciding authority has an obligation, either by law or practice, to follow the proposal to appoint or dismiss a judge.]
e) proposal of candidates for the appointment as Supreme Court judges
f) decision on the appointment of a Supreme Court judge
g) proposal for the dismissal of a Supreme Court judge
h) decision on the dismissal of a Supreme Court judge
i) proposal of the candidate(s) for the appointment of the President of the Supreme Court
j) decision on the appointment of the President of the Supreme Court
k) proposal for the dismissal of the President of the Supreme Court
l) decision on the dismissal of the President of the Supreme Court

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
President of a court:








Special chamber of a court:








Supreme Court:

CA


D



D
Council for the Judiciary:

CA







Judicial inspection body: Disciplinary Chamber of Judges



D



D
Other independent body (specify): …









Ministry/Minister of justice:









Other ministry than min. of justice (specify): …









Parliament:


D

D

X

D
Head of state: if applicable- on advice of …





X

X

Other (specify): Chief Justice of the Supreme Court after public competition




D

x





1.2.1. If the procedures mentioned above are different for the judges and/or the President of the Supreme administrative court or the Council of State, please describe these differences:
The procedure is the same as the Estonian Supreme Court is also the Supreme administrative court of Estonia.

Explanation of the procedure of dismissal of Supreme Court Judges and the President of the Supreme Court: According to the Courts Act (§ 99 (3)) the Supreme Court judges are released from office by the Parliament on the proposal of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, except if a justice shall be released from office at the request of the justice or due to age – in these cases the justices of the Supreme Court shall be released from office by the Supreme Court en banc on the proposal of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Chief justice of the Supreme Court is, in general, released from office by the Parliament on the proposal of the President of the Republic. Both, the judges of the Supreme Court as well as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can be removed from office with the decision of the disciplinary committee as well as the decision of the Supreme Court en banc when reviewing the appeal on the decision of the judges’ disciplinary committee.

1.2.2. What are the criteria/conditions for becoming a Supreme Court judge or the President of the Supreme Court (insert a brief list of conditions such as education / age / other requirements or tests)?
Supreme Court judge:
1) Citizenship of Estonia; 2) Master’s degree in law; 3) proficiency of the Estonian language; 4) high moral character; 5) abilities and personal characteristics necessary for working as a judge; 6) experienced and recognised lawyer.
President of the Supreme Court:
1) Citizenship of Estonia; 2) Master’s degree in law; 3) proficiency of the Estonian language; 4) high moral character; 5) abilities and personal characteristics necessary for working as a judge; 6) experienced and recognised lawyer.
1.2.3. Does the appointing authority/body have the power, either by law or by constitutional practice, to reject the appointment of a candidate proposed by the relevant authority for the position of a Supreme Court judge/President? ["Appointing authority/body" is the one, which at the end of the procedure decides on the appointment of a Supreme Court judge or President of the Supreme Court, as specified under 1.2.(b) and 1.2.(f).]
☐No, the appointing authority/body has an obligation by law/by constitutional practice (specify which) to follow the proposal to appoint a candidate for a Supreme Court judge/President
☒Yes, the appointing authority/body can decide not to appoint a candidate for a Supreme Court judge/President, but cannot choose any other candidate apart from those names submitted by the proposing authority
☐Yes, the appointing authority/body can decide not to appoint a candidate for a Supreme Court judge/President and can choose any other candidate, even if the proposing authority did not submit the name
☐Other (specify): …
If the procedure is different for the Supreme Court President, please explain: …
1.2.3.1. If the appointing authority can decide not to appoint a candidate, how many times has this happened in the last 5 years?
☒Never – the proposed candidates for the Supreme Court judge/President were always appointed
☐The appointing authority rejected:
- … candidates for Supreme Court judges
- … candidates for Supreme Court President
Comments: …
1.2.4. If a candidate for a Supreme Court judge/President is not appointed, is the appointing authority/body required to provide him/her the reasons (e.g. a reasoned explanation)? ["Appointing authority/body" is the one, which at the end of the procedure decides on the appointment of a Supreme Court judge/President.]
☐Yes
☒No
If the procedure is different for the Supreme Court President, please explain: …

1.2.5. If a candidate for a Supreme Court judge/President is not appointed, can he/she appeal or request a review?
☒Yes
☐No
If the procedure is different for the Supreme Court President, please explain: …

1.2.5.1. If yes, which authority or body decides on such an appeal/review?
☐Council for the Judiciary
☐Other independent body (specify): …
☐Court responsible for disciplinary measures for judges (e.g. disciplinary senate, civil service court…)
☐Administrative court / President of the Administrative Court
☐Higher court / President of a higher court
☐Supreme Court
☒Constitutional Court / President of the Constitutional Court (which in our case is the Supreme Court) – it should be noted that this has never happened, meaning the provision providing such an opportunity has not been applied in this context.
☐Other (specify): …
1.3. What are the reasons for the dismissal of a judge (please list all possible reasons)?
☒Disciplinary offence
☒Criminal offence
☒Incompatibility (only within three years since being appointed as judge)
☐Illness
☒Other (specify): 1) the request of a judge; 2) age (68 years is the maximum age); 3) liquidation of the court or reduction of the number of judges; 4) if after leaving the service in the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Justice, an international court institution or after returning from an international civil mission, a judge does not have the opportunity to return to his or her former position of judge, and he or she does not wish to be transferred to another court; 5) if a judge is appointed or elected to the position or office which is not in accordance with the restrictions on services of judges; 6) if facts become evident which according to law preclude the appointment of the person as a judge.
1.3.1. What was the total number of all judges that were dismissed in 2024 (e.g. only as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings or criminal conviction; excluding other grounds such as incompatibility, illness, resignation, retirement)? [if only an estimate is available, add "approx. …" or "fewer than …".]
In all courts: ☐:………… / ☐N/A
If possible, specify this number for judges in different areas:
Civil: ☐:………… / ☐N/A
Administrative: ☐:………… / ☐N/A
Criminal: ☐:………… / ☐N/A
1.4. Can a judge appeal if he/she is dismissed?
☒ Yes
☐No
1.4.1. If yes, which authority or body decides on such an appeal?
☐Council for the Judiciary
☐Other independent body (specify): …
☐Court responsible for disciplinary measures for judges (e.g. disciplinary senate, civil service court…)
☐Another court / President of another court
☐Higher court / President of a higher court
☐Administrative court / President of the Administrative Court
☐Supreme Court / President of the Supreme Court
☐Constitutional Court / President of the Constitutional Court
☒ Other (specify): The Supreme Court en banc (all the 19 justices of the Supreme Court)
1.5. Evaluation, promotion, disciplinary measures and training of judges
[Please insert an “x” into the box that corresponds to the situation in your country; several answers possible; insert "N/A" when the situation is not applicable in your country;
if relevant, you can additionally insert the following explanations:
"FS" (final selection), "CA" (consultative advice – the body can provide its opinion), "MA" (mandatory advice – the body must provide its opinion, the content of which is either binding or not for the deciding authority), "D" (decision). Please insert "OF" (obligation to follow) if the deciding authority has an obligation, either by law or practice, to follow the opinion given. If the replies differ depending on the instance of the court, please specify this under comments.]
a) decision on the evaluation of a judge
b) evaluation of the performance management of courts
c) decision on the promotion of a judge
d) adoption of ethical standards
e) application of ethical standards
f) proposal for the appointment of a member of the disciplinary body for judges
g) decision on the appointment of a member of the disciplinary body for judges
h) proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings regarding a judge
i) disciplinary decision regarding a judge (all bodies issuing disciplinary decisions)
j) decision on the follow-up to a complaint against the judiciary/a judge
k) decision on the program/content of training for judges
l) authority that conducts an investigation of a disciplinary offence concerning a judge and brings the case before the disciplinary body
m) proposal for the appointment of members of the authority described under l)
n) decision on the appointment of members of the authority described under l)

