Chancellor of Justice

2013 OVERVIEW OF THE CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE ACTIVITIES

Chancellor of Justice as National Preventive Mechanism

Chancellor of Justice as Ombudsman for Children

Principle of Equality and Equal Treatment

Statistics of Proceedings

Tallinn 2014 OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE 8 KOHTU STREET 15193 TALLINN Tel: 693 8400 Fax: 693 8401 www.oiguskantsler.ee www.lasteombudsman.ee

T r a n s l a t i o n Margus Puusepp

D e s i g n AS Vaba Maa

ISSN 1736-3039 CONTENTS

CONTENTS

PART I CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM ...... 6

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 7

II. PREVENTION OF ILL-TREATMENT IN PLACES OF DETENTION...... 14 1. Police detention facilities ...... 14 1.1. Short-term detention ...... 14 1.2. Inspection visit to the sobering-up facility of the police detention centre of the public order bureau of the North Prefecture of the PBGB . 15 1.3. Death cases of detained persons in 2012 ...... 15 2. Expulsion centre (detention centre for foreigners) ...... 16 2.1. Application of coercion ...... 16 2.2. Catering ...... 17 2.3. Opportunities for spending free time ...... 17 2.4. Detention of minors ...... 17 2.5. Other issues ...... 18 3. Prisons ...... 18 3.1. Checking of a person in case of continued restraint ...... 19 3.2. Recording of the use of physical force, service weapon, special equipment or means of restraint and examination of the health status of an offender in the relevant report ...... 19 3.3. Health examination after escorting in the course of which physical force or means of restraint were used ...... 20 3.4. Inclusion of documents concerning the use of additional security measures in personal files ...... 20 3.5. Training on mental disorders for prison officers ...... 20 3.6. Application of means of restraint at the psychiatric department of Tartu Prison ...... 21 3.7. Clothing of prisoners ...... 21 3.8. Outdoor exercise ...... 22 3.9. Living conditions ...... 22 3.10. The computer designated for access to legislation and court decisions . 23 3.11. The department for mothers and children in Harku and Murru Prison.... 23 3.11.1. Observations by the Chancellor ...... 23 3.11.2. Conclusions and recommendation by the experts ...... 24 4. Defence Forces ...... 25 5. Special schools ...... 25 5.1. Safety ...... 25 5.2. Living rooms and the arrangements for spending free time incompatible with the needs of children ...... 26 5.3. Unauthorised departure of pupils from the school ...... 27 5.4. Security check without a legal basis ...... 28 5.5. Right to the confidentiality of messages and inviolability of private life . 28 6. Providers of involuntary emergency psychiatric are ...... 29 6.1. Availability of a psychiatrist ...... 30 6.2. Conditions of restraint ...... 30 6.3. Registration of the applied means of restraint ...... 31 6.4. Guarantee of privacy ...... 31 3 CONTENTS

7. Providers of 24-hour special care services ...... 32 7.1 Restriction of the liberty of persons ...... 32 7.2. Sufficient number of activity supervisors...... 33 7.3. The number of service recipients ...... 33 7.4. Safety of seclusion rooms and register of means of restraint ...... 34 8. Providers of nursing care services ...... 35 8.1. Restricting the liberty of persons ...... 36 8.1.1. Locking of doors of wards ...... 36 8.1.2. Unlawful mechanical fixing ...... 36 8.2. Nurse call system ...... 37 8.3. Consent for the provision of nursing care services ...... 37 8.4. Care corresponding to human dignity ...... 38 8.5. Language barrier ...... 38 9. Providers of general care services ...... 39

PART II CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN ...... 41

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 42

II. PROCEEDINGS...... 44 1. The rates of fees of kindergarten places in Keila town and Saue rural municipality ...... 45 2. Transport compensation to pupils in Rae rural municipality ...... 46 3. Weekly load of pupils engaged in education for children with severe and profound intellectual disability ...... 46 4. Payment of support to a toddler staying at home in Rae rural municipality ...... 47 5. Placement of a child in a special care home ...... 48 6. Acquisition and transfer of securities on behalf of a child ...... 49 7. Rights of a successor who is a minor in succeeding to units in a pension fund ...... 49 8. Payment of the childbirth allowance in Haapsalu town ...... 50 9. Registration of the birth and medical check-up of a child ...... 50 10. Activities of Pärnu city government in organising the life of a child separated from family ...... 51 11. The activities of Paldiski town government in its function as the guardian in ensuring the rights of the child ...... 51 12. Violating the right of decision-making of a parent in the provision of social services ...... 52 13. Organising contacts between a parent and child ...... 52 14. Problems relating to rights of custody and representation of children separated from family ...... 53

III. INSPECTION VISITS ...... 54 1. Compliance with the recommendations given on the basis of an analysis of the substitute home service ...... 54

IV. PROMOTING THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD ...... 57 1. Studies, analyses, information materials ...... 57 2. Advisory body to the Ombudsman for Children ...... 59 3. Writing competition organised by the Ombudsman for Children and the Centre for Children’s Literature in Estonia ...... 60 4 4. Public address for the involvement of children in shaping local life ...... 60 CONTENTS

5. Domestic cooperation ...... 60 6. International cooperation ...... 61 7. Participation in the activities of other institutions ...... 61 8. Special programme on the rights of the child at the festival Just Film ...... 61 9. Homepage and Facebook profile ...... 62 10. Lectures, presentations and speeches ...... 62

PART III OVERVIEW OF THE PERFORMANCE OF OTHER FUNCTIONS ENTRUSTED BY LAW TO THE CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE ...... 66

I. THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY AND EQUAL TREATMENT ...... 67

PART IV STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS ...... 69

1. General outline of statistics of proceedings ...... 70 1.1. Petition-based statistics ...... 70 1.2. Statistics based on cases opened ...... 70 2. Opinions of the Chancellor of Justice ...... 71 2.1. Review of constitutionality and legality of legislation of general application ...... 72 2.2. Verification of lawfulness of activities of agencies and institutions performing public functions ...... 74 2.3. Special proceedings ...... 75 2.4. Cases without substantive proceedings ...... 75 3. Distribution of cases by respondents ...... 77 4. Distribution of cases by areas of law ...... 82 5. Distribution of cases by regions ...... 84 6. Language of proceedings ...... 84 7. Inspection visits ...... 85 8. Reception of individuals ...... 86 9. Conclusion ...... 86

5 CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PART I PART II PART III PART IV

PART I CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM

6 9 8 7 occasions. three made. were effect on this to judgments more Estonia by Freedoms Fundamental and Rights Human of a prohibitionofinhumanordegradingtreatment)theEuropeanConventiononProtection (establishing 3 Article of violation a found has Rights Human of Court European the Previously, degrading Overview or 2010 Justice inhuman of detail Chancellor cruel, more the in in or explained was torture ill-treatment) to called also subjected (hereinafter punishment be or treatment to not right the constitutes What preventive national the of 2007. February 18 functions since mechanism the performs Justice of Chancellor January the 17 on Estonia, Estonia In of 2007. respect the in force signed into Estonia entered it 2002. and 2004 December September 21 18 on Protocol on adopted was (OPCAT) Punishment or Treatment Degrading or Inhuman Cruel, other and Torture against Convention the to Protocol Optional The I. 6 5 4 3 2 1 Association Advocacy Patient Estonian the care nursing of providers the of analysis knowledge 2011 services the Board’s Health with the restricted in be found was may state services the care of nursing of recipients of liberty to right etc. homes, care hospitals, psychiatric at wards closed also but centres detention police Thus, and prisons only will. not include detention of at places leave to permitted not are persons where with from or and acquiescence authority or public consent a its of order by restricted is persons of liberty the where ownership, of form their of regardless institutions, other all include detention of places institutions, custodial state to addition in words, other In 2). para 4 (Article authority other or administrative any judicial, of order by will at leave to permitted not is person that which setting custodial private or public a in person a of its placement the or imprisonment or at detention of form any or means liberty” of authority “deprivation of public notion The a 1). para by 4 (Article given acquiescence or order consent its an with or of instigation virtue by may either or liberty, are their persons of where deprived places be all mean detention of places Protocol, Optional the Under 2015. January 1 on force into enter will and 2014 June 19 on Riigikogu the by adopted was Code Penal the amending for Act The misconduct. official criminal 290 § legislation, Code relating Penal the the amending and for Act Draft a initiated Justice of Ministry The Estonia. on binding Committee Rights Human the and Torture against Committee UN the (e.g. organisations international of opinion § in established torture of 40841/08, 8192/10 and 18656/10, and 8192/10 40841/08, No case in 2009 July 2 of CO/4, p 8; Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee. Estonia. 28 July 2010, CCPR/C/EST/CO/3, p 7. online: Available online: Available JUHTUMITEST%20N%C3%84IDETEGA.pdf http://www.terviseamet.ee/fileadmin/dok/Tervishoid/JO_tulemused_hooldusasutustes.pdf online: Available 7. p Overview, Estonia vial oln i Estonian: in online Available Estonian: in online Available 2010 Chancellor’s the see establishments, open so-called the and detention of places between distinctions On uoen or o Hmn ihs uget f 8 ac 21 i cs N 10195/08, No case in 2013 March 28 of judgment Rights Human of Court European European Court of Human Rights judgment of 8 November 2005 in case No 64812/01, Estonian: in online Available CAT/C/EST/ 2007, November 22 Estonia. Torture. against Committee the of recommendations and Conclusions 6. p Overview, 2010 Justice of Chancellor the See § Act, Justice of Chancellor the See INTRODUCTION 8 , as well as in the 2011 annual summary of the incidents in nursing care compiled by compiled care nursing in incidents the of summary annual 2011 the in as well as , ; judgment of 19 December 2013 in case No 429/12, No case in 2013 December 19 of judgment ; http://oiguskantsler.ee/sites/default/files/overview_2010.pdf https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/ee/Riigikogu/act/508012014001/consolide 3 ), with the definition of torture established under international conventions international under established torture of definition the with ), CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR 41653/05, 122 of the current Penal Code of Estonia is not compatible, in the in compatible, not is Estonia of Code Penal current the of 122 https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/112072014005 http://oiguskantsler.ee/sites/default/files/overview_2010.pdf Julin v. Estonia. v. Julin 1(7). http://www.epey.ee/public/files/KOKKUV%C3%95TE%20HOOLDUSRAVI%20 1 ošto v Estonia v. Kotšetkov f hc wl etbih otr a a eaae punishable separate a as torture establish will which of . 1

7 6 9 o eape a idcto ta te fundamental the that indication an example, For

2 . Inspection visits by the Chancellor of Justice have Justice of Chancellor the by visits Inspection . . There it was also pointed out that the definition the that out pointed also was it There .

jdmn o 2 My 02 n ae N 16563/08, No cases in 2012 May 29 of judgment ; Tunis v. Estonia. v. Tunis 4 . .

. Alver v. Estonia v. Alver Korobov and Others v. v. Others and Korobov . 5 n 03 two 2013, In .

. ; judgment

7 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 8 PART IV PART III PART II PART I r asse wr dsrbd n oe eal n h Caclo’ 21 Overview. 2010 Chancellor’s the in detail more in described were assessed are The methodology and criteria of the inspection visits on were the basis of which experts the places of detention the occasions, five On 2013. paediatrician. a in occasion one on and practitioners visits general inspection six in involved were Experts follows: as categorised be can 2013 in visits inspection the establishments, of types By 2007. in visits 18 and 2008, in of of detention of places 40 number to visits 19 2009; in detention places of places 37 to visits 25 2010; The in detention 23 to out. visits carried inspection were 23 of places 33 to visits 27 detention 2011; in detention comparison, of places 35 to visits 33 2012; in place took detention In of 29. places was 38 visits inspection to unannounced visits inspection 40 2013, In or media the Chancellor). the from to petitions from obtained information (e.g. verification immediate requiring and Chancellor’s attention the attracted having circumstances and rights, fundamental of guarantee terms the in of facility particular the by posed problems of seriousness the years), least three at every establishment once each inspect to is aim (the visit previous the from hoc passed time ad the on for left visits. is the scope some in that involved consideration foremost and first based is inspected be to establishments the of choice Chancellor’s The visits. to be subject to up need drawn is experts plan which the Naturally, and whether and visits) unannounced or announced (i.e. visits the of welfare type and time the the social down up laying also plan, drawing work and annual when Chancellor’s made facilities is inspected detention be to police establishments the are of choice them The institutions. of majority The the OPCAT. within of detention of meaning places as qualifying Estonia in establishments 150 almost are There exists. indeed services care nursing of recipients the of liberty to right fundamental the of restriction unlawful of risk a that shown summary of an inspection visit is also translated into English. into translated a also is of visit inspection abstract an of summary short A etc). disclosed, is data personal no (i.e. summaries the publishing when observed are requirements protection Data website. Justice of Chancellor the on published are visits inspection of Summaries authorities. relevant other and proposals establishment inspected and the recommendations to containing compiled, is summary a visit, inspection each of 11 10 places the in held individuals and at working staff among awareness raise to carried aim the been with out have ill-treatment preventing for activities other visits, inspection to addition In

9) 8) 7) 6) 5) 4) 3) 2) 1) ee/en/inspection-visits overview_2010.pdf e te hnelrs 00 vriw p 89 Aalbe online: English translations of the abstracts of summaries of inspection visits are Available available online: 8–9. pp overview, 2010 Chancellor’s the See

of detention inspected. detention of inspected; detention of places inspected; detention of places 6 Prison); Tartu of inspected; providers of nursing care services – 8 visits (6 of them unannounced), 8 possible places possible 8 unannounced), them of (6 visits 8 – services care nursing of providers visit; unannounced 1 – services care general of providers 13 unannounced), them of (14 visits 15 – services care special 24-hour of providers unannounced), them of (5 visits 6 – care psychiatric emergency involuntary of providers visit; announced 1 – schools special visit; announced 1 – Forces Defence prisons – 2 announced visits, 3 places of detention inspected (incl. psychiatric department inspected; detention of place 1 visits, announced detention 2 – centre expulsion of places 4 unannounced), them of (3 visits 4 – facilities detention police . CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR . http://oiguskantsler.ee/sites/default/files/ 11 http://oiguskantsler. 10 s result a As 14 13 12 2013. March recipients] service care of up locking to end an demands Teder Indrek Justice of S. Randla, media: the by covered were During the reporting year, several inspection visits and proceedings carried out by the Chancellor Estonia. in children their and parents imprisoned between Estonia“. in parents imprisoned with connections „Children’s article an published Žurakovskaja-Aru Ksenia adviser ill- of issues on articles internet treatment. In 2013, and in the paper the EUROCHIPS newsletter both ill-treatment, published of have prevention advisers the his about and society Chancellor of awareness overall the raise to the order to In rights fundamental explained Sults R. which of 2013. in continued also Forces Defence course the of conscripts the in project training The governments. county Viljandi and Tartu by organised days information the at prevention of Chancellor’s issues the on presentations from delivered Officials also 2013. Office May 24 on Board Insurance Social the by organised day working other’s information the at presentation each a delivered Chancellor the to advisers addition, In services. care special studied 24-hour of providers Board the inspecting in Insurance gained experience Social the exchanged and the methods and Chancellor the care particular, special In 24-hour of providers legislation. the by and agreement administrative the by down Insurance compliance laid requirements the with services Social over the supervision out with carries cooperation which developed Board Chancellor the year, reporting the During English. and Russian Estonian, in available is homepage the of section relevant The ill-treatment. of prevention the for mechanism the as Chancellor the of role the and detention, of places in staying persons of rights the detention, of places as treated establishments of kinds the ill-treatment, of definition the on explanations provides homepage awareness, ill-treatment. raise of prevention the to on section order special a contains in homepage Chancellor’s the Similarly, mechanisms. complaint the and freedoms implement and effectively rights to fundamental their understand better to restricted is liberty whose persons help to order in visits, inspection the during materials information distributed as well as days information and events training organised also has Justice of Chancellor the of Office the detention, of places the in held individuals and at working staff among awareness raise To 7-9/130704). No case services, care special 24-hour of providers the to (Circular outside the from only door the locking enable which them from devices locking any remove to and services care special 24-hour of clients of rooms the of doors the all examine to providers service the asked and bedrooms, their the in for including adjusted purpose, not rooms the in clients seclude to prohibited is it that explained circular his in Chancellor of The services. protection care 24-hour of sufficient recipients of ensure freedoms and rights to fundamental the as so it change necessary, whenever and, establishments respective their in practice the revise providers service the make to was circular the of aim The 24-hour of providers the all of special care attention services to the the main shortcomings drew identified by circular him in his the inspected in establishments. Chancellor the example, For need the it. fight and to ill-treatment of essence the of public, wider the among as well as detention, of http://www.ohtuleht.ee/512685/oiguskantsler-nouab-hooldatavate-lukustamise-lopetamist http://lasteombudsman.ee/sites/default/files/IMCE/2013_justice_for_children_of_prisoners_ksenija_0.pdf Available online in Estonian: in online Available online: available is English in article The 18–19. pp 4-2013, 1/ No newsletter, the of edition Special homepage Justice of Chancellor the See Õiguskantsler Indrek Teder nõuab hooldatavate lukustamise lõpetamist. lukustamise hooldatavate nõuab Teder Indrek Õiguskantsler 14 CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR 13 h atce rvds n vriw f h psiiiis f communication of possibilities the of overview an provides article The

http://oiguskantsler.ee/en/prevention-of-ill-treatment-1 Justice for Children of Prisoners of Children for Justice the Chancellor’s .

