Madise says dismissed ministry chancellor can challenge order in court

Estonia’s Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise has told Social Democratic Party leader Lauri Läänemets that only the dismissed ministry chancellor can challenge the legality of the dismissal in court, ERR reported.

Madise said she could not take a position on whether Kaimo Kuusk’s dismissal as chancellor of the Ministry of Defence was lawful, because doing so could cast doubt on an earlier court ruling.

Läänemets argued in his request to Madise that the real reason for Kuusk’s dismissal was not a breakdown in cooperation between the serving minister and the chancellor, but the wish of an incoming minister or governing party to replace Kuusk before the new minister took office.

Madise referred to a similar case from 2019 involving then Agriculture Minister Mart Järvik and ministry chancellor Illar Lemetti. In that case, the court said it could not reassess the minister’s reasons or decide whether cooperation between the minister and chancellor had worked.

The court also found that cooperation between a chancellor and minister depends, among other things, on a political relationship of trust. The minister alone decides whether that trust continues, the ruling said.

“The decision to dismiss a chancellor is the minister’s subjective assessment of their cooperation with the chancellor, which the minister must explain in a proposal to the government,” the court said.

The court also noted that a dismissal is not ruled out if the prime minister proposes dismissing the minister themselves to the president on the same day.

Madise said that if a dismissed official believes the government’s order was unlawful, they have the right to apply to an administrative court. The Chancellor of Justice has no right to bring the case, she said.

Läänemets wrote to Madise last Thursday, asking her to assess whether the actions of the government and defence minister complied with the Government of the Republic Act, the Public Service Act, the principle of good administration, and the principle of a professional and politically independent civil service.

He said it was necessary for Madise to assess the case not only from the perspective of the employment relationship, but also as a constitutional and institutional question concerning the boundary between political leadership and the politicisation of the professional civil service.