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
l)
m)
n)
President of a court: for f) all Estonian judges can make proposals
x



x
x

x

x
x

x

NA

NA
Special chamber of a court:












NA
NA
Higher court:












NA
NA
Supreme Court:
x

x



x

x



NA
NA
Council for the Judiciary:












NA
NA
Judicial inspection body: Disciplinary Chamber of Judges




x



x



NA
NA
Other independent body (specify): Judges’ Examination Committee only for the judges serving their first three years.
For k) Judicial Training Council
x









x

NA
NA
Ministry/Minister of justice: only for 1st and 2nd instance courts

x










NA
NA
Other ministry than min. of justice (specify): …












NA
NA
Parliament:












NA
NA
Chancellor of Justice (Ombudsman)







x



x
NA
NA
Other (specify): Court en banc (General Assembly of all Estonian judges)



x


x





NA
NA
1.5.1. How are judges in your country evaluated?
☐There is no system in place for evaluating judges
☒Evaluation is focussed on the functioning of the courts, within which also certain aspects of individual work of judges is covered, for example (specify): According to § 45 (1) of the Courts Act Supervisory control over the administration of justice pursuant to the requirements, over the performance of duties by judges and over the forwarding of the data of the courts information system pursuant to the established procedure shall be exercised by the chairman of the court. Supervisory control over a judge who hears a matter referred to another court for judgment pursuant to the procedure provided for in § 45-1 (referral of matter to another court for judgment without changing jurisdiction) of this Act, who has been temporarily involved in the composition of an administrative court pursuant to the procedure provided for in § 45-2 (temporary involvement of judge of county court and circuit court in composition of administrative court), or who is on procedural secondment pursuant to the procedure provided for in § 58-3 (procedural secondment of judge) shall be exercised by the chairman of the court where the judge is in permanent service. The chairman of the court has the right to demand explanations from judges, inspect compliance with the operations procedure and collect other necessary information. The manager of courthouse may, on the order of the chairman of a court of first instance or on his or her own initiative, demand explanations from judges of the courthouse and collect other necessary information to ensure the administration of justice pursuant to the requirements. Chairmen of circuit courts shall also exercise supervisory control over judges of the courts of the first instance. The Court President also has the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against judges of that court. According to the decree adopted by the Minister of Justice Court Presidents are to closely monitor all cases that have been pending in their court over 2 years. To conclude: there is no regular/institutionalised evaluation procedure in place but the Court President has the power to intervene where necessary (e.g. when cases have been pending for too long, when there is a complaint from the parties etc.).
X Individual evaluation of each judge: Individual evaluation concerns judges that have been in office for a period shorter than 3 years. In addition to the regular supervision exercised by the Court President young first instance judges also have a mentor during their first year working as a judge. According to § 73(2) of the Courts Act a supervising judge submits once a quarter until the expiry of the term of supervision to the chairman of a court a report regarding the supervised judge, assessing his or her suitability for the office of judge and the development of the proceedings management skills, and, if necessary, provide other information. In addition according to § 100 (2) of the Courts Act once a year, the chairman/president of a court submits his or her opinion and the report specified in subsection 73 (2) of this Act concerning a judge with less than three years length of service employed in the court to the judge’s examination committee. The judge’s examination committee shall establish the standard format for submission of opinion.  According to § 100(1) a person may be released from the office of judge due to unsuitability for office within three years after appointment to office if the judge has been declared unsuitable for office by a decision of the Supreme Court en banc.
☐Other (specify): …
1.5.1.1 If you have a system for evaluating judges, how often are the judges evaluated?
X Regular evaluation: Applies only to first and second instance judges that have held office for a shorter period than 3 years. First instance judges have a mentor (judge) for the first year working as a judge who submits 4 times a year to the chairman of a court a report concerning the supervised judge. Once a year the chairman (president) of a court submits his or her opinion and the report concerning a judge with less than three years length of service employed in the court to the judge’s examination committee (applies to young judges of first and second instance).
Occasional evaluation:
☐Upon request of a judge
☐Upon the decision of the evaluating body
X When required for a specific reason (e.g. promotion; specify): For example, when a case has been pending for longer than two years or when a complaint concerning the actions of a judge has been submitted etc.
1.5.1.2 What are the criteria for evaluating judges? [several answers possible]
☐Quantitative appraisal of judge's work (e.g. based on statistical analysis)
☐Fulfilment of the prescribed norm (minimum number of resolved judgments)
☒Adherence to time-limits (e.g. writing the reasoning of a judgment in the prescribed time): According to the decree adopted by the Minister of Justice cases should not be pending for longer than two years within the same court instance. Such cases are to be monitored by the chairman of the court.
☒ Other (specify): Every year the chairman of a court has to submit a report to the judge’s examination committee concerning the judges of that court that have held office for less than three years (applies only to judges of first and second instance). This report contains a section where the chairman of the court is expected to provide statistics on how many decisions of that judge have been changed or overturned by the next instance courts.
☐Qualitative appraisal of judge's work:
Assessment of judge's judgments:
☐Judgments are never evaluated
X Assessment of structure of individual judgments. This is only assessed in the case of judges that have held office for less than three years in the framework of regular evaluation. This aspect should be covered in the report of supervising judge (that has been appointed for all first instance court judges for their first year) and in the reports of the chairman of the court submitted to the judges’ examination committee (for all first and second instance judges that have held office for less than three years)
X Assessment of content of individual judgments, e.g. formal validity of a judgment, its logic, and the extent to which the jurisprudential knowledge is taken into consideration. This is only assessed in the case of judges that have held office for less than three years in the framework of regular evaluation. This aspect should be covered in the report of supervising judge (that has been appointed for all first instance court judges for their first year) and in the reports of the chairman of the court submitted to the judges’ examination committee (for all first and second instance judges that have held office for less than three years)
☐Assessment based on how many judgments were overturned (partially or fully) in appeal (appeal success rate)
Other (specify):
1.5.1.3 Where have these criteria been defined? [several answers possible]
☐In law
☐In an act adopted by the Council for the Judiciary
☐In well-established practice
x Other (specify): The principle that cases pending longer than two years are under the close supervision of the chairman of a court is established in the decree of the Minister of Justice. Criteria for evaluating judges that have held the office for less than three years has been developed by the judges’ examination committee.
1.5.1.4 Can a judge appeal against an individual evaluation?
☐Yes
☒No – Currently we have not had any cases related to this appeal and this is not specified in the law.
1.5.1.4.1. If yes, which authority or body decides on such an appeal?
☐Council for the Judiciary
☐Other independent body (specify): …
☐Court responsible for disciplinary measures for judges (e.g. disciplinary senate, civil service court…)
☐Another court / President of another court
☐Higher court / President of a higher court
☐Administrative court / President of the Administrative Court
☐Supreme Court / President of the Supreme Court
☐Other (specify): …
1.5.2. Please specify the reasons for starting disciplinary proceedings against a judge:
☐Criminal offence related to the judicial function
☐Criminal offence not related to the judicial function, but only under specific conditions (please specify which):
☐(Gross) negligence or irregular conduct of judicial duties as they are prescribed in the law or other rules (please specify these judicial duties): …
☐Violation of professional confidentiality or disclosure of classified information
☐Violations of rules on incompatibility with judicial function or on external activities (e.g. taking up a secondary employment without permission)
☐Acceptance of presents or other benefits in relation to the judicial function
☐Conduct that conflicts with the constitutional principles