– [Chancellor Õhtuleht . 12 The , 7 , .

9 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 10 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15

− − − ------http://tarbija24.postimees.ee/2096916/sillamae-haigla-lopetas-palatite-uste-lukustamise http://www.ohtuleht.ee/535461/oiguskantsler-kontrollib-kinnipeetavate-toitlustamist-valjasaatmiskeskuses keskuse-kulul http://www.postimees.ee/1258160/oiguskantsler-valjasaatmiskeskuses-viibijatele-tuleb-tagada-hambaravi- http://www.postimees.ee/1258270/valjasaadetavate-vahel-esineb-pingeid-ja-vagivalda oiguskantsler-laane-prefektuuri-arestimajade-probleemiks-on-ametnike-vahesus anda.d?id=66089056 http://www.delfi.ee/news/paevauudised/eesti/justiitsministeerium-tahab-vangidele-rohkem-kongiruumi- http://www.ohtuleht.ee/519238/oiguskantsler-uurib-kas-vangil-on-liiga-vaike-kamber http://www.ohtuleht.ee/516461/teder-soovitab-patsientide-oiguste-kaitseks-palatile-ust Available online in Estonian: in online Available Estonian: in online Available Estonian: in online Available Estonian: in online Available Estonian: in online Available Estonian: in online Available Available online in Estonian: in online Available Estonian: in online Available Estonian: in online Available − − −

tedd h tann cus „etann wt dus ognsd y h Ofc o the of Office May. 6 the on Justice of Chancellor by organised drugs“ with „Restraining course training the attended April. February. 1 on Rights“ Human of Court European the of „Case-law course events training training the attended Muller K. ill-treatment: of prevention following the on days information and the in participated advisers Chancellor’s the year, reporting the During important. extremely as staff his of skills and knowledge the of development – doors] – yards] exercise to access given be to – doors] ward of locking – council] municipality 2013. July 31 centre] expulsion the in persons of catering scrutinises Justice of [Chancellor – centre] the of expense the at guaranteed be must kulul keskuse – expulsion] to subject persons the between occur 2013. May 21 BNS, – buildings] police five inspected – Prefecture] West the in vähesus 2013. May 7 Delfi, – space] cell more prisoners give to wants – small] too are cells prisoners’ whether investigates – patients] of rights the protect 2013. to doors have should wards that N. Parrest, K. Muller, A. Aru, I-I. Määrits, A. Kivioja, J. Konsa, K. Ploom and R. and Ploom K. Konsa, J. Kivioja, A. Määrits, I-I. Aru, A. Muller, K. Parrest, N. 29 on syndromes“ dementia common most „Four course training the attended Muller K. lõhkumist uste lubada In his role as the national preventive mechanism, the Chancellor considers the consistent uurib jalutuskäigule vange Õiguskantsler palub Õiguskantsler P. Lakson, E. Kalda, S. Randla, M. Filippov, politseihoonet viit mullu M. Filippov, kontrollis anda kongiruumi Õiguskantsler rohkem vangidele H. tahab Ojamaa, Justiitsministeerium S. Randla, S. Randla, 15 . . [Chancellor of Justice: shortage of staff a problem for police detention centres detention police for problem a staff of shortage Justice: of [Chancellor . Õhtuleht lage ag üi Jhi volikogusse Jõhvi pürib vang Eluaegne Teder soovitab patsientide õiguste kaitseks palatile ust palatile kaitseks õiguste patsientide soovitab Teder Õiguskantsler kontrollib kinnipeetavate toitlustamist väljasaatmiskeskuses toitlustamist kinnipeetavate kontrollib Õiguskantsler Õiguskantsler uurib, kas vangil on liiga väike kamber väike liiga on vangil kas uurib, Õiguskantsler Sillamäe haigla lõpetas palatite uste lukustamise uste palatite lõpetas haigla Sillamäe Väljasaadetavate vahel esineb pingeid ja vägivalda ja pingeid esineb vahel Väljasaadetavate Õiguskantsler: Lääne prefektuuri arestimajade probleemiks on ametnike ametnike on probleemiks arestimajade prefektuuri Lääne Õiguskantsler: CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR 22 Õiguskantsler: väljasaatmiskeskuses viibijatele tuleb tagada hambaravi hambaravi tagada tuleb viibijatele väljasaatmiskeskuses Õiguskantsler: . [hnelr f utc: etl ae o esn i te xuso centre expulsion the in persons to care dental Justice: of [Chancellor . , 31 October 2013. October 31 , http://news.bns.ee/topic/648/news/45960770/ http://www.postimees.ee/1241982/ Põhjarannik Postimees Postimees , 11 September 2013. September 11 ,

online

[hnelr f utc ivsiae bekn of breaking investigates Justice of [Chancellor . online Õhtuleht , 4 October 2013. October 4 , , 20 May 2013. May 20 , , 15 October 2013. October 15 , [ie rsnr at t rn o Jõhvi for run to wants prisoner [Life . . [Chancellor of Justice asks prisoners asks Justice of [Chancellor . [at er h Caclo o Justice of Chancellor the year [Last . Postimees 19 Postimees Õhtuleht 18 23 . 17 . [Sillamäe hospital ended hospital [Sillamäe .

online , 2 May 2013. May 2 ,

. [Tensions and violence and [Tensions . online . . [Chancellor of Justice of [Chancellor . [iity f Justice of [Ministry . . [Teder recommends [Teder . , 4 June 2013. June 4 , . . , 4 June 2013. June 4 , Õhtuleht . . 16 – Järvamägi Õhtuleht 9 April 9 , 20 21 . . , pca cr srie ncsaiy ae ne fr scuin om Hwvr te Chancellor need, of case the in only room However, seclusion a ensure to room. have providers service if seclusion that out pointed a also for need a have necessarily services care special basis of a court ruling. The Chancellor admitted that not all the establishments offering 24-hour the on establishment the in placed persons or remission unstable with persons to service the room would be maintained only for those providers of 24-hour special care services who provide services and seclusion rooms“, under which the obligation to ensure the existence of a seclusion Social of care special for requirements protection health Minister „The on 2009 June 30 of 58 No regulation Affairs the amending for regulation draft the to regard Chancellor with the opinion addition, his In expressed Rights). Human of Court European the of case-law and Freedoms Fundamental and Rights Human of Protection the for Convention European the of 3 Article Act, the requirement of minimum floor space of prison cells with the Constitution, the Imprisonment to constitutional regard (e.g. ill-treatment with of prevention acts conformity of the conditions the of detention legal and to internal rules in the related expulsion several centre; conformity of indirectly of or directly constitutionality issues the the analysed Chancellor the 2013, In guests: foreign following the from visits received also Justice of Chancellor The events: international following the attended Chancellor the to advisers year, reporting the During punishment. and treatment degrading or inhuman cruel, other and torture against (NPM) Mechanisms Preventive National of Network Europe of Council the of member active an been has Chancellor The important. very be to organisations international relevant and bodies preventive other with cooperation international considers Justice of Chancellor the addition, In − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Minorities (HCNM) on 14 March. 14 on (HCNM) Minorities Strasbourg. in November 20–22 on Standards“ Minimum Developing and Concerns Strasbourg. in November Paris. in May 27–28 on Europe“ in Commissions complaints November. 22 on imperative?” ethical or dream a – care health quality November. 15 on treatment“ psychiatric sobering-up). sampling, forced coercion, direct (e.g. police Finnish the by used measures enforcement law the and activities police of supervision ombudsman’s the on focused visit the alia, Inter October. 28–31 on protection data and law police of issues on Finland October. 21–22 on support“ and understand to how – recovery October. 9 on patients“ complex with Coping communicator. successful a be September. 25 and 18 September. 19 on practices“ international and Commission European the by the needs. special with and children for centre diagnostic problems, and counselling Greiningar behavioural and psychological with children for centre Studlar the children, abused sexually for centre support Barnahus the including September, 9–13 on The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Nils Muižnieks on 26 March. 26 on Muižnieks Nils Rights Human for Commissioner Europe of Council The National on Commissioner High OSCE the to Graaf Vincent and Croft Jennifer Advisers Common Establishing Europe: in detention „Immigration seminar the attended Albi K. 13–15 on Detention“ to Related Conditions „Improving seminar the attended Konsa J. police independent of role the issues: security in „Ethics seminar the attended Konsa J. high- coercive “Accessible conference Bioethics of of Council „Application Estonian the attended course Allikmets M. training the attended Järvamägi R. and Muller K. of Ombudsman Parliamentary the visited Konsa J. and Mikiver M. Laos, S. Parrest, N. October. 25 on „Guardianship“ course training and the attended Ploom K. disorders „Mental course training the attended Allikmets M. and Järvamägi R. to how – psychology behavioural on „Training course training the attended Allikmets M. on guardians“ „Self-employed course training the attended Ploom K. and Järvamägi R. guidance – Estonia in „De-institutionalisation course training the attended Järvamägi R. Iceland in institutions protection child visited Reinomägi A. and Paron K. Sarv, M. Aru, A. CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR 11 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 12 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 27 26 25 24 outdoor an to access one-hour for possibility a documenting of restriction surveillance; assistance; medical from video refusals by cell prison a of corner hygiene the of observation person; of means of restraint in a prison, documenting their application and supervision of the restrained application the of duration extended example, for ill-treatment: of prevention the to relate also competence ombudsman Chancellor’s the of framework the in out carried proceedings Several children. of ill-treatment of prohibition the establishes alia, inter which, prepared, been had Act Protection Child Draft new a Affairs Social children. of punishment corporal of prohibition of issue the to attention pay to continues Chancellor The worker care a of presence 24-hour a with supervisor activity an of presence 24-hour level county the on services care special for services. care special organisation of and substance the concerning shortcomings remedy to order in Riigikogu the in Act Persons Act, Disabled for Welfare Benefits Social Social the the and Act of Benefits and amendment Services Market the Labour the for SE) (471 Act Draft a initiated Government the addition, In services. care special of development future and organisation the discuss to 2013 was system services care the of reform a for raised. need the society, in debate wider a of part As ruling. court a under care special 24-hour to subjected be to persons of detention of grounds the establishing 2013 for procedure prescribed April the follow 30 always courts the of whether arose question 3-2-1-44-13 No ruling Court Supreme the on based year, reporting community. surrounding the and of as restricted well as be clients the of could safety the services ensure to care how 24-hour of of clients Home of movement of Valkla freedom the from extent clients of departure what to and whether arose question unauthorised a incidents, these by Prompted Ltd). Hoolekandeteenused and Centre Services Care Special care 24-hour of provision Estonian South the left the who client a of death to concerning freezing (e.g. attention public received services cases negative several year, reporting the During involuntary restraint). (e.g. of purposes for restraint client a of to drugs of means administration prohibited of application the to lead may this practice in 31 30 29 28

iaiiy eand ihu gons o yas (vial oln i Estonian: in online (available vaimupuudega-inimest-peeti-aastate-kaupa-alusetult-kinni.d?id=66103684 years] for grounds without detained disability index.php?id=176080 Estonian: in online (available exists] care special to relating problems resolve to will Estonian: in online ade4-6eeb4e46dfaa (available death] to client another river] (available online in Estonian: peavalu.d?id=66097048 http://eestielu.delfi.ee/eesti/harjumaa/kuusalu/elu/tv3-valkla-hooldekodu-kliendid-teevad-politseile- Estonian: in online (available police] the for headache a home care Valkla of [Clients peavalu“ politseile teevad postimees.ee/1283112/politsei-otsib-saaremaal-hooldekodust-lahkunud-naist Estonian: Estonian: in online (available Saaremaa] in in home care a left who online woman a for looking police (available [The investigation] criminal a to eesti/54844672-f783-48a1-a834-90e9675db1e9 led home care special http://adr.rik.ee/okk/fail/2405188/18-21308481302966%2001.07.2013%20V%C3%A4ljaminev%20kiri.ddoc rhbto o croa pnsmn o cide. vial online: Available children. of punishment of-justices-public-address-to-the-minister-of-social-affairs-on-prohibition-of-corporal corporal of prohibition Estonian: in e, .. atce „oluaue eu ess es hoels srus [on wmn n cr hm beat home care a in woman [Young surnuks“ hoolealuse teise peksis neiu „Hooldusalune articles e.g., See, Estonian: in online Available Meegomäe at incident [The kriminaalmenetluse“ kaasa tõi juhtum erihooldekodu „Meegomäe articles e.g., See, Estonian: in online available is opinion The e as te hnelrs ulc drs o 1 Nvme 21 t te iitr f oil far fr the for Affairs Social of Minister the to 2012 November 19 of address public Chancellor’s the also See 37. p II, SE 471 Act Draft the See 20. p II, SE 471 Act Draft the See The Act was adopted by the Riigikogu on 26 February 2014 and will enter into force on 1 January 2015. Available online 27 n hs ai, h Riiou oil far cmite raie a etn o 9 April 9 on meeting a organised committee affairs social Riigikogu the basis, this On 31 The Chancellor can note with satisfaction that under the guidance of the Ministry of Ministry the of guidance the under that satisfaction with note can Chancellor The http://www.riigikogu.ee/?op=ems&page=eelnou&eid=047c1aa9-b12c-486d-b7b1-df93749ff7e7& CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR ), „Tsahkna: tahe erihoolekandega seotud probleemid lahendada on olemas“ [Tsahkna: the [Tsahkna: olemas“ on lahendada probleemid seotud erihoolekandega tahe „Tsahkna: ), ), „Vaimupuudega inimest peeti aastate kaupa alusetult kinni“ [Person with an intellectual an with [Person kinni“ alusetult kaupa aastate peeti inimest „Vaimupuudega ), ) , „Hooldekodu elanik leiti jõest uppunult“ [Inhabitant of care home found drowned in a in drowned found home care of [Inhabitant uppunult“ jõest leiti elanik „Hooldekodu , 28 Significant changes include, for example, maintaining the queue list queue the maintaining example, for include, changes Significant http://www.riigikohus.ee/?id=11&tekst=RK/3-2-1-44-13 http://www.postimees.ee/2616452/hooldekodu-elanik-leiti-joest-uppunult ) „oisi ti Saeal oleout aknd naist“ lahkunud hooldekodust Saaremaal otsib „Politsei , 29 and the possibility in certain cases to replace a replace to cases certain in possibility the and http://uudised.err.ee/v/eesti/773b21b9-6597-45cd- 24 http://oiguskantsler.ee/en/chancellor- ). http://epl.delfi.ee/news/eesti/ , Vll hodkd kliendid hooldekodu „Valkla ), http://www.riigikogu.ee/ http://uudised.err.ee/v/ . . 25 During the During http://www. 30 . 26 as a also , . ). . 33 32 detected. were that shortcomings highlighting 2013, in detention of places different to Chancellor the by made visits inspection the of overview an contains subdivision following The Ltd). Hoolekandeteenused of School Boarding Imastu (at adults from separately accommodated are ruling court a under service care special 24-hour to subjected minors the all 2013 December 3 since Chancellor, to the to According available information future. the the in service the organising in recommendations the of account take to The Social Insurance Board replied to both of the Chancellor’s recommendations that it intended ruling. court a under care special to 24-hour subjected minors to service the providing in account into taken be should that aspects the to regard with home care special the and Board also Insurance Social the Chancellor to recommendations gave the proceedings, these of individual result a the As clients. to the of conforming nature specific supervision and needs ensured home care the at arrangements moment work particular the the at that established be not could it child, the measures of safety general the ensuring several for applied home care special the although that concluded Chancellor the case, the assessed Having child. their ill-treated had client adult an home care special other the in that petition their in out pointed they time This again. Chancellor the contacted parents child’s the later Sometime home. care special another to service care special 24-hour receiving minors the all transferred Board Insurance Social the opinion, Chancellor’s the receiving After to service the ruling. court of a under provision care 24-hour to the subjected minors in account into taken be should what to as home care special the and Board the Insurance Social of the both to result recommendations gave Chancellor a the proceedings, As ascertaining establishment. for particular the and of staff child and the clients the of from requirements arising risks specific the the to regard child’s with home the care after the also to child guidance given have the also should Board for Insurance Social service The home. care the special the to of referral suitability the verified have should Board children to service the of provision the for requirements the home particular, care special the In to explained have activities. should Board Insurance their Social the in that found Chancellor breaches the found and child the of safety the ensuring in Board Insurance Social the and home care special the both of activities the assessed Chancellor The the for home. care suitable the at risk environment at repeatedly were an health and life have child’s the and not child did home care special the that found parents The ruling. court a under service care 24-hour a to subjected been had child minor whose parents minors for freedoms and rights by contacted was Chancellor The year. reporting the during arose fundamental care special 24-hour receiving of ensuring concern, of issue important an As made has practices. Chancellor administrative changing for the conclusions and proceedings, proposals recommendations, ombudsman above the of basis the conditions On living battalion. daily a centre; in expulsion the in searches of organisation cell; persons punishment of a clothing in persons; detained to articles hygiene personal of provision yard; exercise http://adr.rik.ee/okk/fail/2591027/Sotsiaalkindlustusamet_vastus%20soovitusele.ddoc Estonian: in online Available staff. existing the train to or child a for staff See the Social Insurance Board’s reply No 18-4/13230 of 3 December 2013 to the Chancellor’s recommendation. Chancellor’s the to 2013 December 3 of 18-4/13230 No reply Board’s Insurance Social the See suitable find to need the to attention draw to and adults, no are there where room a in child a place to alia, Inter CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR 33 32 , and the Social Insurance Social the and , . 13 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 14 PART IV PART III PART II PART I The following buildings were inspected: were buildings following The PBGB. the of Prefectures South and East the in detention short-term for used buildings the to visit inspection unannounced an out carried Chancellor the to advisers 2013, August 8 and 7 On 1.1. below. detail more in described are detention short-term for used Viljandi in reports check health buildings the in and primary facility sobering-up the in identified shortcomings The of chamber). detention (e.g. up persons drawing detained shortage in the violations of the occasional respect still and in chamber) are documents detention chamber) Rapla detention and order Paide Rapla public (at and staff the Paide of of (Viljandi, chambers PBGB detention the the to of visits bureaus the during found problems main The unannounced. were facilities police the to visits Chancellor’s The following: the included facilities inspected The PBGB. the of centres PBGB detention police the the in detained of individuals of cases Prefectures death analysed South and Guard and East Border the of administration and of area Police the of within detention the individuals short-term for used of rooms on prefectures focused Chancellor the of addition, In bureaus (PBGB). Board order police public of chambers of detention centres to visits detention inspection regular out carried Chancellor the 2013, In 1. II. − − − − 19) 18) 17) 16) 15) 14) 13) 12) 11) 10) 9) 8) 7) 6) 5) 4) 3) 2) 1) − − − − DETENTION OF PLACES IN ILL-TREATMENT OF PREVENTION Short-term detention Short-term facilities detention Police Prefecture of the PBGB ( PBGB the of Prefecture ( PBGB the 7-7/130046); No (case PBGB the of Prefecture West the of bureau order public the ( PBGB the of Prefecture South the of bureau order npcin ii t te oeigu fclt o te ulc re bra o te North the of bureau order public the of facility sobering-up the to visit inspection of Prefectures South and East the of chambers detention short-term to visit inspection of centre detention police the of chambers detention Rapla and Paide to visit inspection public the of centre detention police the of chamber detention Viljandi to visit inspection

