Estonian parliament advances plan for national defence court

Estonia’s parliament has passed the first reading of a bill to establish a permanent national defence court, a proposal that has raised questions among politicians. ERR reported that eight members of parliament introduced the bill to help ensure the state and its justice system can function during crises, states of emergency or wartime.

The proposed court would be a permanent special court operating under the Constitution, not a temporary or emergency court, said Peeter Tali, chair of parliament’s National Defence Committee. It would bring together professional judges’ legal expertise and military experience from officer-judges.

The court could hear criminal, civil and administrative cases directly connected to national defence or security. The procedures governing its work have yet to be developed. Tali cited the handling of compulsory requisitions and prisoners of war as matters that could require swift decisions under pressure. He said the details would be worked out before the bill’s second reading with the court system, the Ministry of Justice and legal scholars from the University of Tartu.

Former defence minister Kalle Laanet said the Reform Party had no shared position on the bill. He said he had reservations, including questions about how many serving judges are reserve officers or reservists with relevant expertise, where the court would sit and how it would coordinate with civil courts.

Laanet said the principle of being able to deliver justice quickly during a crisis or war was acceptable, but the process needed clarification. He also stressed that justice should be administered on the same principles in wartime and peacetime, while noting that judges would need specialist knowledge.

The initiative came from the Estonian Reserve Officers’ Association, which has a legal section. Judge Daimar Liiv and former attorney Kaido Pihlakas helped develop the proposal. Tali said judges would not necessarily need prior military training if they received appropriate instruction, but they should already have judicial experience.

Work on the proposal began about a decade ago, prompted by Ukraine’s experience. The article says military courts there had been abolished and that the start of fighting in eastern Ukraine was followed by confusion in the administration of justice. Reviews of first-instance rulings took years, and criminal cases launched in 2014 and 2015 remained unresolved.