☐Conduct that harms the reputation of the judiciary (please specify under which conditions): …
☐ Interpretation/application of law by the judge in the context of their professional activities (please specify in which situations, e.g. if it concerns judgments): …
☒Other (specify): The first eight options listed above may apply, since § 87 (2) of the Courts Act enacts the following: “A disciplinary offence is a wrongful act of a judge which consists of failure to perform or inappropriate performance of official duties. An indecent act of a judge is also a disciplinary offence.” Interpretation or application of law in judgements is not a subject to disciplinary proceedings, especially when it concerns judgments – this is a subject to appeal or cassation proceedings.
1.5.2.1 Can a judge appeal against a disciplinary sanction?
☒Yes
☐No
1.5.2.1.1. If yes, which authority or body decides on such an appeal?
☐Council for the Judiciary
☐Other independent body (specify): …
☐Court responsible for disciplinary measures for judges (e.g. disciplinary senate, civil service court…)
☐Another court / President of another court
☐Higher court / President of a higher court
☐Administrative court / President of the Administrative Court
X Supreme Court / President of the Supreme Court (the Supreme Court en banc hears appeals on the decisions of the Judges Disciplinary Committee)
☐Constitutional Court / President of the Constitutional Court
☐Other (specify): …
1.5.2.2. What are the possible consequences of initiating (starting) a disciplinary proceeding against a judge (before the decision on a possible sanction is made) Please specify if such consequences are different for court presidents?
☒Suspension from judicial activity
☐Suspension of memberships in a judicial body
☐No possibility of promotion
☐No possibility of running as a candidate for a post (e.g. membership in a judicial body/Council for the Judiciary or a judicial management position)
☒Other (specify): If the Disciplinary Chamber removes a judge from service during the hearing of a disciplinary matter, the Chamber may reduce the judge’s salary for such period. The salary shall be reduced by not more than a half (§ 95 of the Courts Act)
According to § 99 section 11: A judge shall not be released from office at his/her request or due to unsuitability for office at the time of disciplinary proceedings conducted against him or her.
1.5.2.2.1. Can a judge appeal against such a measure (under 1.5.2.2.)?
☒Yes (please specify the body and procedure: A judge may file an appeal to the Supreme Court en banc against a ruling by which the judge is temporarily removed from service or his or her salary is reduced within ten days after the judge becomes aware of the ruling (§ 95 section 6 of the Courts Act).
☐No
1.5.3. Is it possible for a judge to temporarily become a politician/minister/government official/cabinet member?
☐Yes
☒No
1.5.3.1 If yes, do you have any rules in place when such a person returns to the judgeship? [several answers possible]
☐There are no specific rules in place, but the general ethical norms apply
☐There are specific rules in place, which limit the areas in which the judge can work, upon returning to judgeship
☐Other (specify): …
1.5.3.2 If there are specific rules in place, what are they? [several answers possible]
☐The judge needs to request an authorisation from the following body/authority: …
☐Before returning to a position of a judge, the person must wait during a "cooling-off" period of … days (specify)
☐The judge needs to notify/declare the new employment to the following body (specify): …
☐Other (specify): …
1.5.4. In the event that the state has had to award compensation, is there a possibility of civil liability of judges before a court concerning the exercise of their judicial functions?
☐Yes
☒No. This matter is regulated by the State Liability Act. According to § 15 of the Act a person may claim compensation for damage caused in the course of judicial proceedings, including damage caused by a court decision, only if a judge committed a criminal offence in the course of judicial proceedings. Please find the link to the Act: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/507062016001/consolide
1.5.4.1. If yes, who can initiate such proceedings?
☐A state authority (please specify which): …
☐Other (please specify): …
1.5.4.2. On what grounds can such a civil liability of judges be established?
☐Malice
☐Gross negligence
☐Other (please specify): …
1.5.5. What are the criteria for the promotion of a judge (either promotion in status while staying within the same court or promotion to another court [several answers possible]
☐Seniority (years working as judge)
☐Participation in training
☐Internal competition (e.g. concours, assessment center)
☐Specialisation
☐Result(s) of the individual evaluation of a judge
☐Quantitative and/or qualitative performance of a judge (outside of past individual evaluations) (please specify):
☒Other (please specify): Judges of the first instance courts have to apply to available positions at the second instance courts or at the Supreme Court and the criteria still remains the same: a person, who is an experienced and recognised lawyer and who has passed a judge’s examination or who has been exempted therefrom, may be appointed as a judge of a circuit court (circuit court judge). Additionally, a person who is an experienced and recognised lawyer may be appointed as a justice of the Supreme Court (Supreme Court justice).
1.5.5.1. At what level are these criteria prescribed?
☐In law
☒Other (please specify): The law (Courts Act) stipulates only the criteria for becoming a judge, it does note stipulate specific criteria for the promotion of a judge.
1.5.5.2. Can a judge appeal against the decision on promotion/non-promotion?
☐Yes
☒No
1.5.5.2.1. If yes, which authority or body decides on such an appeal?
☐Council for the Judiciary
☐Other independent body (specify): …
☐President of the court where the judges sits
☐Higher court / President of a higher court
☐Administrative court / President of the Administrative Court
☐Supreme Court / President of the Supreme Court
☐Other (please specify): …
1.5.6. Are there any rules on immunity or privilege of judges or other legal safeguards in case of potential criminal proceedings against them?
☒ Yes
☐ No
1.5.6.1. If yes, what type of immunity, privilege or other legal safeguards exist? [several answers possible]
☐Functional immunity or privilege (there can be no prosecution of judges for acts performed in the exercise of their judicial functions, with the exception of intentional crime, e.g. taking bribes, intentionally misusing the law; please specify): …
☐ Personal/procedural immunity (criminal investigation/arrest/indictment/conviction of a judge is only possible after agreement by a (disciplinary) court or other independent body; please explain and specify who asks for this agreement and who decides on lifting the immunity and approving criminal investigation/arrest/indictment/conviction; please explain):….
☐ Other legal safeguards not falling under previous two points (e.g. only the Prosecutor General can issue an indictment against a judge, or only a prosecutor from a different jurisdiction than the one where the judge sits can start criminal proceedings or issue an indictment against the judge; please explain): …
☒Other types of immunity or privilege (please specify): According to § 3 (3 and 4) of the Courts Act: Criminal charges against a judge of a court of the first instance and a court of appeal may be brought during their term of office only on the proposal of the Supreme Court en banc with the consent of the President of the Republic. Criminal charges against a justice of the Supreme Court may be brought during his or her term of office only on the proposal of the Chancellor of Justice with the consent of the majority of the composition of the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament).
1.5.6.2. If yes, at what level are these immunity rules, privileges or other legal safeguards prescribed?
☒ In the Constitution – Article 153 of the Constitution stipulates the following: “Criminal charges may be brought against a judge during his or her term of office only on a proposal of the Supreme Court, and with the consent of the President. Criminal charges may be brought against the Chief Justice and justices of the Supreme Court only on a proposal of the Chancellor of Justice, and with the consent of a majority of the members of the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament).
☒ In Law (please specify): It is stipulated in § 3 of the Courts Act.
☐ Other (please specify): …
1.6. Financial resources
1.6.1. Authorities and bodies responsible for financial resources
[Please insert an “x” into the box that corresponds to the situation in your country; several answers possible; insert "N/A" when the situation is not applicable in your country;
if relevant, you can additionally insert the following explanations:
"FS" (final selection), "CA" (consultative advice – the body can provide its opinion), "MA" (mandatory advice – the body must provide its opinion, the content of which is either binding or not for the deciding authority), "D" (decision). Please insert "OF" (obligation to follow) if the deciding authority has an obligation, either by law or practice, to follow the opinion given]
a) involvement in the preparation of the "budget allocated to courts"3
b) formal proposal on the budget allocated to courts
c) adoption of the budget allocated to courts
d) management of the budget allocated to courts
e) evaluation/audit of the budget allocated to courts
f) definition of criteria for determining financial resources (see 1.6.2.)