Koidula railway border crossing point (Orava border crossing point) crossing border (Orava point crossing border railway Koidula point crossing border road Koidula station; patrol border Saatse station; patrol border Värska station; patrol border Mehikoorma station; patrol border Varnja station; patrol border Mustvee point; constable Mustvee station; patrol border Alajõe station; patrol border Vasknarva station; patrol border Punamäe station; patrol border Mustajõe station; patrol border Narva point; crossing border road Narva station; patrol border Narva-Jõesuu Prefecture); East the of (headquarters point constable Jõhvi point; constable Kohtla-Järve point; constable Kiviõli point; constable Tapa case No 7-7/131201 No case CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR case No 7-7/140068 No ); ). case No 7-7/130533 No case ); 34 North and South East, the in detention chambers detention the police in occurred the deaths The in 2012. in died facilities persons 7 PBGB, the from received information the to According persons. detained of deaths to regard with police the by up drawn materials control the on absence, their in or, PBGB the of materials proceedings disciplinary the on relied Chancellor the this, doing In year. reporting the to prior (2012) year the during facilities police in detained persons of death of cases analysed and practice earlier his continued Chancellor The 1.3. the of summary the in made proposals and visit. inspection Chancellor’s recommendations the with agreed PBGB The restraint. of means any of use lawful the and up sobering for individuals of placement the on reports the out filling properly of importance the again once stressed also Chancellor the visit, the of summary the In sobering-up cells. the the in surveillance video in install cells the of to possibility a find supervision to PBGB the to that proposed Chancellor the and found sufficient be not might was facility it inspection, the of result a As health facility. sobering-up of the in provision services the assess to expert an as visit the in involved was practitioner general A facility). sobering-up the (hereinafter PBGB the of Prefecture North the of the bureau of order centre public an detention police made the Chancellor of the facility sobering-up to the advisers to 2013, visit inspection November unannounced 16 of morning early the in o’clock 6 At 1.2. recommendations surveillance. Chancellor’s video to the with agreed relating issues the and also persons detained of rights the of guarantee the in variability concerning General Director The detention. short- for designated term buildings police in individuals of catering the organising in used be can prefectures the of centres detention of assistance the that explained also General Director The days. study during officers the to stressed is person) a of detention the concerning documents out filling (including persons detained of respect in documents out fill properly to necessity the that noted PBGB the of General Director the recommendations, Chancellor’s the to reply his In surveillance. the video of in use the of individuals case in of corner hygiene privacy the ensure to police the to proposed Chancellor the particular, In detention. short-term for used cells the in surveillance video of use the by attracted also attention was Chancellor’s The bedclothes). of provision articles, hygiene individual of distribution (e.g. guidelines above the by established rights other the of guarantee uniform no is there and buildings different in differently organised was detainees of catering the that found also was It individuals. of detention short-term documenting in shortcomings identified Chancellor The detention“ short-term for „Guidelines the approving 2010 November 17 of 488 No decree General’s Director PBGB the of implementing and detention of conditions the including detention, short-term of execution the on focused visits inspection The

h Caclo’ 20 Oeve p 1-6 aalbe online: available 10-16, pp Overview overview_2009.pdf 2009 Chancellor’s the 22) 21) 20) h Caclo md a rpsl o h Mnse o Itra Afis o dp sc gieie i 20 (see 2009 in guidelines such adopt to Affairs Internal of Minister the to proposal a made Chancellor The order bureau of the North Prefecture of the PBGB the of Prefecture North the of bureau order Death cases of detained persons in 2012 in persons detained of cases Death public the of centre detention police the of facility sobering-up the to visit Inspection Luhamaa road border crossing point. crossing border road Luhamaa station; patrol border Luhamaa station; patrol border Piusa ). CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR 34 http://oiguskantsler.ee/sites/default/files/ . 15 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 16 PART IV PART III PART II PART I aduf. pcfcly i ws on ta hncfs ee sal ue i cs o escorting of of case use in the used of usually legality were of handcuffs issue that the found with was dealt it Chancellor Specifically, the handcuffs. inspection, the of result a As 2.1. 2011. in place took centre expulsion the to visit inspection previous Chancellor’s The region. our speak in used commonly not most languages foreign do the who people to counselling psychological provide and traditions eating consideration different into take to necessary is it alia, distinct Inter seekers. the asylum of on situation focus the of more nature requires the centre Therefore, the of seekers. reorganisation asylum that of out detention pointed foreigners, the Chancellor for for centre grounds legal detention the the in renamed change was a following centre expulsion the 2013, October 1 On expert. an as visit inspection the in involved was practitioner general A PBGB: the of centre expulsion the to visit follow-up a and visit inspection unannounced an out carried Chancellor the to advisers 2013, In 2. the on training follow-up a it. alleviate include to used medicines of 2014 effect the and intoxication for narcotic of nature plans training PBGB the example, For 2014. in already have Chancellor the by continue will efforts observed these and detainees of supervision of charge in officers for issues organised been the on days study noted and and events recommendations training Chancellor’s that the with agreed PBGB the of General Director The 2011. in persons detained of deaths the of analysis Chancellor’s the by prompted were which and persons detained of cases death the concerned also which 2012, September 17 of 9-2/65-3 of overview No letter Affairs an Internal of Minister the in provide out set tasks the with to complied have police the how PBGB the of General Director the asked Chancellor the addition, In PBGB: the to recommendations following the made Chancellor the deaths, the of circumstances the investigating of result a As suicide. and illness serious poisoning, categories: broad three in divided be could deaths of causes The prefectures. − − 4) 3) 2) 1) − −

Application of coercion of Application foreigners) for centre (detention centre Expulsion 7-7/131436 ( foreigners) for centre olwu iseto vst o h PG dtnin ete o frinr ( foreigners for centre detention PBGB the to visit inspection follow-up detention the called 2013 October 1 (since centre expulsion PBGB the to visit inspection h efcs f actc n pyhtoi mdcns n assmn o te elh of health the of assessment and medicines psychotropic and narcotic of effects the psychotropic medicine; or the of has administration narcotic the monitor to detainees of centre to medicines distribution detention the in a involved If be should medicine. they the staff, medical administered actually has detainee a that satisfied be must centre detention the of member staff a time each that so detainees, facility; sobering-up Tallinn in cells the in surveillance video install and surveillance) video with combination in door a in hatch psychotropic medicines are placed. are medicines psychotropic up; sobering for placed persons o mrv efciees f h sac o cls hr pros sn nroi and/or narcotic using persons where cells of search the of effectiveness improve to on chambers detention the of charge in officers of training organising consider to to medicines psychotropic and narcotic of distribution of practice the change to or peephole a through (e.g. cells the in detainees of supervision effective ensure to ). CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR case No 7-7/130203 No case ); ae No case upis sial bos lnug lann gms r ok ta cud e sd y persons by and supervision used educational activity); be physical could for opportunities that languages, different books speaking or games learning language books, suitable supplies, art providing by (e.g. activities age-specific for opportunities provided: be should following the centre, the in detained nonetheless are minors The where management. cases in migration that of recommended Chancellor purposes for detained be not normally should minors which to according instruments, international in established principle the to referred Chancellor The 18. of age the over be to found were them of most report, expert assessment age the to according However, centre. the in detained being were minors (allegedly) several visit, inspection the of time the At 2.4. planned. was internet the to access enable and to opportunities sporting project expand a handiwork), (drawing, activities manual as well as offered, were classes language Estonian time: free spending been for opportunities had of creation who the included centre officials the by the employed of one of duties The regard. this in steps several taken the had to that PBGB showed offered inspection follow-up The activities period. longer of a for range centre the the in detained diversify persons to recommendation his repeated Chancellor The 2.3. issue. the re-examine the to possible it find not As did with. complied Chancellor been the court, the reached not also had centre the at had catering the to regard with recommendation complaints the that showed visit follow-up The sitting. requiring activities and work in engaged and indoors staying activity, physical little in engaged detainees for intended portions food standard increased the from proceed to centre, the in standard meals of the provision the supervising increase when Board, to Health the PBGB to and the portions food of General Director the to recommended Chancellor The breakfast. and dinner between interval long very a and food the of insufficiency was complaint main The catering. about complained centre the in staying persons visit, inspection the During 2.2. measures. security of use the deciding when procedure administrative of requirements the with complying recommended Chancellor The centre. the of security the to or others to themselves, to danger a poses condition, health a to due or actions their with either person, the if person from particular a arising threat a eliminating of purposes for only measures security apply to need the to PBGB the of General Director the of attention the drew Chancellor The centre. the in detainees the of respect in measures security applying of issue the with dealt Chancellor the addition, In exceptionally. only used were handcuffs and changed significantly been had handcuffs using of practice the recommendations relevant Chancellor’s the of result a as that showed inspection follow-up The vision) services. of health of provision range the during the or distance hearing the within (i.e. present was team escort the and whether procedures medical during in used evident been not had handcuffs also whether was documents It procedural respected. the not were competence of limits the cases, authorisations some relevant in the and, on recorded was handcuffs of use the for justification factual addition, no In minors. (allegedly) and women of respect in including centre, the outside persons Detention of minors of Detention time free spending for Opportunities Catering CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR 17 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 18 PART IV PART III PART II PART I below. detail more in described are prisons the of inspection the of result a as found shortcomings The 2010). and 2007 (2001, occasions three on Prison Harku former the of and 2009) and 2006 (in The Chancellor has previously carried out a thorough inspection of Tartu Prison on two occasions children. the of protection social and children, the of development physical and health the mothers, their with together prison the in staying children to provided services health of sufficiency and suitability the children, and mothers for department the in children of environment growth the and conditions assess living the to inspect to Prison expert Murru and an Harku to as visit the Prison in involved were Tartu paediatricians Two to services. health visit of provision the in involved was practitioner general A prisons: two to visits inspection announced out carried Chancellor the year, reporting the During 3. administration. good of principle the and (CPT) Punishment or Treatment Degrading or Inhuman and Torture of European Prevention the the for Committee of guidelines the Rights, Human on Convention European the Constitution, law, the the from arising centre obligations the the of account of take to rules order internal in it, the of basis as the on well established as entirety, its in to Act Obligation Entry the on analyse Prohibition to and Affairs Leave Internal of Minister the to proposed also Chancellor The this In detention. law. European of of supremacy the out term pointed Chancellor the the regard, and detention for grounds the of establishment Estonia, from persons of departure voluntary concerning issues to regard with law European with Act Entry on Prohibition and Leave to Obligation the of incompatibility the to referred also Chancellor The treatment. dental for pay to money have not do detainees the case in centre the of expense the at detainees the to treatment dental provide to provision of health services and psychological counselling. He also repeated the recommendation In addition, the Chancellor recommended to arrange for interpretation in case of need during the 2.5. different a until adult an conclusion about the person’s age is reached based on an expert assessment or other evidence. as treated is centre the in person the case, this In age. person’s the about data of correctness the concerning suspicion reasoned a of case in centre the in person a of placement authorise may court administrative the However, service. home substitute the providing institution an to Board Insurance Social the through sent are they foreigner, a is who minor unaccompanied an detains PBGB the when that replied Affairs Internal of Minister The centre. the in stay to relating issues of resolving the in authorities guardianship involving language; simple in and orally institution the of rules internal explaining minors; by understood language and manner the in counselling) psychological (including services necessary providing attendance; school compulsory of age the at children for education acquire to opportunity an minors; unaccompanied for guidance activity − − − − Prisons issues Other

and Murru Prison) ( Prison) Murru and npcin ii t Hru ertr o Hru n Mru rsn hriatr lo Harku also (hereinafter Prison Murru and Harku of territory Harku to visit inspection ( Prison Tartu to visit inspection CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR case No 7-7/140144 No case case No 7-7/130537 No case ). ); 36 35 the in indicate found. clearly be can or information such where continuation, report its and coercion direct of use the to led which person) detained a of behaviour the (e.g. circumstances factual those also specifically more offenders service the of force, status physical health the of of examination use and restraint the of means on or equipment reports special the weapon, in record to future the in Prison Murru and Harku to recommended Chancellor the addition, In staff). the of signature and name check, the of (time staff care health the by out carried check the concerning data other report the in note also and possible as specifically the as report record the in staff should care health prisons by examination the the of future result the in that recommended Chancellor the basis, this On person. the examining staff medical the of name(s) the and findings objective any examination, the of time the checked who and when how, and used the alia, inter record, to important is it examination, medical a of case In person. the of condition was long how for and measure respect which in establish whom, to of allows that manner a in documented be must measures these of use The ill-treatment. of allegations unfounded disproving for authorities the for also but persons of respect in restraint of means detained persons. or This is equipment important for the special prevention and weapon, combating of ill-treatment service of detained force, physical of the use documenting properly of importance the emphasised Chancellor the opinions, CPT the as well as Court, Supreme the and Rights Human of Court European the of case-law the on Based coercion. direct of application in the documenting shortcomings revealed Prison Murru and Harku of inspection the addition, In the missing. was regarding staff care health the by time the or general made very was detainee restrained a of health note It the examined. occasions were several offenders on of that status found health was the of examination and restraint of means or equipment special weapon, service force, physical of use the on reports inspections, the During 3.2. minutes. 15 every least at directly person the with communicating by checked be should person restrained the handcuffs with restraint continued of case in that Prison Tartu to proposed Chancellor the inspection, the of result a As out. filled be restraint always must offender of the of means status health the or of examination and equipment special weapon, service the force, physical of of restraint“) use of the use on continued report of case in („Examination III Part of situation And, a the restraint. be to continued it person CPT), deem should detained prison a a (e.g. continuously of minutes 10 respect than organisations more in for restraint used international are of means of if practice, opinions in that, and concluded Chancellor case-law domestic on Based restraint)? of means particular the of application the for need person subjected to restraint be checked in case of continued restraint (i.e. assess the continued a should period which after Secondly, continued? become restraint of means of application the does period which after First, reports. the of examination the upon The arose questions examined. following were offenders of status health the of examination and restraint of means or equipment special weapons, service force, physical of use the on reports inspections, the During 3.1.