a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
President of a court:
X


x


Special chamber of a court:






Higher court / President of the Higher court:






Supreme Court / President of the Supreme Court:
X


x


Council for the Judiciary:

CA




Judicial inspection body:






Other independent body (specify): The National Audit Office




x

Ministry/Minister of justice: only for 1st and 2nd instance courts
x


x
x

x
Other ministry than min. of justice (specify): Ministry of finance

D




Parliament:


D



Head of state: if applicable- on advice of …






Other (specify): …






1.6.2. What are the prescribed methods or criteria for determining financial resources for the judiciary? [several answers possible] [Please electronically tick the checkbox ("☒") next to the corresponding reply (by clicking on it in Microsoft Word for Windows), or (in case of difficulties with the checkboxes) by marking relevant reply in bold or highlighting it.]
☒Amount based on historic and/or realised costs
☒ Number of incoming cases: specify for which instance: x 1st / x 2nd / ☐all / ☐N/A
☒ Number of resolved cases: specify for which instance: x 1st / x 2nd / ☐all / ☐N/A
☐ Number of resolved cases - based on an evaluation of the cost for courts
☐ Other (specify): …
1.6.3. Where have these criteria been defined? [several answers possible]
☒ In well-established practice
☐ In law
☒ Other (specify): Specific contracts have up to recently been concluded between the Ministry of Justice and first and second instance courts which set out specific goals for courts. The funding of first and second instance courts has depended to some extent on the contracts concluded between the courts and the Ministry of Justice (e.g. extra finances for court personnel).
1.6.4. What are the main components/structure of judges’ salaries? [several answers possible]
☒Basic salary, including components that depend on court instance, seniority, age, and personal factors A judge’s salary is provided by the High-Ranking State Public Servants Salaries Act, which stipulates coefficients applicable to salaries of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, justice of the Supreme Court, a judge of a circuit court and a judge of a county or administrative court.
☒Additional components that depend on managerial or other function (please specify who decides on them): According to § 76 (1) a chairman of the court of the first instance or court of appeal shall receive additional remuneration for the performance of the duties of chairman of the court in the amount of 25 to 45 per cent depending on the number of judges in the court.
The chairman of a chamber of the Supreme Court or a circuit court shall receive additional remuneration for the performance of the duties of chairman of the chamber in the amount of 15 per cent of his or her salary.
The chairman of a court determines additional remuneration for the head of a civil department, offences department and guardianship supervision department of a first instance court in the amount of 15% of their salary.
☐Additional components that depend on performance (please specify who decides on them):
☒Other (specify):
Judges supervising judges andassistant judges during their probationary period receive additional remuneration equal to 5% of their salary for each supervised judge or assistant judge during supervision.
A judge who performs official duties at an international institution or who participates as an expert in an international program of co-operation or in any other form of international co-operation is entitled to receive remuneration therefor.
A judge of a court of the first instance shall be paid additional remuneration for on-call time during public holidays and weekends. The on-call time shall be deemed to cover the entire length of the on-call time in hours. The amount of the additional remuneration for one hour of the on-call time shall be 10 per cent of the remuneration for one working hour of the judge.
1.7. Governance of the Judiciary
[Please insert an “x” into the box that corresponds to the situation in your country; several answers possible; insert "N/A" when the situation is not applicable in your country;
if relevant, you can additionally insert the following explanations:
"FS" (final selection), "CA" (consultative advice – the body can provide its opinion), "MA" (mandatory advice – the body must provide its opinion, the content of which is either binding or not for the deciding authority), "D" (decision). Please insert "OF" (obligation to follow) if the deciding authority has an obligation, either by law or practice, to follow the opinion given.]
a) general management of a court
b) adopting press guidelines for relations between courts and the media
c) communicating with the media (e.g. on questions regarding judgments, court functioning)
d) decisions regarding the implementation and use of Information and Communication Technology in courts
e) decisions regarding court buildings
f) decisions regarding court security

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
President of a court:
D

x

X
X
Higher court / President of the Higher court:






Supreme Court / President of the Supreme Court:
D


x
x
x
Court service governed by the Judiciary:






Council for the Judiciary:
CA
x

CA
CA
CA
Judicial inspection body:






Other independent body (specify): …






Court service governed by the Ministry of justice:






Ministry/Minister of justice:
D


D
D
D
Other ministry than min. of justice (specify): …






Other (specify): Director of the court




x
x
Judge responsible for media relations


x



Press officer at a court


x




1.7.1. Authorities and bodies responsible for court staff (other than judges)
[Please insert an “x” into the box that corresponds to the situation in your country; several answers possible; insert "N/A" when the situation is not applicable in your country;
if relevant, you can additionally insert the following explanations:
"FS" (final selection), "CA" (consultative advice – the body can provide its opinion), "MA" (mandatory advice – the body must provide its opinion, the content of which is either binding or not for the deciding authority), "D" (decision). Please insert "OF" (obligation to follow) if the deciding authority has an obligation, either by law or practice, to follow the opinion given.]
a) decision regarding the total number of court staff (other than judges) at all courts
b) decision regarding the number of court staff at particular courts
c) appointment and dismissal of court staff
d) decisions regarding the transfer of court staff from one court to another
e) decisions regarding the promotion/disciplinary matters concerning court staff
f) other human resource management decisions on court staff (e.g. holidays)

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
President of a court:

x
x
x
x
x
Higher court / President of the Higher court:







Supreme Court / President of the Supreme Court:


x
x
x
x
x
Court service governed by the Judiciary:






Council for the Judiciary:







Judicial inspection body:






Other independent body (specify): …






Court service governed by the Ministry of justice:







Ministry/Minister of justice:

x
x

x

Other ministry than min. of justice (specify): …







Other (specify): Director of a court


x
x
x
x
x
1.7.2. Do the associations of judges have a formal role with regard to career of judges (e.g. in evaluation, appointment) or any aspect of governance of the judiciary? [Please explain]
The Estonian Association of Judges does not have a formal role with regard to career of judges.

If self-government organisations within the judiciary, such as the Judge’s Examination Committee are also included within this question, then some of them have a formal role regarding the career of judges. The Judge’s Examination Committee has sixteen members and is appointed for three years. The committee includes four justices of the Supreme Court, elected by the Court en banc, four circuit court judges, four judges of the court of first instance, and a representative of the Faculty of Law of the University of Tartu, the Ministry of Justice, the Bar Association and the Prosecutor’s Office.

The main duty of the judge’s examination committee is the assessment of the legal knowledge and suitability of personal characteristics of candidates for a county, administrative or circuit court judge and a candidate’s compliance with the requirements for judicial office. The committee presents the results of the competition to the Supreme Court en banc who considers the opinion of the respective full court and makes the final selection and decides on making a proposal to the President of the Republic to appoint the judge. The committee monitors the work of judges who have served less than three years by collecting opinions about them from the chairmen of courts. If the committee receives information that a judge who has served less than three years is unsuitable for office, the committee hears the judge before deciding on the judge’s suitability for office. The committee also performs other duties arising from the law.

The Minister of Justice needs the approval of the Council for Administration of Courts in several matters. The Council is comprised of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, five judges elected by the Court en banc for three years, two members of the Riigikogu, representatives of the Bar Association and the Prosecutor’s Office, and the Chancellor of Justice or a representative appointed by him or her. Most important decisions of the Minister of Justice, which can be taken only on the approval of the Council are following:
1) determination of the number of judges in the first and second instance courts;
2) determination of the territorial jurisdiction, structure and exact location of first and second instance courts;
3) the appointment to office and premature release of chairmen (presidents) of first and second instance.


2. IMPARTIALITY – WITHDRAWAL AND RECUSAL4
2.1. Is a judge obliged to withdraw from adjudicating a case if the judge believes that impartiality is in question or compromised or that there is a reasonable perception of bias?
☒Yes
☐No
2.1.1. If yes, what is the source of the obligation to withdraw from adjudicating a case?
☐A well-established practice of judges
☐Set in an act adopted by a court
☐Set in an act adopted by the Council for the Judiciary
☐Set in an act adopted by the Minister of justice
☒Set in law
☐Other (specify): …
2.1.2. If a judge disrespects the obligation to withdraw from adjudicating a case, could the judge be subject to a sanction?
☒Yes (specify; e.g. type of disciplinary measure): This could provide grounds for commencing disciplinary proceedings against a judge (no such cases presently exist).
☐No
2.1.3. What are the reasons due to which a judge is obliged to withdraw from adjudicating a case?
According to§ 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
§ 23. Judge’s duty to self-recuse
A judge may not conduct proceedings in the civil case and must self-recuse in the following situations:
1) the case is one in which they are a party to proceedings or a person against whom a claim may be filed as a result of the proceedings;
2) the case concerns their spouse, registered partner or cohabitee, or a sister, brother or direct blood relative of the spouse, registered partner or cohabitee – even where the marriage, registered partnership or permanent cohabition has ended;
3) the case concerns a person who is the judge’s direct blood relative or other close person as defined in subsection 1 of § 257 of the Code;
4) the case is one in which they are or have been a representative or adviser of a party to proceedings or in which they participated or had a right to participate as a statutory representative of a party to the proceedings;
5) the case is one in which they have been examined as a witness or have provided an opinion as the expert;
6) they have participated in rendering a disposition in the case – in the pre-action procedure, in the preceding judicial instance or in arbitration proceedings;
7) in the presence of any other circumstances that cast a doubt on their impartiality.

The beforementioned principles apply in the administrative court procedure.


According to § 49 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
(1) The judge is required to recuse themselves from criminal proceedings if they:
1) have previously rendered the lower-instance judicial disposition in the criminal case, or a judicial disposition in that case which has been set aside by the higher-instance court in part or in full, except if the higher-instance court, when it set aside that disposition, remanded the case to the same panel for retrial or for a new hearing;
2) as the pre-trial investigation judge, have made an order mentioned in §§ 132, 134, 135 or 137 of the Code in the same criminal case, except where the case is dealt with under the plea agreement or the summary procedure;
3) have previously been involved in the same criminal case in another procedural role;
4) are or have been a person close to the accused, to the victim or to the civil defendant according to subsection 1 of § 71 of this Code.
2.1.4. What are the reasons due to which parties can request the recusal of a judge?
The reasons are the same as described in questions no 3.1.3.