See the inspection visit to Harku territory of Harku and Murru Prison (case No 7-7/140144). No (case Prison Murru and Harku of territory Harku to visit inspection the See 7-7/130537). No (case Prison Tartu to visit inspection the See eodn o te s o pyia fre srie epn seil qimn or equipment special weapon, service force, physical of use the of Recording restraint continued of case in person a of Checking en o rsrit n eaiain f h hat sau o a ofne i the in offender an of status report relevant health the of examination and restraint of means CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR 35 and/or date and/or 36 of the examination the of 19 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 20 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 37 officers. prison for disorders mental on courses training organising continue prisoners. of disorders mental of with issues dealt the Finland from lecturer a where Prison Tartu in officers service prison training the one for least course at been has there Chancellor, the to available information the to According existed. disorder a such of suspicion a whom of case in persons detained with deal to skills and knowledge sufficient have not did they said officers the time same the At disorder. mental a of indication an be could self-injury) inflicting (e.g. behaviour whose visit persons detained with the deal to had during they often talked very that out advisers pointed also Chancellor’s mental the a whom with with diagnosed officers been service Prison have disorder. who persons detained concern always does necessarily It herself. not or himself to dangerous is which Prison behaviour person’s Tartu a is persons in detained of examined measures security additional respect in measures security applying for reasons common of most three the of one that revealed application the on decrees The 3.5. security additional of application the concerning materials including measures. prison, the of rules internal the and Act Imprisonment the under required documents the all prisoners the of files personal in maintain to future the in Prison Murru and Harku to recommended Chancellor The the concerning materials measures. the security the of as termination or continuation well by as acts) applied, are (administrative measures documents security the additional contain the which must file the that means requirement this Chancellor, the of opinion the In person. detained a of respect in measures security additional of use the concerning documents the files personal in include to required is service prison the prison, the of rules of internal the and use Act Imprisonment the the Under measures. on security additional documents sufficient contain not did files the that was observed be could that personal examined Chancellor problem main the the files, examined the of number small to the of basis the On prisoners. six adviser of files an Prison, Murru and Harku to visit the During 3.4. the of up. drawn requirement be must examination health on and restraint of means the of use with the comply on report A person. the of respect in used were restraint of means if escorting to after person Prison Tartu to Imprisonment Act establishing that a health care worker must examine the health of a detained recommended Chancellor The person prison. the a inside restraint of escorting means of case in of use restraint the to similarly staff of care health by examined means was health person’s the of prion the outside use the after that show not did Prison Tartu The in up drawn restraint of means institution. of use the on reports and plans custodial escort the of examination the for outside escorted, place another was or person hospital a a to when prison the used from were example, measures those time, same the At another. to handcuffs or leg-cuffs were used when escorting no detained general persons in from that one showing custodial institution examined, were plans escort Prison, Tartu of inspection the During 3.3.

The training course took place on 9 August 2011 in cooperation with the Office of the Chancellor of Justice. of Chancellor the of Office the with cooperation in 2011 August 9 on place took course training The Training on mental disorders for prison officers prison for disorders mental on Training in measures security additional of use the concerning documents of Inclusion means or force physical which of course the in escorting after examination Health personal files personal used were restraint of CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR 37 The Chancellor recommended to Tartu Prison to Prison Tartu to recommended Chancellor The 38 mobility appropriate person’s a of seasonally account taking with also underwear), and provided footwear socks, are (including clothing section imprisonment Harku in detained the all that persons ensure to Prison Murru and Harku to recommended Chancellor the basis, this On also is which clothing appropriate outside. seasonally going for suitable warm, that ensure sufficient, to with authorities provided state the are of prisoners obligation the stressed repeatedly also has CPT The environment. the for suitable are which clothes dry and clean sufficiently Fundamental have prisoners that and Rights Human of Protection the ensure must service prison the Act, Imprisonment the and Constitution Estonian the Freedoms, for Convention European the on Based themselves. prisoners by procured be to had provide also this not and footwear did service prison the that complained also was It service. prison the by was provided underwear no and underwear own their buy to had they account prison money internal their of on availability the of regardless that complained prisoners Female purpose. for fit not and wide gloves too was the women for underwear, scarf tube-shaped the warm and thin have too were not prison the did by provided prisoners some that claimed also was It personal use clothes. to allowed not also is it winter, for clothing The warmer winter. any provide in not outside does it prison wear to cold was it and thin too was prison the by provided the clothing that complained prisoners many Prison, Murru and Harku to visit Chancellor’s the During 3.7. the change to possible it consider not did practice. current and position earlier its maintained the recommendation, Prison additional on Chancellor’s Tartu report the to the reply out its In filling restraint. of of practice means of the application changing consider to again once asking Prison, Tartu to recommendation additional an made Chancellor the 2013 December 19 on the inspection, of summary the in contained recommendations the to Prison Tartu of reply the on Based to restraining. after staff care necessary health the by health person’s the of not assessment the detail in record also is it and coercion direct of application of case each after out filled be to have not does report the that opinion the of was prison The offender. an of status health the of examination and restraint or means or equipment special the weapon, service force, physical of use on report the out filling to regard with differed prison the and Chancellor the of views the However, recommendations. the with agreed partly Prison Tartu Chancellor, the to reply its In of application of the upon requirement doctor the a restraint. of means by with condition comply patient’s a to of Prison assessment direct Tartu and to personal proposed Chancellor the basis, this On treatment. degrading or inhuman cruel, for risk potential a involves turn, in which, person of inviolability and liberty to right fundamental patient’s a with interference arbitrary to lead may § to contrary is condition patient’s a assessing of application the regarding directly and personally without departme3.7nt psychiatric the at decision doctor a by restraint of means a of making that opinion the expressed Chancellor The the phone. in by restraint of means of application shortcomings the on decision a made had hours found working Chancellor the outside the duty home on been had who Prison, doctor the Namely, restraint. of Tartu means of application of department psychiatric the At 3.6. htm online: Available 23. p 2010“, March 22 to 19 from (CPT) Punishment or Treatment Degrading or Inhuman and Torture of Prevention the for Committee European See, e.g. „Report to the United Kingdom Government on the visit to the Bailiwick of Guernsey carried out by the by out carried Guernsey of Bailiwick the to visit the on Government Kingdom United the to „Report e.g. See, Clothing of prisoners of Clothing Prison Tartu of department psychiatric the at restraint of means of Application . CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR 38

http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/gbr/2010-37-inf-eng. 14(3) of the Mental Health Act. Such practice Such Act. Health Mental the of 14(3) 21 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 22 PART IV PART III PART II PART I h stain f h ros a wl a te itns n hm ue fr aig ae f personal of inspection. care previous the taking during for as same used the them) practically in is hygiene fittings the as well (as rooms the of situation The wash hairdryer). no is to there as hair person) the drying (including per up tidied get minutes then and themselves 15 (allegedly time little too had they not that are complained who working) those (i.e. bloc accommodation the in only shower a take who prisoners Female prisoners. 70 approximately by shared be to room washing the in sinks 3 and lavatories 3 only has which department N1 in bad particularly is situation the prisoners, the to According the toilet. visit and up tidied themselves get to reach not did they morning period the in 20-minute line-up designated the before the during that complained prisoners The hygiene. of personal of section imprisonment care Harku take to prisoners female the of opportunities scarce in the to related is years Prison Murru and Harku for persisted has which problem continuing A living the regarding shortcomings found. several were conditions Prison, Murru and Harku of inspection the During 3.9. minutes. five exceed not should time reasonable the opinion, Chancellor’s the In time. reasonable a within bloc accommodation the to back sent be should person a wish a of case in from shelter that principle the get on based be should work of organisation the that added to Chancellor The wind). possible is it which behind wall a with it equipping roof, partly a by with (e.g. it weather covering poor of case in shelter offer would it that so bloc, to accommodation next the yard exercise the change to Prison Murru and Harku to recommended Chancellor The weather. inclement from shelter and rest of means a with equipped be should yards exercise outdoor the that recommending Prison, Viru the take this. ensure to to measures necessary required is service prison the and weather, inclement from protection and rest to opportunity an offer must exercise outdoor for designated place the that explained also has it The CPT has constantly stressed the importance of an opportunity for daily outdoor exercise and wish. relevant the expressing of moment the of as time reasonable a within building the to back persons the send not did service prison the because outside), while cold got person a when (e.g. wish of case in bloc accommodation the to back go to complicated was it therefore, and, bloc accommodation male the in shower the use could prisoners female the outdoors were they when time the at that explained prisoners Male surrounded by wire netting without any walls one-hour or roof to protect persons daily from inclement weather. ensuring with problems revealed outdoor exercise for prisoners were found. The place designated for outdoor exercise was a yard Prison Murru and Harku of inspection The 3.8. the prisoners). the for of suitable is practice which clothing offer the (i.e. clothing change of provision necessary, if and, prison the by prisoners to provided clothing the of appropriateness the analyse to recommended also Chancellor The health. and opportunities 39 41 40

IMCE/inspection_visit_to_harku_prison_0.pdf online: Available 63. para 2012“, June 6 to May 30 from (CPT) Punishment or Treatment Degrading or Inhuman and Torture of Prevention June online: Available 13 131. para to 2011“, May 31 from (CPT) Punishment or Treatment Degrading or Inhuman and Torture of Prevention the See, e.g. „Report to the Spanish Government on the visit to Spain carried out by the European Committee for Committee European the by out carried Spain to visit the on Government Spanish the to „Report e.g. See, e iseto vst o ak Pio i 21. vial online: Available 2010. in Prison Harku to visit inspection See the for Committee European the by out carried Estonia to visit the on Government Estonian the to „Report See Living conditions Living exercise Outdoor CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/est/2014-01-inf-eng.htm http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/esp/2013-06-inf-eng.htm 39 Specifically in the Estonian context, the CPT has criticised has CPT the context, Estonian the in Specifically . . 40 http://oiguskantsler.ee/sites/default/files/ 41 The Chancellor notes that notes Chancellor The . . . exceptions to this have been established in the special provisions of the internal prison rules prison internal the of provisions special the in established been have No this prisoners. to for exceptions charge of free is service prison the by provided clothes working and clothes prison prisoner’s a towels, bedclothes, of washing rules, prison internal the of 11.5 point Under prison). daily the of the rules internal to the in according established schedule hours 12 (about long too is breakfast and dinner between period the if easily comes stomach empty an of feeling a breast-feeding, of case In catering. with problems were there that complained also mothers The department. the reached Russian in newspaper no that mentioned also They prison. the by provided clothes the expense, own their at wash, to however, the mothers were under an impression that they also had to use the washing machine the during children and mothers for inspection department visit. The mothers the staying at the at department had a infants washing machine at 2 their disposal; and mothers 2 were There Chancellor the by Observations 3.11.1. 3.11. library. prison the in computer the via decisions court of register and databases legislation official the to access ensure to recommended Chancellor the Therefore, internet. the via access can prisoners the resources what and whether sure be not could Chancellor the to did advisers the consequently, library and, on the switch not in computer the However, Act. Imprisonment the under required as prison the the check in to decisions court wanted of registers and Chancellor databases legislation the the to access to internet for possibilities advisers Prison, Murru and Harku of tour the During 3.10. future. near the in installed be would beds upper the to climbing simplify to means the that hope expressed Chancellor The easier. bunks upper admits theproblemandfundshavebeenrequestedtoprocuremeansmakereaching service prison the officers, prison the to According difficult). so not is climbing whom for those to assigned are bunks (upper bunk top or lower the on either place a allocating when account into taken is status health person’s a that claimed spoke advisers Chancellor’s the whom with prisoners the as well as officers service prison the Both easily. more bunk upper the reach help In addition, male prisoners complained that metal bunk beds in the cells did not have a ladder to room the search). that the for suitable convinced is temperature be always should search the conducting officer prison the (i.e. case particular each in it check and heated sufficiently is searches strip for used room a the that in future ensure must service prison the Chancellor, the of opinion the In immediately. it stop proposed to and inadmissible is temperature room normal least at have not does which room a in persons of search strip that out point to necessary it considered Chancellor the intentionally, Although the collected evidence did not show that the room had been kept cool permanently and open. was window the and cold was it in radiator the cool, felt room The prisoners. which, room the checked also Chancellor female of searches strip out carrying for used the also sometimes is service, prison the to according to advisers department, N1 of tour the During shower. a with possible, if and, sinks lavatories, with them equip and it to next right or building accommodation either the hygiene in personal be of care should taking for measures rooms necessary swift build to that possibilities proposed find to Chancellor taken The with. deal must service prison the which problem serious a be to it considers still he and 2010 since changed not has opinion his The department for mothers and children in Harku and Murru Prison Murru and Harku in children and mothers for department The decisions court and legislation to access for designated computer The CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR 23 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 24 PART IV PART III PART II PART I ih got cre o te hlrn ivleet f cid scooit. h Chancellor The psychologist). child inspection. the in a of involved involvement experts the by made recommendations the children, implement to prison the to recommended the of curves (growth with complied been not have recommendations previous the as visit, same 2010 the the after made are those as experts the of recommendations several that regret with notes Chancellor The inspection: the during observations their on based proposals following the made experts The diseases. chronic and illnesses acute of case in were catering the and satisfactory. Thechildrenareensuredadequatehealthexaminationandgoodmedicalcareboth children the for environment growth the experts, the of opinion the In social the of staff the with children. the interviews of protection social of of level the analysed basis experts the prison the the of department on addition, In prison. in children the of development mental and physical health, the as well as children, the of cards health and staff medical prison the and mothers with interviews of basis the on children for services health the growth environment of the children staying at the prison, the appropriateness and sufficiency of the and conditions living the assessed visit inspection the in participating experts medical The experts the by recommendation and Conclusions 3.11.2. long. too to mealtime additional become not does breakfast and dinner an the between interval the that so mothers, breastfeeding offer to possibility a find and children and women for the department at catering and schedule daily the analyse to recommended also even Chancellor The necessary, prisoner. if and, department breastfeeding a to meals of the provision the reorganise and intervene request, at person’s a without women breastfeeding of catering of constant monitoring ensure to prison the to recommended Chancellor The hunger. of feeling or the stomach at staying empty an suffer children to have not for do mothers breastfeeding food that and mothers nutritional with together fully prison ensuring including sense, wider the in care means this opinion, Chancellor’s the In children. for care organise to and prison the at women pregnant for premises separate out fit to service prison the obliges also Act Imprisonment The to children. and mothers for department prison the at reading for available the made also to are prison the recommended by offered are which daily Chancellor Russian, in including national the papers, daily national that read basis, guarantee to this opportunity On an magazines. ensured and are newspapers prisoners Act, Imprisonment the Under charge. of free washed be to service prison the to prison the by provided clothing the submit to right the had they that children and mothers for department the at prisoners the to additionally explain to recommended Chancellor The children. and mothers for department the concerning 6) 5) 4) 3) 2) 1) good health of the child and a diverse and safe growth environment also outside the prison. outside also environment growth safe and diverse a and child the of health good ensure to as so home, child and mother the sending to prior residence of place the of worker protection child and staff medical workers, social prison the members), family other involving also necessary, (if mother child’s the with meeting roundtable a prison, hospital; the outside consultations child’s the of overview adequate an ensure to order in record help; own their offered to organise, both in case of a mother’s scheduled release or release on parole from the from parole on release or release scheduled mother’s a of case in both organise, to health digital child’s the to access child a with dealing practitioner general a enable to cards; health the in children Estonian of curves growth adopt to environment; communication children’s the expand to specialist; a as regularly psychologist children’s a involve to also experts the which for children, of monitoring the in specialists more involve to CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR Guard Battalion (Inspection visit to the Guard Battalion, Guard the to visit (Inspection Battalion Guard the to visit inspection announced an out carried Chancellor the to advisers 2013, March 20 On 4. admitted that currently the special schools are unable to offer the environment appropriate for appropriate environment the offer to unable are schools special the currently that admitted have schools special of Heads offence. the and circumstances their well-being to both their proportionate to and appropriate manner a in with dealt are children that ensure must offence an committed have who children of respect in taken measures which under Child, the of Rights the on Convention UN the with incompatible also is schools special to referred been have who disorders mental with children for environment rehabilitation necessary a guarantee to Failure behaviour. current unpredictable and its skills cognitive in low with school children for place special suitable a the not is psychiatrists, form the of assessment the to according School because, Special Tapa at disorders mental serious with pupils for concern deep expressed have Special School have been diagnosed with various mental disorders. For years, child psychiatrists The lack of safety at the school is also exacerbated by the fact that many children attending Tapa territory. school the to brought been have items and substances prohibited and thefts, been also have There property. school break often pupils the addition, In occurred. also have staff the against attacks physical and verbal both and frequent, are school at pupils the between violence and conflicts that found was it inspection, the Upon inspection. the during problem recurring a as arose School Special Tapa at staff and pupils the of safety of issue The 5.1. described. are inspection the during found shortcomings main the part following the In of re-socialisation the in future. assistance the in offences committing provide from them prevent to to and offenders juvenile and school the to referred children the over the task perform imposed on it under the Juvenile to Sanctions Act to perform constant disciplinary able supervision is School Special Tapa whether doubts serious raised visit inspection The school. at safe feel not did staff the of some and pupils the both and tense was environment school the inspection, the during – the contrary the on Consequently, Rather 2009. to compared as improved not with. had School Special Tapa at situation complied been not had visits previous the recommendations after Chancellor’s made the proposals of and several that found was it inspection, the of result a As 2009. in place took School Special Tapa of inspection previous Chancellor’s School, Special Tapa to visit (Inspection School Special Tapa to visit Kaagvere and boys Special School for for girls. On School 8 November Special 2013, advisers to Tapa the Chancellor schools): carried out an special announced (i.e. problems behavioural to due measures educational special requiring children for schools two currently are there Estonia In 5. inspection. the of result a as identified were Forces Defence the to proposals or recommendations specific any requiring the Minister of Education and Research in cooperation with the Minister of Social Affairs should Affairs Social of Minister the with cooperation in Research and Education of Minister the that recommended Chancellor the addition, In school. the at staff and Tapa pupils the of of safety the management the ensure to to steps immediate proposal take to Research a and Education of made Minister the and Chancellor School Special the inspection, the of result a As disorders. mental with pupils Defence Forces Defence Safety schools Special CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR case No 7-7/130490 No case case No 7-7/140013 No case ). No shortcomings No ). ). The ). 25 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 26 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 45 44 43 42 a keep to allowed items. personal be of quantity reasonable should juveniles contrary, the to reasons security compelling are there living and Unless stimuli. visual sleeping appropriate offer juveniles’ and well-decorated furnished, ventilated, properly be should and areas lit well size, adequate an of being to liberty. addition their In of deprived persons young for detention of conditions personalised and positive provide will centre detention juvenile well-designed a that noted also has (CPT) Punishment or Treatment Degrading or Inhuman and Torture of Prevention the for Committee European The schools. special of facilities schools inter alia, specific requirements for the furnishings of rooms, could serve as a model for boarding institutions welfare social child for applicable Affairs Social room for which minimum requirements have been established by a regulation of the Minister of the in furniture seclusion a in Definitely, example, for than, scarce table. more be not and should school special chair a of pupils of nightstand, rooms a as such furniture of items basic of in rooms for requirements deprived be could schools specific boarding in pupils that mean any not does this facilities, school boarding establish not does legislation current the Although pupils. of rooms living the from belongings personal and furniture the all of removal the be cannot solution the but resolved, be to need which problems serious are These pupils. the of behaviour the over control of lack as well as them, to reacting and violence of cases preventing in skills insufficient work, educational insufficient of in sign clear a repair) is furniture of the break state often pupils poor that fact the a opinion, Chancellor’s in the In also rooms. living is the (which furniture insufficient for justification a be cannot new provide furniture broken to the over annoyance sense that emphasised no Chancellor The was rooms. the there for furniture therefore, pupils and, the furniture that the fact all the broken by had situation themselves the explained School Special Tapa of management The use. for suitable not room, group one in example, For repair. and broken were chairs existing the of some and pupils the of all for chairs enough not were there state poor a the in in and furniture scarce The also groups. was the rooms of group one in cubicles toilet the in absent also were Doors door. no had rooms several and curtains, no had windows rooms, the of many In windowsill. the on belongings personal their bed kept pupils a the nightstand rooms a without some rooms the in In nightstand. and a and bed, a was furniture of piece only the rooms some in example, For repair. of state poor a in and scarce very was children the of rooms sleeping the in furniture The Tapa at life school. the of at children the organisation of needs the and meet not did conditions School Special living the that found was it inspection, the Upon 5.2. for regimes different schools. special establish also special and needs, to special their referred account pupils into take to to approach and schools individual an enable to provisions regulative up draw

Available online: Available Estonian: in online Available service“. home substitute Estonian: in online Available institutions“. welfare social Estonian: in online Available furnishings“. its and room seclusion the for requirements e te iitr f oil far rglto N 5 o 2 Jl 20 „elh rtcin eurmns o the 29. para for 72, p Standards, CPT requirements the See protection „Health 2007 July 20 of 59 No regulation Affairs Social of Minister the See See the Minister of Social Affairs regulation No 33 of 8 February 2002 „Health protection and safety and protection „Health 2002 February 8 of 33 No regulation Affairs Social of Minister the See See the Minister of Social Affairs regulation No 4 of 9 January 2001 „Health protection requirements for child for requirements protection „Health 2001 January 9 of 4 No regulation Affairs Social of Minister the See Living rooms and the arrangements for spending free time incompatible with the with incompatible time free spending for arrangements the and rooms Living needs of children of needs 42 . By way of analogy, with certain concessions, the health protection requirements protection health the concessions, certain with analogy, of way By . http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/documents/eng-standards-scr.pdf CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/13256047 45 43 r h sbttt hm service home substitute the or https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/12855667 https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/13360780

. . . 44 establishing, . . 47 46 latest. the at 2015 in created is children the of needs the to corresponding environment learning and living modern a that ensure to powers his within everything do to Research and Education of Minister the to recommended Chancellor cooperation the addition, In territory. school the from pupils of departure in unauthorised prevent to measures find, additional immediate to take and Research, School and Education Special of Ministry the Tapa of specialists the of with director the to recommended Chancellor The attend school. to obligation the with comply to fails also authorisation an without school the leaving child A child. a of re-socialisation successful the on impact negative significant a has also offences) but commit may authorisation of an without question departing a persons only (as society not of raises security school the the from departure unauthorised to due process the of interruption An pupils. the of respect in process disciplinary and educational uninterrupted an ensure to is pupils the of liberty the of restriction the of aim The school. the from pupils the of departure unauthorised prevent to measures necessary take and pupils the all over supervision disciplinary constant exercise to obliged are schools such provision, this with comply To school. the of statutes the in for provided disciplinary cases the in except constant problems, behavioural to due treatment of exercise the for Act, supervision, Sanctions pupils are prohibited from Juvenile leaving the territory of the a school for Under pupils who need special their discretion. at leave own to allowed not are pupils which from institution closed a is School Special Tapa additional take and improved. not had find situation the 2013 in inspection the to of time the at school the of director Unfortunately, territory. school the from pupils of departure unauthorised the prevent to measures recommended and problem, the to drew the attention of both the school management and the Ministry of Education and Research Chancellor the Then, territory. school the from pupils of departure unauthorised with problem a had School Special Tapa that found was it 2009 in inspection Chancellor’s the during Already 5.3. paying activities, purposeful for as well outdoors. staying as and activities physical for own, possibilities the improving to their attention particular on be to pupils for possibilities more create to School Special Tapa of management the to recommended Chancellor the addition, In facilities. schools boarding in furnishings for requirements minimum establish sleeping the in furnishing to Research and Education of Minister the proper recommended also Chancellor The rooms. group and as well as living needs, pupils individual the their to to ensure conforming should conditions Research and Education in of School Ministry Special the Tapa with of cooperation management the that recommended Chancellor the basis, this On training, programme. that vocational of part important sport, an constitute education, should education of Physical activities. programme purposeful full other and a recreation offered be should liberty their of deprived Juveniles stimulation. intellectual and activity physical for need particular a have who juveniles, for harmful especially is it prisoner, any for detrimental is activity purposeful of lack a abilities and skills the develop participating and society. of members functional fully self-respect becoming for necessary by and health because their important improve juveniles particularly them in are institution, closed programmes a in and staying minors activities of case purposeful In liking. their to activities other in engage or active physically be outdoors, stay own, their on be to possibilities sufficient have not did pupils In addition, the inspection revealed that during the time free from school or recreational activities

12. Available online: Available 12. Available online: Available See the CPT Standards, p 72, para 31. para 72, p Standards, CPT the See para 1990, December 14 Liberty“, their of Deprived Juveniles of Protection the for Rules Nations „United the See Unauthorised departure of pupils from the school the from pupils of departure Unauthorised http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/documents/eng-standards-scr.pdf CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/45/a45r113.htm 47 46 The CPT has noted that although that noted has CPT The . . . 27 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 28 PART IV PART III PART II PART I this may be done only in the cases and pursuant to the procedure provided by law. by provided procedure the to pursuant and cases the in only done be may this § under person of liberty to right items the with the interferes pockets their show in to person a obliging that noted also has Court Supreme The law. by provided procedure a to pursuant and cases the in only restricted be may person of liberty Constitution, to liberty and security of person (the fundamental right to liberty of person). Under § § basis. legal a without persons of rights suspicion, reasoned a of case in perform, security checks of pupils arriving at the school, but cannot accept the restriction of fundamental to need practical the understands Chancellor The substances. not or items prohibited do any possess pupils that ensure to need the with checks security the a justified or manager supervision visit home a from returning pupils the all short-term leave, and sometimes also in case of pupils’ movement inside the school. The school of respect in out carried are checks security Routine checks. pat-down as well as visual both involving school, the at arriving pupils the of checks security perform School Special Tapa at staff supervisory that revealed inspection The 5.4. ih hi nx o kn i te nent s h ue f h itre ws loe ol fr study for only allowed was internet the their with communicate could of Pupils staff. of member a of use supervision the under and purposes the as internet communicate the to via possibility kin no of had next pupils their with The limited. extremely were kin of next their with communicate to School Special Tapa at pupils of possibilities the that revealed inspection The 5.5. checks. security perform to right the have not do schools special of staff the until how substances or items on prohibited any schools have not special do pupils to that ensure to guidance clear provide to to Research and right Education the of Minister given the be recommended also should Chancellor The conditions. schools and certain under special pupils Education of checks of security of perform staff Minister certain the whether recommended analyse Chancellor to the Research inspection, the of result a As police. the contact should school the substances, or items prohibited of possession in be may pupil a that suspicion reasoned a of case in Thus, Act. Security the of meaning the in unit guarding in-house an of guards nor guards security neither are School Special Tapa of staff Supervisory schools. special of staff supervisory to do extend others, not or themselves endanger could they which with substances or items of possession in not is person apprehended the that verify to order in them by carried items the and person the of check security a out carry to person, a apprehending when guards, security Act authorising Security the of provisions the Similarly, schools. special of staff supervisory the to extend Act Guard Border and Police not does right this The but persons of checks security perform to police the either. of right the for provides legislation other any from arise not does problems The power to perform security checks of children in need of special treatment due to behavioural clothing. their and pupils of check pat-down a perform to right the for provide open not does as well as pupil, the above the of However, pupil. the of presence the in presence pupil confiscate a to sent consignments other the and postal to in right pupil the a has from substances director and the items by prohibited authorised person a or due problems treatment special behavioural of need to in pupils for school a of director The pupils. of checks perform security to schools special of staff supervisory authorise not does Act Sanctions Juvenile The 48 letter. by was kin of next with communication private of possibility only The staff. of member a of supervision the under place took call phone the and time a at minutes 7 to limited was conversation a of length maximum The school. the called herself of himself parent a if only and times designated the at telephone by kin of next

The Supreme Court Criminal Chamber judgment of 19 May 2005, No 3-1-1-43-05, para 7. 7. para 3-1-1-43-05, No 2005, May 19 of judgment Chamber Criminal Court Supreme The Security check without a legal basis legal a without check Security Right to the confidentiality of messages and inviolability of private life private of inviolability and messages of confidentiality the to Right CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR 20(1) of the Constitution establishes everyone’s right everyone’s establishes Constitution the of 20(1) 20 of the Constitution and Constitution the of 20 48 20(2) of the

52 51 50 49 restraint of means a hospitals treatment psychiatric applied the of registration involuntary insufficient the problem, recurring a As restraint. concerning of all means applying and decisions in making not in that involved problem sufficiently a was as psychiatrist noticed Chancellor the all, of First the for needed was knowledge specialist no was assessment. where visit aspects the one to care, regard with psychiatric institutions involuntary of providers to announced. visits inspection six the From involuntary providing institutions six inspected Chancellor care: the psychiatric emergency year, reporting the During 6. ones. close and parents their with communicate regularly could calls phone the for pay cannot and Research, to find the necessary resources to ensure that also those children whose parents Chancellor the addition, In life. recommended to the private director of the special school, in cooperation with the Ministry of of Education inviolability and messages of confidentiality the to of children with their parents and close ones in a way that does not violate the rights of children communication the organise to School Special Tapa of director the to proposed Chancellor The messages. of confidentiality and life private of inviolability the to children of right the violates this as calls phone making for arrangement current the accept cannot also Chancellor The kin. parents of next their and with communicate to possibility the have must family their from separated are In the summary of his visit, the Chancellor noted that children staying in a closed institution who channels. communication public other or examine telephone by forwarded messages to and correspondence pupil’s a right of contents the the have not do school a such of staff other or problems behavioural to due treatment special of need in pupils for school a of director the Act, Sanctions Juvenile the Under measure. disciplinary a as denied or restricted be never should world outside the with contact juvenile’s a that stress to wishes also CPT The skills. social of lack a emotional or deprivation to related problems behavioural have may juveniles whom for of many beneficial liberty, their especially of be deprived can closed contacts in such staying of juveniles promotion all active for The world institutions. outside the to with importance contacts considerable good attaches of also maintenance CPT the The interests. child’s the to contrary is this if the except has relatives, close parents and parents her both with or contact and his relations personal from maintain to separated right temporarily thus whose is child who a and Act, Protection restricted Child is the liberty and Child the of Rights the on Convention the Under

− − − − − − annual_report_2012.pdf http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/documents/eng-standards-scr.pdf e te hnelrs 02 vriw p 89 Aalbe online: No (case Foundation Hospital Pärnu to visit inspection the see surveillance, video of use Excessive Available 8-9. pp Overview, 2012 Chancellor’s the See Foundation Hospital Pärnu to visit Inspection online: Available 34. para 73, p Standards, CPT the See − − − − − − Providers of involuntary emergency psychiatric are psychiatric emergency involuntary of Providers

Pärnu Hospital Foundation ( Foundation Hospital Pärnu ( Foundation Hospital Kuressaare ( Foundation Hospital Narva ( Foundation Hospital Ahtme ( Ltd Hospital Estonian South ( Foundation Clinic University Tartu 50 xet wr nt novd n n o te iis s h Caclo isetd the inspected Chancellor the as visits the of any in involved not were Experts 51 CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR and insufficient guarantee of the privacy of the patients arose. patients the of privacy the of guarantee insufficient and . case No 7-9/130436 No case case No 7-9/140146 No case case No 7-9/130612 No case case No 7-9/130245 No case case No 7-9/130700 No case (case No 7-9/140146). No (case case No 7-9/130434 No case . . ); ). );

); http://oiguskantsler.ee/sites/default/files/ ); ); 49

7-9/140146 52 ). 29 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 30 PART IV PART III PART II PART I t a as fud ht n n o te institutions the of one in that found also was It involuntary for admitted treatment. involuntary of commencement the is of as hours 24 within person a psychiatrist time another by examined are they authorisation every court a without treatment psychiatric that ensure must emergency treatment involuntary of treatment psychiatric provider involuntary a that apply out pointed to Chancellor need the Furthermore, the appeared. when examination hospital, the medical at the treatment after in-patient voluntary immediately receiving person a of case in psychiatric or, the department to person a of admission the upon this do must psychiatrist The department. psychiatric the at psychiatrist a by made are treatment involuntary of decisions that ensure to after hours twenty-four within commencement of in-patient treatment. Therefore, treatment the Chancellor proposed to both institutions involuntary for admitted person a of examination medical a out carry must treatment involuntary apply to decision the made having one the than § under treatment, involuntary Also, of review for treatment. involuntary concerning decisions making for necessary inevitably a is of department hospital psychiatric the at psychiatrist a of availability the that found Chancellor The time. required the within by psychiatrist another examined also indeed is authorisation court a without treatment involuntary for admitted of one In psychiatrist. a institutions not the was who doctor duty concerning a by decisions made holidays be public could treatment and involuntary weekends on particular, In this. for person competent a not by made be could decision a therefore, and, inspected ensured not the was treatment of involuntary two In time. the all available is institutions psychiatrist fact a the hospitals to the all related in is not treatment that involuntary organising in shortcoming important most The 6.1. were year. Chancellor reporting the during the institutions inspected by the by eliminated out pointed problems the of remedying Most for detail. more proposals in Chancellor’s described are the them and shortcomings above the part, following the In h mi polm i te etann o ptet wr rltd o nprpitns o the of inappropriateness to related were patients of restraining the in problems main The 6.2. possible a as consultation video a suggested psychiatric and solution. above-mentioned resources of the lack psychiatrist, the a to of pointed availability hospital 24-hour a to obstacle an As with. complied be must doctor a by condition patient’s a of assessment direct and personal a of requirement the restraint, of means applying an constitute may this that In opinion person. of inviolability and liberty to right fundamental patient’s a with interference unlawful the reached Chancellor The by assessed professional. directly designated been a not have restraint the of condition, application patient’s the the necessitating assessed circumstances personally having without restraint of means apply to decision the makes doctor the If patient. the seen having without telephone by authorisation restraint is taken by the duty nurse of the psychiatric department, and the doctor may grant the 56 55 54 53 institutions two In restraint. for conditions physical