2.1.4.1. Are there types of cases/specific circumstances where recusal requests are not possible?
☐No
☒Yes (please specify what types of cases/circumstances and where these are specified, either in law or bylaw): Exeption is made in civil and administrative matters:
According to § 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure (loss of right to recuse the judge):
(1) In a situation provided for by clause 7 of § 23 of this Code (doubt of impartiality), a party to proceedings may not make a motion to recuse the judge if they have taken part in the trial or hearing in the case or, after having learned the name of the judge, have filed a substantive motion or application with the court without filing a motion for recusal.

(2) In a situation mentioned in subsection 1 of this section, a party to proceedings may make a motion to recuse the judge also at a later stage in the proceedings, provided that the ground for recusal arose after performance of the procedural operation or provided that the party learned of the ground after the procedural operation had been performed. The motion must substantiate the relevant circumstances.


2.2. Which authority or body takes the first decision on a request for recusal by a party who considers that a judge is partial / biased? [several answers possible]
☒The single-judge who is adjudicating in the same case
(when a recusal request is directed against this judge)
☒The panel of judges adjudicating in the same case
(when a recusal request is directed against a member of this panel or against the whole panel)
☒Another judge at the same court (e.g. selected on seniority or appointed)
☐A special chamber of the same court
☒President of the same court
☐Another court / President of another court
☒Higher court / President of a higher court
☒Supreme Court / President of the Supreme Court
☐Council for the Judiciary
☐Other independent body (specify): …
☐Ministry of justice / Minister of justice
☐Other (specify): …
2.2.1. In case a different authority or body decides in different types of proceedings (civil, administrative…), please describe the differences and specify for which proceedings the replies under 3.2. refer to:
I Criminal proceedings: The removal procedure depends slightly depending on the different grounds of removal and on whether the initiative for removal comes from the parties or the judge. The procedure of removal of a judge is regulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure (§ 49-§50).
A Removal at the initiative of the judge: When the request of recusal is related to any of the following reasons: 1) judge has previously made a decision or a judicial decision of a lower court in the same criminal matter which was annulled by a higher court in part or in full, except in the case the higher court referred the criminal matter in the annulment of the decision for a new hearing by the same court panel; 2) judge has made a court ruling as a preliminary investigation judge in the same criminal matter, except in the hearing of the criminal matter in settlement and summary proceedings; 3) judge has previously been subject to criminal proceedings on another basis in the same criminal matter; 4) judge is or has been a person close to the accused, victim or civil defendant the judge himself/herself can remove themselves (judge needs to draw a formalised petition). When the judge feels that he/she cannot be impartial for a reason not listed above the judge shall submit a petition of challenge to the chairman of the court or a judge appointed by the chairman (who then has to decide the recusal). The petition of challenge of the chairman of a county court shall be adjudicated the chairman of a circuit court or a judge appointed by the chairman. The petition of challenge of the chairman of a circuit court shall be adjudicated the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or a justice appointed by the Chief Justice. The court panel hearing the matter shall adjudicate the petition of challenge of a justice of the Supreme Court.
B. Removal at the initiative of parties: Parties to the proceedings can also request the removal of a judge. Petitions of challenge shall be submitted at the opening of a court session. If the basis for a judge to remove himself or herself becomes evident later and the court is immediately notified thereof, petitions of challenge may be submitted before the final rebuttal of the accused. Petitions of challenge shall be adjudicated by a ruling made in chambers. The rest of the panel of the court shall adjudicates a petition of challenge regarding a judge in the absence of the judge to be removed. In the event of an equal division of votes, the judge is removed. A petition of challenge against several judges or the full panel of the court shall be adjudicated by the same panel of the court by a simple majority. If a court panel finds that the petition of challenge has to be satisfied for a reason not specified in law (see the list of 1-4 mentioned above) no ruling shall be made but the petition of challenge shall be referred to adjudication to the chairman of the court or a judge appointed by the chairman. If a judge hears a criminal matter sitting alone, the judge shall adjudicate petitions of challenge himself or herself. If a judge finds that the petition of challenge has to be satisfied for a reason not specified in law (see the list of 1-4 mentioned above) the judge shall refer the petition of challenge to the chairman of the court or a judge appointed by chairman.
II Civil and administrative proceedings: The removal procedure depends slightly depending on the different grounds of removal and on whether the initiative for removal comes from the parties or the judge. The procedure of removal of a judge is regulated in the Code of Civil Procedure (§ 23-§27). The Code of Administrative Court Procedure refers to the Code of Civil Procedure.
A. Removal at the initiative of parties: A petition of challenge is submitted to the court to a panel of which the judge whose removal is requested belongs. If the judge or court panel concerning whom a petition of challenge has been submitted considers the petition to be justified, it makes a ruling on removing themselves. If the judge does not remove himself or herself and does not form a position concerning the petition of challenge, the petition is adjudicated by a ruling of the court panel to which the judge whose removal is requested belongs. The judge whose removal has been requested does not participate in deciding such matter. Upon an equal division of votes, the judge whose removal was requested is deemed to be removed. If a petition of challenge was submitted for removal of the entire panel adjudicating a matter or a judge sitting alone and the panel or judge fail to remove themselves, the matter of removal is adjudicated by the chairman of the court. If a petition of challenge is submitted against all the judges of the court, the removal is decided by the chairman of the court of the following instance. If a petition of challenge is submitted against the entire panel of the Supreme Court adjudicating a matter, such panel adjudicates the petition of challenge. If a judge does not remove himself or herself on the basis of a petition of challenge, he or she shall immediately inform the court or judge competent to adjudicate the removal about his or her position concerning the basis for removal.
B Removal at the initiative of the judge: A judge shall not adjudicate a civil matter and shall remove himself or herself in the following cases: 1) in a matter in which he or she is a participant in the proceeding or a person against whom a claim arising from the proceeding may be filed; 2) in a matter of his or her spouse, registered partner or cohabitee, and in a matter of a sister, brother or direct blood relative of his or her spouse, registered partner or cohabitee even if the marriage, registered partnership or permanent cohabitation has ended; 3) in a matter of a person who is his or her direct blood relative or other person close to him or her; 4) in a matter in which he or she is or has been a representative or adviser of a participant in the proceeding or in which he or she participated or had the right to participate as the legal representative of a participant in the proceeding; 5) in a matter in which he or she has been heard as a witness or expert providing an opinion; 6) in a matter in which he or she participated in pre-trial proceedings, in the preceding court instance or in making a decision in arbitration proceedings; 7) if any other circumstances exist which give reason to doubt the impartiality of the judge. If a judge himself or herself finds that a circumstance listed above from 1 to 6 which provide basis for his or her removal exists, the judge makes a ruling on his or her removal. If a judge himself or herself finds that if any other circumstances exist which give reason to doubt the impartiality of the judge and which provides basis for his or her removal exists, the judge requests his or her removal from the court panel or chairman of the court.
Note, as general rule the annulment of a decision at the higher court due to failure to remove a judge may be applied for in an appeal only if the petition of challenge was submitted to the lower court on time or if the basis for removal was created or became evident after the adjudication of the case in such court.
2.3. If available what was the total number of successful recusal challenges by parties in 2024 in which a lack of impartiality or a reasonable perception of bias was established?
[If only an estimate is available, add "approx. …" or "fewer than …".]
In all courts: ☐:………… / ☐N/A
If possible, specify this number for different types of proceedings (civil, administrative…):
… : ☐:………… / ☐N/A
… : ☐:………… / ☐N/A
If possible, specify the total number of recusal challenges in 2024: …

2.4. Is an appeal against a decision on a request for recusal possible?
☐ Yes:
☒ No: There is no specific appeals procedure for a request for recusal. However, as a general rule the annulment of a decision at the higher court due to failure to remove a judge may be applied for in an appeal only if the petition of challenge was submitted to the lower court on time or if the basis for removal was created or became evident after the adjudication of the case in such court.
2.4.1. If yes, which authority or body decides on such an appeal?
☐Another judge at the same court (e.g. selected on seniority or appointed)
☐A special chamber of the same court
☐President of the same court
☐Another court / President of another court
☐Higher court / President of a higher court
☐Supreme Court / President of the Supreme Court
☐Council for the Judiciary
☐Other independent body (specify): …
☐Minister of justice
☐Other (specify):
2.4.2. What was the total number of appeals against decisions on recusal requests in 2024?
[for example, when a party to the case requested a judge to be recused but this request was rejected, and then this party appealed against the rejection;
if only an estimate is available, add "approx. …" or "fewer than …".]
In all courts: ☐:………… / ☐N/A
If possible, specify this number for different types of proceedings:
Civil: ☐:………… / ☐N/A
Administrative: ☐:………… / ☐N/A
Criminal: ☐:………… / ☐N/A



3. IRREMOVABILITY - TRANSFER OF JUDGES WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT5
3.1. Can a judge be transferred (temporarily or permanently) to another judicial office (to other judicial duties, court or location) without his/her consent?
☒ Yes:
☐No
3.1.1. If yes, which authority or body decides on a (temporary or permanent) transfer of a judge without his/her consent? [if several authorities are responsible and have different powers depending on the ground for transfer, please write "for disciplinary reasons", "for organisational reasons" or "for other reasons" next to the relevant authority]
☐Council for the Judiciary
☐Other independent body (specify): …
☐Court responsible for disciplinary measures for judges (e.g. disciplinary senate, civil service court…)
☐ President of the same court:
☐Another court / President of another court
☒Higher court / President of a higher court (As of 2020 it is possible to temporarily involve a judge of county court and circuit court in composition of administrative court. The chairmen of circuit courts may, by their joint decision, temporarily send a judge of a county court or circuit court without his or her consent to an administrative court for review the applications for detention of aliens if this is required for administration of justice pursuant to the requirements (§ 45-2 of the Courts Act)).
☒Supreme Court / President of the Supreme Court (According to § 38-4 section 1 of the Courts Act during a state of emergency or state of war, the Supreme Court en banc may send a judge of a District Court, Administrative Court or Circuit Court of Appeal, without the consent of the judge, to hear cases in another court of the same or lower instance if it is not possible to ensure the administration of justice pursuant to the requirements in any other manner. The judge retains their powers of administration of justice during the secondment also in the court of their permanent place of service.)
☐Constitutional Court / President of the Constitutional Court
☐Ministry of justice / Minister of justice
☐Head of state
☐Other (specify): …
3.2. For what reasons can a judge be transferred without his/her consent? [several answers possible]
☐For disciplinary reasons
☐For organisational reasons (specify; e.g. closure of a court):
☒For other reasons (specify): In case of extraordinary conditions regarding aliens it is possible to temporarily involve a judge of county court and circuit court in composition of administrative court. The chairmen of circuit courts may, by their joint decision, temporarily send a judge of a county court or circuit court without his or her consent to an administrative court for review the applications for detention of aliens if this is required for administration of justice pursuant to the requirements (§ 45-2 of the Courts Act). Additionally, during a state of emergency or state of war, the Supreme Court en banc may send a judge of a District Court, Administrative Court or Circuit Court of Appeal, without the consent of the judge, to hear cases in another court of the same or lower instance if it is not possible to ensure the administration of justice pursuant to the requirements in any other manner (§ 38-4 section 1 of the Courts Act).
3.2.1. At what level are these reasons prescribed?
☒In law
☐Other (specify):
3.2.2. In case of reorganisations of the judicial map (redefinition of seats and locations of courts), is transfer of judges without their consent possible?
☒No
☐Yes (please describe on what basis is the transfer made (law/decision of a body), which body/authority must take a decision, and whether judicial review of the transfer is possible, and before which court):

3.3. In case a judge is transferred without his/her consent is he/she guaranteed an equivalent post (in terms of a position, salary…)?
☒Yes
☐No
3.4. Can a judge appeal if he/she is transferred without his/her consent?
☒ Yes
☐No
3.4.1. If yes, which authority or body decides on such an appeal?
☐Council for the Judiciary
☐Other independent body (specify): …
☐Court responsible for disciplinary measures for judges (e.g. disciplinary senate, civil service court…)
☐President of the same court
☐Another court / President of another court
☐Higher court / President of a higher court
☐Supreme Court / President of the Supreme Court
☐Constitutional Court / President of the Constitutional Court
☐Minister of justice
☐Head of state
☒Other (specify): The judge can theoretically challenge the order of the president of the court in the administrative court.
4. ALLOCATION OF CASES6
4.1. Are the criteria for allocating cases within a court defined?
☒Yes
☐No
4.1.1. If yes, where have these criteria been defined? [several answers possible]
☐In well-established practice of the court
☒In an act adopted by the court
☐In implementing regulations
☒In law
☐Other (specify): …
4.2. How are cases assigned to judges at the first instance courts?
☐President of the court assigns cases
☐A member of the court staff assigns cases (e.g. listing officer)
☐A special chamber of the court assigns cases
☒ The cases are assigned randomly (e.g. through a computerized system)
☒The cases are assigned according to a pre-defined order (e.g. alphabetic, subject matter)
☒Other (specify): The assignment of cases is regulated in § 37 of the Courts Act.
The division of tasks between judges of courts of the first instance and courts of appeal shall be prescribed in the division of tasks plan. Tasks shall be divided between judges on the basis of the following principles:
1) each matter received by the court for hearing shall be divided between judges according to the division of tasks plan;
2) matters shall be divided between judges at random and on bases determined in the division of tasks plan;
3) in the distribution of matters, as many matters as possible shall be distributed between the judges serving in the courthouse where the matter will be heard;
4) the distribution of matters must ensure the specialisation of judges;
5) the distribution of the matters shall ensure equal work load of judges within a court.
4.3. Is the allocation of cases subject to supervision (e.g. regular checks of the practice of allocation)?
☒Yes
☐No
4.3.1. If yes, by whom? [several answers possible]
☐By court staff
☒ By the President of the court
☐By the Council for the Judiciary
☐By another independent body (specify): …
☐By the Judicial inspection body
☐Other (specify): …
4.3.2. In the last five years, has the system for the allocation of cases been subject to a general review or assessment to check for any potential deficiencies?
☐Yes
☒No (the Ministry of Justice has not conducted a general review; case assignment is considered an internal matter of a court. Within the court the case allocation is once a year subject to review by judges themselves.)
4.3.2.1. If yes, what was the follow-up to the findings of such a general review/assessment? [several answers possible]
☐Changes to the system of allocation of cases
☐Changes to the practices concerning the allocation of cases
☐Other (specify): …