Foundation (case No (case Foundation No (case e te npcin iis o at Uiest Cii Fudto (ae No (case Foundation Clinic University Tartu to visits inspection the See No (case Foundation Hospital Narva to visit inspection the See No (case Ltd Hospital Estonian South to visit inspection the See No (case Ltd Hospital Estonian South to visits inspection the See Availability of a psychiatrist a of Availability Conditions of restraint of Conditions 53 7-9/130436 on-h-lc aalblt o a scitit o mkn dcsos concerning decisions making for psychiatrist a of availability round-the-clock 54 h Caclo hd ssiin ht t ih nt e nue ta a person a that ensured be not might it that suspicion a had Chancellor the CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR ). 7-9/130612 ). 13(3) of the Mental Health Act a psychiatrist other psychiatrist a Act Health Mental the of 13(3) 55 t ih te eiin o pl mas of means apply to decision the night at 56 h Caclo hd ssiin that suspicion a had Chancellor the 7-9/130436 7-9/130245 7-9/130245 ). 7-9/130434 ). ) and Narva Hospital Foundation Hospital Narva and ) ad hm Hospital Ahtme and ) overview of the means of restraint applied within an institution. In one institution one In institution. an within applied restraint of means the of overview During the reporting year, there were still problems with maintaining a register providing a quick 6.3. restraint. of application the for only used is room seclusion the and safe sufficiently is room of seclusion view the patients, the other outside the applied is restraint that ensure to proposed Chancellor the basis, this On seclusion. for be adjusted not seclusion room a may of in placed temporarily need be person might in person secluded the a ward ordinary of the rearranging safety of time the the for need, as the endangered on depending room seclusion a or ward ordinary an as either used alternately is room a If themselves. injure cannot a person the that so in applied be ensured, is person only dangerous the for may environment calming and Restraint safe a restraint. where room designated during ensured be must staff the the of safety and the patient that opinion the of is Chancellor was The window. there the and under curtains radiator iron long cast had a window the room, seclusion the in furniture of were items there loose example, For ensured. not was person secluded the of safety sufficient therefore, institutions inspected the of one In self-respect. on impact negative a have may it as person restrained the of treatment degrading constitute may this patients other the of view in restrained is person a if that found Chancellor The patients. other of vision of range the within out carried is restraint ih t ivoaiiy f rvt lf wtot pro’ cnet n wtot osdrto of consideration without and the consent 57 and person’s dignity a without human life of private of restriction inviolability extensive to such right opinion, Chancellor’s the in However, the all wards. the all institution, in patients the of the surveillance video including department, In wards. the the in presence in their during surveillance video to including subject were need, the of department, regardless persons, the of premises the in used institution one In year. reporting the during identified was patients the of privacy the infringing surveillance video of use excessive problem, recurring a As 6.4. the overview, up-to-date an obtain restraint. of means of To application the after immediately patients. in filled be must of register of rights application the the protect of to lawfulness restraint the of of means review effective out carry to for authorities possibility a supervisory provides register the of maintenance the purposeful in hand, information other the the On on register. based restraint of cases the of offers analysis also retroactive and of restraint possibility of a risk means the the applying prevent those to for foremost helps and restraint first of ill-treatment of means to of application fails the and of purpose Register health particular provider. its a service by serve applied restraint of not means the does of overview it general and quick otherwise a provide because all of restraint application of of cases means the all of contain kinds must register the Chancellor, the of opinion the In archived. was file patient’s a when only in filled was register the because restraint institution third the in another and registered not in were seclusions while information important lacked restraint of means applied the of 62 61 60 59 58

ains n peetn icdns f ilne Vdo uvilne lo ep t acran eratvl the retroactively ascertain to helps also surveillance department. Video the in etc, incidents, violent violence. of circumstances of incidents preventing and patients See the inspection visit to Ahtme Hospital Foundation (case No (case Foundation Hospital Ahtme to visit inspection the See codn t te xlntos y h saf vdo uvilne a ncsay o efcie oioig f the of monitoring effective for necessary was surveillance video staff, the by explanations the to According No (case Foundation Hospital Pärnu to visit inspection the See No (case Foundation Hospital Kuressaare to visit inspection the See No (case Foundation Hospital Narva to visit inspection the See No (case Foundation Hospital Ahtme to visit inspection the See Registration of the applied means of restraint of means applied the of Registration Guarantee of privacy of Guarantee CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR 57 the seclusion room was used as an ordinary ward and, ward ordinary an as used was room seclusion the 60 there was no general overview of the cases of cases the of overview general no was there 7-9/130436 7-9/140146 7-9/130612 7-9/130612 61 7-9/130700 extensive video surveillance was surveillance video extensive ). ). ). ). ). 62

58 the register the 59

31 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 32 PART IV PART III PART II PART I In 2013, the Chancellor inspected 13 providers of 24-hour special care services: care special 24-hour of providers 13 inspected Chancellor the 2013, In 7. be will surveillance video applying of extent case. particular each in and considered necessity the ward a in surveillance video using for consent a given not has person a where situation a in that ensure to recommended Chancellor the basis, this On purposeful. be cannot case each in justification and necessity its 63 institutions inspected the homes care special the of three some in example, For in restricted. unlawfully be that could liberty to found right fundamental clients’ was it 2012, in visits inspection the to Similarly 7.1 report. this writing of time the by eliminated been had Chancellor the by out pointed shortcomings the of Several below. detail more in described are them remedying for recommendation and proposals Chancellor’s the and shortcomings These an and licence, operating restraint. of means applied the the of registration and rooms seclusion on of noted places of number the safety the with problems still were there addition, In supervisors. activity of number insufficient to clients of number the of non-conformity services, care special 24-hour of recipients the of liberty to right fundamental the of restriction unlawful possible concerned inspections the during found problems main The compliance verify to order in proposals. Chancellor’s notice, the with prior a without night at including advisers, for Chancellor’s needed was knowledge institutions specialist Some no assessment. where the aspects the to the regard All with special liberty. institutions 24-hour the to receiving right fundamental inspected clients Chancellor the as the involved were of experts of no and unannounced safety were restriction visits inspection the the of assess lawfulness to and services was care inspection the of aim The 66 65 64

− − − − − − − − − − − − − writing in each case and in respect of each person. The decision to apply video surveillance should be valid only valid be should surveillance video apply to decision The person. each of respect in and case each in writing soito Läe ony scooil eaiiain ete cs No (case Centre No (case Foundation Rehabilitation Psychosocial County Lääne association No (case Centre Support County reviewed. be should it which after period specific a for e te npcin iis o o-rft soito Pj Badn Hue (ae No (case Houses Boarding Paju association non-profit to visits inspection the See No (case Foundation Hospital Viljandi to visits inspection the See unit. welfare Social in form reproducible a in made be should decision a such verifiability, and transparency of interests the In − − − − − − − − − − − − − Providers of 24-hour special care services care special 24-hour of Providers Restriction of the liberty of persons of liberty the of Restriction

7-9/130534 non-profit association South Estonian Special Care Services Centre ( ( Houses Boarding Paju association non-profit Sõmera Home of Hoolekandeteenused Ltd ( Ltd Hoolekandeteenused of Home Sõmera ( ( Foundation Centre Welfare Haapsalu Centre Rehabilitation Psychosocial County Lääne association non-profit non-profit association Valga County Support Centre ( Centre Support County Valga association non-profit ( Foundation Hospital Viljandi ( Ltd Hoolekandeteenused of Home Kehra ( Ltd Centre Care Estonian South ( Ltd Hoolekandeteenused of Home Kodijärve ( Foundation Centre Care Nursing Rõngu ( Ltd Hoolekandeteenused of Home Erastvere ( Ltd Centre Care Special Pariisi ); CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR 7-9/130865 66 doors of the rooms of persons voluntarily receiving 24-hour special care special 24-hour receiving voluntarily persons of rooms the of doors 7-9/130903 ). 63 65 case No 7-9/130865 No case ee iie rpael drn a hr pro b the by period short a during repeatedly visited were case No 7-9/131299 No case case No 7-9/130904 No case ) case No 7-9/130477 No case case No 7-9/130435 No case case No 7-9/130902 No case case No 7-9/130603 No case case No 7-9/130901 No case case No 7-9/130438 No case case No 7-9/130478 No case 7-9/130865 ); 64 ); case No 7-9/130903 No case ); 7-9/130534 ); ) and non-profit association Valga association non-profit and ) ); ); ); ); case No 7-9/130904 ); ); 7-9/130478 ad ijni Hospital Viljandi and ) ). , non-profit ), ae No case ); 73 72 71 70 69 68 institution one example, 67 For licence. operating the on noted persons of number institutions two In 7.3. staff. additional hire to money no was there and houses, the of rounds regular making and corridors the in surveillance video of use the by ensured was availability their institutions and supervisors activity of the number sufficient a had of two proposal, Chancellor’s the to reply In care. special 24-hour provide to day every institution each in duty on are supervisors activity of number sufficient a that guarantee to proposed Chancellor the skills, and condition their of consideration in independently, cope to ability their increase or maintain and services care special 24-hour of recipients the for environment living safe a ensure to order In sufficient recipients. service of a rights fundamental have the ensure to always present supervisors institutions activity of number inspected the of some whether doubts Chancellor The houses the needs. personal their all with in clients helped supervisors activity the evening the In need. the to according houses the the of in round a made used duty night was on supervisors activity surveillance the and Video houses the of night. corridors at duty on be could houses 6 per members staff 2 In institutions two rooms. the cleaning and stove the heating serious them, with for recipients cooking service including disabilities, 12 multiple of care take to had and visit inspection the during work at institutions inspected the of one in example, For care. special 24-hour receiving persons to service the provide to supervisors activity of number sufficient a During the inspection of several institutions 7.2. liberty. to right fundamental the restricting of admissibility of cases the staff its to explain to institution the for necessary it considered also Chancellor The clients. the to of rights the order with in and, night at clients other interference least as cause threat, the to proportion in which, well measures take situation, the resolve as violent become quickly can who client safety the a ensure of to taken be can measures lawful which analyse to providers service the to recommended Chancellor the addition, In outside. the from only opened be can which devices locking any clients of rooms the of doors the from remove immediately to proposed Chancellor room is inadmissible. In order to prevent arbitrary restriction of the liberty of service recipients the The Chancellor is of the opinion that seclusion of a client of 24-hour special care services in their had services care special 24-hour receiving bedroom. their into person locked been indeed a that found Chancellor the to advisers institutions two In outside. the from only opened be could which devices locking had services

Care Centre Ltd (case No (case Ltd Centre Care No (case Ltd Hoolekandeteenused of No (case Ltd Hoolekandeteenused of 7-9/130534 No (case Ltd Hoolekandeteenused No 7-9/130534 e te npcin ii t nnpoi ascain än Cut Pyhsca Rhbltto Cnr (ae No (case Centre Rehabilitation Psychosocial County Lääne association non-profit to visit inspection the See (case Centre Rehabilitation Psychosocial County Lääne association non-profit to visits inspection the See No (case Centre Rehabilitation Psychosocial County Lääne association non-profit to visits inspection the See See the inspection visit to South Estonian Care Centre Ltd (case No (case Ltd Centre Care Estonian South to visit inspection the See See the inspection visits to Sõmera Home of Hoolekandeteenused Ltd (case No No (case Ltd Hoolekandeteenused of Home Kodijärve to visits inspection the See No (case Ltd Hoolekandeteenused of Home Kodijärve to visits inspection the See The number of service recipients service of number The supervisors activity of number Sufficient 7-9/130534 ). No (case Foundation Hospital Viljandi and ) 70 , oiäv Hm o Hoeadteue Ld cs No (case Ltd Hoolekandeteenused of Home Kodijärve ), the Chancellor saw the problem that depending on the roster sometimes only sometimes roster the on depending that problem the saw Chancellor the 72 the Chancellor found that the number of service recipients exceeded the exceeded recipients service of number the that found Chancellor the CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR 7-9/130904 7-9/130902 ). 7-9/130902 7-9/130902 ). 68 ). ). the Chancellor had a suspicion whether there was 7-9/130865 ). 7-9/130904 69 71 only one activity supervisor was supervisor activity one only xrse te iw ht they that view the expressed 7-9/130901 7-9/130603 ). 7-9/130901 7-9/130901 ad er Hm of Home Kehra and ) ) and South Estonian ) and Kehra Home Kehra and ) Home Kehra and ) 73 a been had 67

33 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 34 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 kept items any and room, seclusion the in place taking everything monitor to possibility the use. its during ensured including seclusion, throughout ensured be be should person secluded the of must monitoring Constant persons of freedoms and rights fundamental of the protection and safe be must need of case in created room seclusion A arises. room seclusion proper institution a the for need room a where seclusion situation a a for guidelines of detailed prepare absence and consider of proactively should case in that opinion the of is Chancellor The requirements. the all with complying room a such of existence the ensure must it room, seclusion a of use for need in itself find provider service of providers a should however, room; seclusion a 2013 have to obliged longer no are August services care special 24-hour 11 since that noted be should it room seclusion the to regard With seclusion. of register a and room seclusion a lacked institutions inspected the of Five room. seclusion the in purposes. bed unsecured it of an front in or to room the in due either items diminished irrelevant of presence was safety its existed, room seclusion a where Even of means of register the keeping restraint. with problems still were there inspected addition, for room In seclusion the purposes. a other of use of and safety inadequate five its room, seclusion in a of absence found the were were rooms seclusion of institutions. safety the to relating Problems 7.4. service the for pay who themselves. persons include not did number the and state the by funded service the covered only licence operating the on indicated service care special 24-hour the of provision the for places of number maximum the that view the expressed institutions the replies, their In licence. special care service does not exceed the 24-hour maximum number the of persons receiving indicated on least simultaneously the operating persons of at number the that of ensure to institution service the to a provide to able proposed Chancellor the persons, of being number requested the to simultaneously quality minimum including law, the by established requirements minimum the with complies provider service particular the that proves licence operating the As licence. operating the by authorised than institution another In persons. disability multiple 93 serious a with person more one to to provided was service care special 24-hour provided was service the visit inspection the during but people 60 maximum to services care special 24-hour of provision the for licence a granted

profit association Valga County Support Centre (case No (case Centre Support County Valga association profit No (case Ltd Centre Care 7-9/130534 No (case Ltd No (case 130904 No (case Ltd Hoolekandeteenused of Sõmera 7-9/131299), Home No (case Ltd Centre Care Special Pariisi 7-9/130904), No (case Ltd Centre Care Estonian See the inspection visits to Pariisi Special Care Centre Ltd (case No (case Ltd Centre Care Special Pariisi to visits inspection the See No (case Ltd Centre Care Special Pariisi to visit inspection the See No (case Houses Boarding Paju association non-profit to visit inspection the See South 7-9/130478), No (case Houses Boarding Paju association non-profit to visits inspection the See No (case Ltd Hoolekandeteenused of Home Sõmera to visit inspection the See See the inspection visits to non-profit association Lääne County Psychosocial Rehabilitation Centre (case No (case Centre Rehabilitation Psychosocial County Lääne association non-profit to visits inspection the See See theinspectionvisitstoPariisi SpecialCareCentreLtd(caseNo Safety of seclusion rooms and register of means of restraint of means of register and rooms seclusion of Safety 78 ). In two of the institutions the of two In 7-9/130904 75 80 In the Chancellor’s opinion the main problems concerning seclusion of persons of seclusion concerning problems main the opinion Chancellor’s the In ), Haapsalu Welfare Centre Foundation (case No 7-9/130904 CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR ) and Sõmera Home of Hoolekandeteenused Ltd (case No (case Ltd Hoolekandeteenused of Home Sõmera and ) ) 7-9/130904 ), Rõngu Nursing Care Centre Foundation (case No (case Foundation Centre Care Nursing Rõngu ), 79 it was not possible to monitor everything taking place taking everything monitor to possible not was it 7-9/130603 7-9/130903 ad ot Etna Cr Cnr Ld cs No (case Ltd Centre Care Estonian South and ) 7-9/130477 7-9/131299 7-9/131299 7-9/131299 ). ), non-profit association South Estonian 77 and use of the room for other for room the of use and ) andSouthEstonianCareCentre ), South Estonian Care Centre Ltd Centre Care Estonian South ), ). 7-9/130603 7-9/130603 7-9/130478 7-9/130435 ). ). ). ) and non- and ) 7-9/ 76 74 ,

87 86 85 84 83 82 81 interviews. the out carrying in advisers Chancellor’s the assist and services care nursing of provision the of quality the assess to expert an as involved was practitioner general a inspections, unannounced the of one In unannounced. were rest the advance in announced were services care nursing of providers the to visits the of Three services. health of provision the for consent of obtaining and dignity human of guarantee the assessed also Chancellor the institutions inspected the of five of case in and liberty, to right fundamental the of guarantee the foremost and first assess to was aim the hospitals, care nursing of case In range of service providers and on the information available about the institutions in the media. diverse a inspect to aim the on based was services care nursing of providers the of choice The During the reporting year, the Chancellor inspected 8 institutions providing nursing care services: control. 8. effective it. ensure in to entered authorities supervisory is external seclusion to accessible of be lawfulness also the must establishing information the for all that important necessary is it a seclusion, provide of i.e. cases purpose, the its of serve overview general to and seclusion quick of register the for order In clients. of protect rights to the seclusion of lawfulness the of review effective out carry for to possibility authorities a supervisory provides register the of maintenance purposeful hand, other the the in information On the register. on based seclusion of cases the of analysis retroactive of possibility a offers also and seclusion the out carrying those for foremost and first ill-treatment of risk the prevent to helps this as seclusion, of register a introduce to recommended also Chancellor The clients. their seclude to need no have they as room seclusion permanent institutions the of four Chancellor, the to reply the In the to arises. seclusion for need taken a case in room person seclusion the to danger proper a a of existence the ensure pose to proposed Chancellor the basis, this not On staff. the to or should room room seclusion a to entrance the by

− − − − − − − − Hospital Foundation (case No (case Foundation Hospital No (case Foundation Hospital h) ambulance, f) e) injuries, decision, sustained the making person the of name d) seclusion, of cause c) seclusion, seclusion, of to end and prior beginning situation of time the b) of description a) fields: following the contain should seclusion of register The No (case Foundation Hospital No (case Ltd Centre Care No (case Foundation Centre Welfare No (case Ltd kandeteenused See the inspection visits to non-profit association Paju Boarding Houses (case No (case Houses Boarding Paju association non-profit to visits inspection the See No (case Ltd Centre Care Special Pariisi to visits inspection the See See the inspection visit to East Tallinn Central Hospital Ltd (case No (case Ltd Hospital Central Tallinn East to visit inspection the See No (case Foundation Centre Care and Health Kilingi-Nõmme to visits inspection the See report. the of I Part to Introduction the in coverage media of pieces the See clinic. care nursing the of unit Järve No (case Ltd Hoolekandeteenused of Home Erastvere to visits inspection the See − − − − − − − − Providers of nursing care services care nursing of Providers

Pärnu-Jaagupi Care Home Foundation ( Foundation Home Care Pärnu-Jaagupi ( Ltd Hospital Kallavere ( Foundation Hospital Abja ( Centre Care and Health Kilingi-Nõmme ( Ltd Hospital Central Tallinn East ( Foundation Care Nursing PJV ( Foundation Hospital Sillamäe ( Foundation Centre Health Kiviõli note on explaining the purpose and cause of seclusion to the secluded person. secluded the to seclusion of cause and purpose the explaining on note CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR information on notifying the ambulance or the police, g) time of notifying the police or the or police the notifying of time g) police, the or ambulance the notifying on information 7-9/131299 7-9/130603 7-9/130865 7-9/131308 7-9/130865 case No 7-9/131434 No case case No 7-9/131308 No case ), Sõmera Home of Hoolekandeteenused Ltd (case No (case Ltd Hoolekandeteenused of Home Sõmera ), 7-9/130477 ), South Estonian Care Centre Ltd (case No (case Ltd Centre Care Estonian South ), case No 7-9/140101 No case case No 7-9/130437 No case ) and Kehra Home of Hoolekandeteenused Ltd (case No (case Ltd Hoolekandeteenused of Home Kehra and ) ) and Kallavere Hospital Ltd (case No (case Ltd Hospital Kallavere and ) ). case No case case No 7-9/130607 No case ). case No 7-9/140001 No case case No 7-9/131307 No case

7-9/131500 ); 81 did not consider it necessary to create a create to necessary it consider not did ); 87 ); ); 7-9/131500 ); ); 84 7-9/131299

). ); 7-9/131434 ). 7-9/130478 , õea oe f Hoole- of Home Sõmera ), 7-9/130904 7-9/130438 7-9/130603 82 ). 7-9/131307 h register The ), Pariisi Special Pariisi ), ) and Haapsalu and ) ad Viljandi and ) 7-9/130902 86 ), Viljandi ), , while , , Abja ), 85 83 ).

35 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 36 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 procedure). medical a of duration the for (except allowed not is services care nursing of provision the during patients of Restraining kin. of next their of consent the with bed the to tied was patient a where institutions two In later. also or procedure medical a the of during performance only place takes movement of freedom the of restriction physical not whether did guidelines specify The bed. the to fixed was arm patient’s one visit inspection the during and problem. serious a be to continues still services care nursing of provision the during restraint of means of use The 8.1.2. wards. the of doors the from devices locking the removed still but justified institutions the of one Chancellor, the to reply the In outside. and inside the both from opened easily be can wards the all of doors the that ensure and devices locking such the from door remove to a proposed Chancellor the lock Therefore, patients. to other by as used well as staff arbitrarily the by be outside can wards of doors the of latch outside A the basis. on legal key a without a it or in persons of liberty the restricts ward a of door a of Locking handle. (inside) an lacked also wards some in Doors own. their on leave not could them in patients the that so night, the for regularly locked were outside „butterflies“, so-called (the outside the from only opened be could latches which devices inspection, the it During institutions wards. these the in in patients that lock found to was possible it was as recipients, service of liberty the of restriction of services care nursing providing institutions the of four In 8.1.1. 8.1. of barrier. language the provision overcoming in and the dignity human ensuring for in services, care nursing consent obtaining in shortcomings significant found also problems, Chancellor these the Besides system. call nurse the with problems and recipients care nursing of liberty the of restriction unlawful of cases found still Chancellor the year, reporting the During

h poeue hc ncsiae i. e te npcin ii t Es Tlin eta Hsia Ld cs No (case Ltd Hospital Central Tallinn East to visit inspection 7-9/131500 the See it. necessitated which procedure the No (case Foundation Care Nursing No (case Foundation Hospital Jõgeva No (case Foundation No (case Foundation No (case Foundation No (case Foundation Centre Care and No (case See the 2012 inspection visit to Tapa Hospital Ltd (case No (case Ltd Hospital Tapa to visit inspection 2012 the See No (case Foundation Home Care Pärnu-Jaagupi to visit inspection the See No (case Foundation Home Care Pärnu-Jaagupi to visits inspection the See No (case Foundation Home Care Pärnu-Jaagupi to visit inspection the See No (case Foundation Care Nursing PJV to visits inspection the See No (case Foundation Centre Care and Health Kilingi-Nõmme to visit inspection the See No (case Foundation Hospital Sillamäe to visits inspection the See No (case Foundation Hospital Sillamäe to visits inspection the See o opy ih § with comply To No (case Foundation Centre Care and Health Kilingi-Nõmme to visits inspection the See No (case Ltd Hospital Central Tallinn East to visit inspection the See Restricting the liberty of persons of liberty the Restricting Unlawful mechanical fixing mechanical Unlawful wards of doors of Locking 91 wr fud n eea dos I sm isiuin i ws on ta sm wards some that found was it institutions some In doors. several on found were ) 7-9/140101 ). 95 0 f h Cnttto, iain hud e meitl triae uo te opein of completion the upon terminated immediately be should fixation Constitution, the of 20 In one institution, guidelines for mechanical restraint had been adopted been had restraint mechanical for guidelines institution, one In CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR ), Pärnu-Jaagupi Care Home Foundation (case No (case Foundation Home Care Pärnu-Jaagupi ), 7-9/140101 7-9/140001 7-9/140001 ). ). ). 7-9/140101 7-9/130302 7-9/131307 98 To avoid unlawful restriction of the liberty of persons, of liberty the of restriction unlawful avoid To ). ). ). 93 7-9/130295 94 i nt id h Caclo’ proposal Chancellor’s the find not did 88 7-9/140101 7-9/130437 7-9/130437 h Caclo acrand risk a ascertained Chancellor the 7-9/131500 7-9/140001 ). 7-9/140001 7-9/140001 7-9/140001 ) and Pärnu-Jaagupi Care Home Care Pärnu-Jaagupi and ) ) and Pärnu-Jaagupi Care Home Care Pärnu-Jaagupi and ) ), PJV Nursing Care Foundation Care Nursing PJV ), 97 ) and 2012 inspection visit to visit inspection 2012 and ) there have been cases been have there ) and Kilingi-Nõmme Health Kilingi-Nõmme and ) ). ). 89 7-9/131307 ) and PJV Nursing Care Nursing PJV and ) or similar locking similar or 7-9/131307 90 keys on the on keys ). ) and PJV and ) 96 92

106 105 104 103 102 101 100 99 § under protected inviolability mental and physical person’s a over decide to freedom the concerns service health a of provision the to Consenting representatives. legal their or services care nursing of recipients the all from obtained been had consent required legally a whether suspicion a had Chancellor the given, been had decide to incapacity person’s the to regard with explanations the no of and provision services the for consent the of record written a lacked patients several of documents consent. the of meaning the understand necessarily not did obtained who person been had services care nursing of provision the found were consent the four documenting in with Problems services. care nursing of provision the for consent a of existence the to attention more paid Chancellor the year, reporting the During 8.3. use. of possibilities and existence its of necessary) if (repeatedly, patients the inform better and system call nurse a of existence the ensure to proposed Chancellor the reasons, these For use. of possibility and it if useful the be only existence of its of can informed been have patients the and patients system the for accessible easily is works, notify the Also, swiftly care. for to need the possibility or condition their patient’s of deterioration a nursing restricts of these significantly provision of achievement absence the the Its to during contributes objectives. system situations call nurse all a in of existence ensured The services. be care must patients the of dignity opinion the of be to continues Chancellor The all. at exist not did system the institution same the of house another in while it, of aware institution another In all. at exist not did system the wards the of rest the in while off, switched was it but institutions. two in system call nurse the in insufficiencies revealed year reporting the during out carried visits inspection The 8.2. up. tying to measures alternative implementing and patients up tie to need the the of prevention the of addition, issues the on staff In the of training consider guardian. to asked Chancellor their or kin of next patient’s a by allowed. given was not this is for procedure) consent if medical Even a of duration the for need of case in (except patients care the Chancellor proposed to the service providers to explain to their staff that tying up of nursing

decide instead of the patient. the of instead decide may guardian appointed patient’s the extent what to and issues which to regard with determine it of basis the legal a If on and decision court relevant the examine capacity. must provider service health the appointed been has representative patient’s the of restriction the for court the to application an submit should authority local No (case Ltd Hospital No (case No (case Ltd Hospital No (case No (case Foundation No See the inspection visits to Sillamäe Hospital Foundation (case No (case Foundation Hospital Sillamäe to visits inspection the See n ae f bec o a ea rpeettv, h ptets et f i, h ptet isl o href r the or herself or himself patient the kin, of next patient’s the representative, legal a of absence of case In No (case Ltd Hospital Kallavere to visit inspection the See See the inspection visits to East Tallinn Central Hospital Ltd (case No See the inspection visits to PJV Nursing Care Foundation (case No No (case Foundation Hospital Jõgeva to visits inspection 2012 the See No (case Ltd Hospital Kallavere to visit inspection the See No (case Foundation Hospital Sillamäe to visit inspection the See Consent for the provision of nursing care services care nursing of provision the for Consent system call Nurse 103 7-9/131434 f h isetd ntttos Fr xml, hr wr css hr n cnet for consent no where cases were there example, For institutions. inspected the of 101 7-9/140101 7-9/131500 n o te oss a a us cl sse bt oe f h ptet wr not were patients the of some but system call nurse a had houses the of one ). CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR ), Kilingi-Nõmme Health and Care Centre Foundation (case No (case Foundation Centre Care and Health Kilingi-Nõmme ), No (case Foundation Centre Care and Health Kilingi-Nõmme ), 7-9/13027 7-9/131434 7-9/131434 ). 99 ). ). In one of them of one In 102 that the protection of the health and human and health the of protection the that 100 refurbished wards had a nurse call system call nurse a had wards refurbished 7-9/131434 7-9/131434 6 n § and 26 7-9/140101 7-9/130437 7-9/130437 104 7-9/131500 r t a be otie fo a from obtained been had it or ). ). 7-9/130302 9 f h Cnttto. s the As Constitution. the of 19 ), East Tallinn Central Hospital Ltd ). ) and Kallavere Hospital Ltd ( Ltd Hospital Kallavere and ) 106 ), PJV Nursing Care Foundation

) and Rapla County Hospital County Rapla and ) 7-9/131307 7-9/131307 105 As the treatment the As ) and Kallavere and ) Kallavere and ) case 37 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 38 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 111 110 109 108 107 did staff Russian-speaking the of some as staff, Russian-speaking the with communication institution one In 8.5. situations. all in dignity human with line in treated are patients care nursing compatible that considered ensure to institutions the be to proposed and dignity cannot human for respect of situations principle the with above the that found Chancellor the Therefore, treatment. degrading a to amount could inferiority, or anguish fear, of feelings showing a lack of respect for or diminishing their human dignity, or the behaviour which arouses degrading circumstances. of prohibition the is when i.e. § under ill-treatment, treatment to amount could which manner a in principles. constitutional § the to lead may situations following the that suspicion dignity: human a of degrading had Chancellor the addition, In finding to paid was attention particular outdoors. them no taking including patients, that for activities leisure found also was It angry. was response the assistance for asking of case in and hospital, the at stay their concerning information sufficient them provide go not did staff to the that had complained patients patients Some stomach. some empty an and on sleep rushed to was patients the found of was feeding It that service. inspection care the nursing during the of provision the during institutions patients the the of of dignity two human in Chancellor, the of opinion the In 8.4. service. the of provision the of cons and pros the responsibly weigh to able not was capacity limited with patient a or decide to capacity no had patient the that found services care nursing of provider the why explanation an contain documents treatment patient’s a that ensured be should it consent, proper a obtain To writing. in recorded is it and service the of provision the for consent a for asked immediately always are representatives legal their or service care nursing the receive to coming patients that ensure to is proposed Chancellor it the Therefore, not. or way, provided be to service the another wish they whether decide or one in spirit and body necessary that person’s already prior to the commencement of the provision a of the service a person could affects services health of provision 10 of the Constitution gives rise to the principle of human dignity which is one of the main the of one is which dignity human of principle the to rise gives Constitution the of 10

− − − Russia be to have account. also into taken person particular the of situation the and conditions different of combination the health, and humans. as dignity their forced debase autonomous which be conditions not into may as they Similarly, seen thing. a be as treated or should seen be they not may and Persons will. respect own their with with subjects treated be should people that means This situation. No See the inspection visit to Kallavere Hospital Ltd (case No (case Ltd Hospital Kallavere to visit inspection the See 66583/11, No case in 2014 January 9 of judgment Rights Human of Court European the also See age gender, person’s the mental), and physical (both person the on impact its treatment, the of duration The The principle of human dignity gives rise to the requirement to treat people as subjects regardless of their current No (case Foundation Care Nursing PJV to visits inspection the See − − − Language barrier Language dignity human to corresponding Care

7-9/131434 patient. another to next sleep to down lie can patient dementia voluntarily; ak f ufcet uevso o dmni ptet cets stain hr one where situation a creates patients dementia of supervision eat sufficient not normally of would lack people where conditions the in eat to forced are patients room; heated insufficiently an in wash to forced are patients , para 64. para , 109 ). For example, situations where treatment humiliates or debases an individual, an debases or humiliates treatment where situations example, For 111 18 of the Constitution violated, depends to a large extent on the particular the on extent large a to depends violated, Constitution the of 18 t a fud ht h ptet sekn ol Etna hd rbes of problems had Estonian only speaking patients the that found was it CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR 108 h ase t te usin hn s pro’ dgiy degraded dignity person’s a is when question the to answer The 7-9/131434 7-9/140101 107 ). hr ws rs o degrading of risk a was there ) and Kallavere Hospital Ltd (case Ltd Hospital Kallavere and ) 110