5. INTERNAL INDEPENDENCE7
5.1. In your system, are there hierarchically superior courts/judges with the power to ensure on their own initiative the uniformity or consistency of judicial decisions delivered by the courts/judges under their supervision (outside of an appeal system, the precedent doctrine or a preliminary ruling system)?
☐Yes
☒No
5.1.1. If yes, which courts/judges have such a power?
☐Division heads at particular courts
☐Presidents of the courts
☐Appeal courts / Presidents of appeal courts
☐Supreme Court / President of the Supreme Court
☐Other (specify): …
5.1.2. If yes, what kind of decisions can hierarchically superior courts/judges deliver on their own initiative to ensure the uniformity or consistency of judicial decisions outside of an appeal system or the precedent doctrine?
☐An advisory opinion of general application (for all courts/judges)
☐An obligatory decision of general application (for all courts/judges)
☐An advisory opinion of concrete application (to a specific judicial decision)
☐An obligatory decision of concrete application (to a specific judicial decision)
☐A practice statement or direction applicable to particular kinds of cases
☐Other (specify): …
5.1.3. If yes, what was the total number of such decisions in 2024?
[If only an estimate is available, add "approx. …" or "fewer than …"]
In all courts: ☐:………… / ☐N/A
If possible, specify this number for different types of proceedings (civil, administrative…):
Civil: ☐:………… / ☐N/A
Administrative: ☐:………… / ☐N/A
Criminal: ☐:………… / ☐N/A
5.1.4. If hierarchically superior courts/judges deliver an obligatory decision of general or concrete application (see 6.1.2.), can a judge/court in a concrete case diverge from that obligatory decision?
☐Yes (please specify under what conditions, e.g. with reasoning for diverging from obligatory decision of hierarchically superior courts/judges): …
☐No
5.1.5. If a judge does not follow the obligatory decision of a hierarchically superior courts/judges, could the judge be subject to any specific proceedings?
☐ No
☐ Yes (please specify what kind and before which body/authority): …
5.1.6. If a judge does not follow the obligatory decision of a hierarchically superior courts/judges, could his/her decision be subject to a remedy on this ground?
☐ No
☐ Yes (please specify what kind and before which body/authority): …
5.2. In your system, can parties to the judicial proceedings request the hierarchically superior courts/judges to review a judicial decision which diverges from established case law (outside of an appeal system, the precedent doctrine or a preliminary ruling system)?
☐Yes
☒No
5.2.1. If yes, which courts/judges decide in such a review?
☐Division heads at particular courts
☐Presidents of the courts
☐Appeal courts / Presidents of appeal courts
☐Supreme Court / President of the Supreme Court
☐Other (specify): …
5.2.2. If yes, please describe what measures can these courts/judges take?


6. TRANSFER OF CASES
6.1. Can a case be transferred to another judge within the same court or to another court after the case was initially assigned to a judge?
[excluding the situations where a case was transferred:
a) because it was initially allocated to a judge or court that is not competent according to the rules,
b) due to retirement/incapacity of a judge, or
c) due to closure of a court]
☒Yes
☐No
6.1.1. If yes, which authority or body decides on the transfer of a case? [if several authorities are responsible and have different powers, please explain next to the relevant authority]
☐Council for the Judiciary
☐Other independent body (specify): …
☒President of the court to which the case was first allocated
☐Another court / President of another court
☐Higher court / President of a higher court
☐Supreme Court / President of the Supreme Court
☐Other (specify): …
6.1.2. If yes, what are the reasons for the transfer of cases? [several answers possible]
☒Impartiality
☒Workload of a judge/court
☐For reasons on the side of the parties (other than impartiality)
☒For other reasons (please specify): The necessity to transfer a case might appear when a judge, who was initially assigned to a case, is transferred to another court, to the state public service, including service of the Supreme Court of the Ministry of Justice, as well as to the position of a member of the teaching staff at a university in public law; also when appointed as the Prosecutor General. Additionally a judge may be appointed to the position of a judge of an international court institution or an equivalent position, or a judge could participate as an expert in international civil mission the – in this case the authority and service relationship of the judge shall be suspended.
Another possibility is the due time principle, which is stipulated in § 45 (1-1) of the Courts Act: “If a judge without a good reason fails to perform a necessary procedural act, inter alia fails to appoint a session in due time to ensure the conducting of court proceedings within a reasonable period of time, or if it is evident that the time planned by the judge for performing the procedural act or other organisation of proceedings does not ensure the conducting of proceedings within a reasonable period of time, a chairman of a court shall decide on the implementation of such measure organising the administration of justice, which presumably provides the opportunity to finalise the proceedings within a reasonable period of time. The chairman of the court may, inter alia: […] redistribute the court cases among the judges taking account of the division of tasks plan […].”


6.1.3. What are the criteria for selecting the cases to be transferred and for determining the court/judge to which the cases are transferred?
☒Random selection
☐Alphabetical order
☐Selection according to the time of arrival
☐Other (please specify): …
6.1.4. At what level are these reasons and criteria prescribed?
☒In law
☒Other (please specify): Please see the answer to 7.1.2.
6.2. Can the parties to the case appeal if their case is transferred to another (competent) judge or court?
☐Yes
☒No (The jurisdiction of a case or the location of hearing a case does not change upon referral of the case to another court for judgment. If a hearing must take place, it will either be held by video link or the judge will travel to the subordinate court building.)
6.2.1. If yes, which authority or body decides on such an appeal?
☐Council for the Judiciary
☐Other independent body (specify): …
☐President of the court to which the case was brought first
☐Another court / President of another court
☐Higher court / President of a higher court
☐Supreme Court / President of the Supreme Court
☐Other (specify): …