Budanov v. Budanov

misinterpreting a patient may occur and they might not receive the necessary assistance. necessary the receive not might they and occur may patient a misinterpreting the to them of risk a them, by expressed concerns the and patient a by spoken language the understand not with does communicate service care nursing to of provider a able If them. by are understood language a patients in extent necessary the with contact into come the who that ensure staff must services care nursing of providers that opinion the of is Chancellor The patients. the to information essential repeating to obstacle an be also may barrier Language assistance. possible best the them offer and patients the of to necessary also is patients ensure their human dignity during language the provision with of the service, so as to understand the communicate a concerns to in ability patients and the skill The with them. communicate by to understood able are staff hospital that necessary is it § from arising health of protection the to right the guarantee better To communicate. to able be to used was relative patient’s the of assistance the need of case patients in and care spoke, staff hospital nursing the of the none which of language foreign one a spoke only visit inspection the during addition, In Estonian. speak not 112 care general the in liberty. to right fundamental room the restricting of danger seclusion the eliminate to the as so home of function Chancellor and the basis, furnishings this the On change right. to this proposed of restriction unjustified for possibility a leaves and institution an in room seclusion a of where seclusion is not allowed constitutes existence a potential danger to the fundamental right to liberty the that opinion the reached Chancellor The used. not was room seclusion the provider, service the to According dirty. generally was it and tobacco, of smelled it lighting, general poor had room the injuries, cause to room the in staying people enable could they that for permit operating such were room an seclusion the of have furnishings The not service. care special did 24-hour of provision institution the the and secluded be not may services care general of recipients although room seclusion a had institution the that revealed inspection The requirements. the to conforming not room seclusion a in secluded were clients where supervision reinforced with department a had home care general the that found was it visits inspection 2007 Chancellor’s the During recipients. service of liberty the restricts unlawfully provider service the whether assess to was inspection the of aim The ( Ltd Häcke of Home During the reporting year, the Chancellor inspected one provider of general care services: Aa 9. involve dignity. human with line tasks health in treatment of and protection the whose to right their staff ensure to as so the Estonian, only speak all who patients with that ensure to proposed communicating with Chancellor patients and taking care of their needs are sufficiently the able to communicate basis, this On consent. the give actually not did patient the or information complete and relevant on based not is consent patient’s a that risk a takes services care nursing of provider a interpreters as kin of next using 114 113

7-9/071015 needs. daily patient’s the satisfying in and service care protection nursing the of the provision the to for consent pertinent right the obtaining in patient’s including dignity, the human and health ensure of that patient a with information exchanging and communicating 10–12. The Chancellor’s inspection visits of 18 June 2007 and 2 August 2007 to Aa Care Home of Ltd Häcke (case No (case Häcke Ltd of Home Care Aa to 2007 August 2 and 2007 June 18 of visits inspection Chancellor’s The of ways such using recommended Chancellor the languages foreign only speaking patients of case In 53924/00, No case in 2004 July 8 of judgment Rights Human of Court European the also See Providers of general care services care general of Providers ). CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR case No 7-9/130528 No case ). 113

114

28(1) of the Constitution, the of 28(1) Vo v. France v. Vo 112 , para , Care By

39 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 40 PART IV PART III PART II PART I in case of need, and plans to improve the ventilation have been made to stop the tobacco smell. tobacco the stop to made been have ventilation the improve to plans and need, of case in The institution replied to the Chancellor that the former seclusion room is only used as a storage care general the of recipients health. their the damage not does which that climate indoor an enjoy ensure service and home care general the in smoking arrangements the revise to recommended Chancellor The people. of health the on impact negative a have not should air indoor right polluted that the aspect that the includes found also health Chancellor of protection the the to connection, this In corridors. of the smell in strong felt and be institution could the tobacco of floors all on indoors allowed was smoking addition, In CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PREVENTIVE NATIONAL AS JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN PART I PART II PART III PART IV

PART II CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN

41 42 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 115 draws and children of situation the improving for recommendations makes also he basis, same surveys concerning the rights of children, and draws general conclusions based on them. On the and studies analytical officials organises Children government for Ombudsman local The society. of and members other state and children, with working specialists parents, society’s themselves, making to children Convention groups: social different to children the contributing of rights the explains and of Child the of Rights awareness the includes on raises ombudsman also the Children this, For for child-friendly. more Ombudsman attitudes the of task The their in extent greater a to work. children involve to encourages institutions also government ombudsman local The and Children. state for other Ombudsman the of work the in involved who are organisations youth and the children’s of different Members from Justice. representatives of include Chancellor body the advisory of Office the at established been has Ombudsman Children the for to body advisory an duties, and rights their understanding and analysing in children of participation active support and encourage to order In contributors. and participants include also Children active as society in position their strengthen and children of inclusion for the support to is Children Ombudsman the for Ombudsman the of mission of The children. of rights the promoting tasks and of awareness raising the function, supervisory the Besides establishments. such in ill-treatment prevent and children of rights the of protection of movement the assess to of order in wards) psychiatry freedom child closed schools, special (e.g. the restricted is children where institutions children’s inspects regularly ill-treatment, for mechanism preventive national the of functions the performing also while Chancellor, The best the from proceed child. and the of interests children of rights the respect children concerning decisions pass who persons and institutions authorities, the of all that ensure task to is Children The for Ombudsman the Estonia. to in system Chancellor protection the child the contact in problems may general Everyone to attention Children. his draw for Ombudsman the to rights child’s a of protection the for petition a submit may child a of representative legal or parent a Also rights. Each child himself or herself may contact the Ombudsman for Children for the protection of their initiative. own his on or petition a of basis the on proceedings initiate may of activities the of lawfulness the supervises persons and bodies exercising public also functions in relation to children Chancellor and parents. The Chancellor The children. on legislation of The Chancellor of Justice as the Ombudsman for Children verifies the legality and constitutionality Estonia. in system protection child the in problems systemic out pointing and analysis impartial an out carrying includes also Children for Ombudsman the of role the children, of rights the concerning complaints specific resolving and Child the of Rights the on Convention the of implementation the monitoring to addition In 2011. March 19 since Justice of Chancellor the by performed is children) for ombudsman (i.e. children of rights the on institution supervisory independent the of function the Estonia In 4. Article under Parties States of obligations the of one as children of rights the on institution UN The Convention. the in recognised Committee on rights the Rights of the the Child considers the establishment of of an independent implementation supervisory the for measures and administrative, other legislative, appropriate all undertake shall Parties States Convention, of the 4 Article Under 1991. September 26 on Child Convention the the ratified of Estonia Rights 1989. November the 20 on Convention the adopted Assembly General Nations United The I. https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/ee/Riigikogu/act/508012014001/consolide See the Chancellor of Justice Act, § 1(8). Available online: Available 1(8). § Act, Justice of Chancellor the See INTRODUCTION CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR .

115

on promoting the rights of children. of rights the promoting to relating activities of and institutions rights children’s to the visits inspection concerning as well proceedings as 2013, main in children the describes overview the of part following The 2013. in four of staff a having unit, structural separate a as Department Rights Children’s the includes Justice of Chancellor the of Office the Children, for Ombudsman the of functions the perform To children. of rights the promoting and in protecting involved network the of members other and specialists schools, organisations, bodies, society government civil local and state with cooperates and children of rights the about persons other and children of questions to replies ombudsman The child. the of rights the on seminars Children for Ombudsman The society. and events training organises and process legislative the in children of interests in the represents protection child of problems to attention impartial CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR 43 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 44 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 117 116 year. reporting the RAKE during found also were rights centre visiting research applied sciences concerning social rulings court executing in child the of interests University the of account taking with Problems rights Tartu custody by on survey out the carried of results parents the of by revealed were of proceedings interests court the in of child account the taking and ascertaining with Problems workers. protection municipality child rural or city of activities the in violations found Chancellor the occasions, several On better. organised be could parents the of rights visiting and custody of right the concerning disputes resolving when child the of interests the protecting in state the of activities the that year reporting the during found was it However, child. the of interests the protect to interfere to needs state the first interests child’s the place to unable are parents where situation a such In child. the of interests the in act to able not are and problems own their with only parents occupied the are often that revealed petitions The parents. the of divorce the after child the arose of life suspicion a complaints, the analysing of result the organising in account into taken sufficiently are child a of opinion and interests the whether a As parents. the of divorce the after children of life the organising in problems serious of indication an is children of respect in rights visiting and custody of right the concerning calls telephone and petitions of number large The bailiffs. and courts against also but authorities city or municipality rural of workers protection child of and custody activities the of against all of first complained petitioners right The children. of respect in rights the visiting of issues the concerned petitions several year, reporting the During and children concerning legislation drafters. the to recommendations draft his submitted of pieces 7 on opinion an expressed Chancellor the year reporting the during addition, In petition. a on based 13 and initiative own his on 10 these of proceedings, 23 initiated Chancellor the authority, public exercising agencies and persons of activities of lawfulness the verify To subdivisions. following the in detail cases more in These described are municipalities. by support of payment the for conditions the of constitutionality own Chancellor’s the rates of fees for places at pre-school child care institutions of several municipalities and the the on of legality opened the analysed Chancellor the example, were For petition. a of basis cases the on 10 and of initiative two constitutionality these, the Of verify children. to cases concerning 12 legislation opened Chancellor the year, reporting the During telephone. by child the of rights the about explanations provided also Office Chancellor’s the of Rights Children’s of Department the at Advisers child. a of representatives Children rights. their the reporting year. In the protect remaining cases the Chancellor was contacted by parents or best other legal to during occasions four on rights their how of protection the for Chancellor the them contacted themselves advised and competence Chancellor’s petitioners the the to explained Chancellor the cases, outside those In matters Chancellor. these, concerned the of Of petitions competence 79 the children. initiated. of were rights proceedings the substantive cases concerning 49 petitions in 128 reviewed Chancellor the 2013, In II.

1-4-13, para 55. para 1-4-13, Court Supreme the see detail, more In decision. a such of execution procedure effective and swift clear a and child a a and parent of a between contacts existence regulating decision court the a of execution ensure the for to as so amended, or supplemented be to needs Procedure Civil of clarity § sufficient with combination in with regulation the regulated therefore, and, Procedure not Enforcement of is Code the under rights visiting under child a and parent a between contacts regulating Children. for Ombudsman the of activities the on part relevant the under materials information and uuring_l%C3%B5ppraport.pdf otsuste-fondi-uuringute-kokkuvotted/Vanema%20hooldus%C3%B5iguse%20m%C3%A4%C3%A4ramise%20 http://valitsus.ee/UserFiles/valitsus/et/riigikantselei/strateegia/poliitika-analuusid-ja-uuringud/tarkade- The Supreme Court Supreme The Estonian: in online Available PROCEEDINGS en banc en CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR has pointed out that the full procedure for the execution of a special court decision court special a of execution the for procedure full the that out pointed has . About the RAKE survey, see in more detail also the subsection on studies, analyses 117

en banc en ruling of 17 December 2013 No 3-2- No 2013 December 17 of ruling 563 of the Code the of 563 116 . hs euain lo a t b ue t cluae h srie e pi b te aet whose parents the by paid fee service the calculate to used be to had also regulation this therefore and places kindergarten for fees on regulation a adopted had municipality rural Keila that noted Chancellor The void. was and law the of breach in concluded been had contract regard the this in that opinion the reached Chancellor the Therefore, service. public the of parent) the of (child/ recipient the of duties and rights operator the regulated contract the Hence, kindergarten. private the and town Keila between concluded contract the from arose kindergarten private a attending children of parents the by paid fee the of amount the town, Keila of case In of admissibility the contract. law civil for above the concluding conditions the breached municipality rural Saue and town Keila Both under it the on Act. the imposed delegating duty the by of relieved and not is (child/parent) authority service local the public service the a of performance of recipient the of duties or rights the regulate not may function administrative an of performance the delegating for contract a alia, law contract established under the Administrative Cooperation Act must be complied with. Inter civil a concluding for preconditions the but Act, an not in norm delegating a of does existence the require contract law civil a under function administrative an of performance the Delegating unlawful. be would ensuring for contract contract a Such person. another administrative via service institution care child pre-school an a of availability the conclude not or is act it administrative Therefore, an provision. adopt delegating to a possible such contain not does an Act Pre-School Institutions the by of Care but Act, Child conclusion an person in The norm another delegating law. relevant a civil to requires contract under administrative delegated an contract a be or may contract act/administrative function administrative administrative an of Performance local the between concluded contract the of nature legal arose. provider service the the and authority of question a cases, both In authorities. local the by bought places additional the for more pay to had parents municipality, rural Saue and town Keila by operated kindergartens municipal in fees the with comparison the In with Act. Institutions comply Care to Child Pre-School order in contract a under authority local another / kindergarten private a from places kindergarten additional bought speak, to so authority, local the where situation a concerned cases Both institution. care child pre-school a in place a for parent a by paid fee rate of the of lawfulness the verified Chancellor the occasions two on year, reporting the During 1. 2013. in proceedings selected the of overview an contains part following The it. express to enables development of level child’s the if opinion own child’s the as well as established, are welfare child’s the on solutions possible of impact the and child particular the of welfare the affecting factors the children concerning proceeding each in if The state’s intervention in the custody and visiting rights of the parents would be more effective parents. for affordable are made and Estonia are in everywhere services available the that important is it this, doing In services. conciliation and counselling family using for opportunities more significantly offered be should parents the parents the of separation legal of case in children of interests the protect to Chancellor, the of opinion the In The rates of fees of kindergarten places in Keila town and Saue rural municipality rural Saue and town Keila in places kindergarten of fees of rates The Case No 6-4/130349; 7-8/130559 6-4/130349; No Case 6-4/121345 No Case CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR 45 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 46 PART IV PART III PART II PART I per week depending on the grade. the on depending week per hours 20–32 of range the within is it pupils school basic other for while level, school basic whole the on week per hours 20 maximum is education such for curriculum the to according studying pupils of load The Constitution. the from arising treatment the equal of principle the intellectual with disability of profound and regulation severe with the children of for education compatibility in engaged the pupils of verified load weekly Chancellor the petition, a of basis the On 3. equality. to right fundamental general the violate not does municipality rural Rae of regulation the by established benefit transport the receipt of the for condition the that opinion the reached Chancellor the matter, petitioned the In established the meet not do conditions. but situation similar a in are who in persons situation the favourable with more comparison a in persons of group certain a place may which but benefit the paying of aim the achieving for conditions necessary and suitable establish are which may benefit the the of authority receipt the local restricting for the in that discretion means more This has equality. to authority right local fundamental the Act, any under from required authority not is local which of the payment the and of income family’s receipt a the on benefit depend a not of does which case In transport. free offering including Act, Transport Public the under benefits provide budget own its from public and free voluntarily however a may provide it to service, transport obliged not is authority local the although that found Chancellor The benefit. the for application the submitting of date the before months three least at municipality Rae of inhabitants as register, population the to according registered, were parents both whose those Constitution. the and only but transport law free of transport right the had municipality the rural Rae of school free the of with pupils the all Not municipality of rural right Rae the of school of the compliance of pupils verified to Chancellor provided the petition, a of basis the On 2. action. swift and pertinent the its attending of case in pay would they for municipality rural the than acknowledged Chancellor The municipality. rural fee Saue at kindergarten higher a kindergarten pay the to have attend not who do municipality town rural Saue of Saue of to children steps of took parents municipality the rural that the ensure proceedings Chancellor’s the during already that found was It municipality. rural Saue by to passed act had legal relevant municipality the of rural basis the Saue on established of be parents of by fee fee kindergarten the establish the to Hence, law legislation. the own by its imposed duty the of municipality rural the relieve not did agreement cooperation the Therefore service. the of guarantor the remained still municipality rural Saue agreement cooperation the of conclusion the after even that fact the of regardless This town. Saue by passed act legal a children from whose arose kindergarten parents municipal the town Saue by attended paid fee the of amount the municipality, rural Saue of case In conditions. void any to and contain not void, does it that so are kindergarten private the which and town the between conditions contract the amend applying of city instead the regulation town to Keila proposed valid a Chancellor on the rely basis, to this On kindergarten. private a attended children Weekly load of pupils engaged in education for children with severe and profound and severe with children for education in engaged pupils of load Weekly municipality rural Rae in pupils to compensation Transport intellectual disability intellectual Case No 6-2/120901 No Case 6-4/130715 No Case CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR chose a measure having significantly negative consequences for the petitioner. In addition to addition In petitioner. the for consequences negative significantly having measure a chose municipality rural Rae aim, desired the achieving for effective equally still while person the for burdensome is least are which this means the if choose to first only principle the to consequences Contrary indispensable. burdensome other them cause or body rights person’s administrative a an restrict proportionality, may of was principle home at the staying with toddler accordance the for In support disproportionate. the of payment the stop to decision the Third, the stop to deciding when used support. the been of payment have should discretion which to according underlying the regulation of provision the on relied municipality the support the of payment the stop to order the issuing In support. the of payment the stop to decision the making when discretion its of use make to failed municipality the Act Procedure Administrative the to contrary Second, consequencestheout indebtednessof municipalitythetosubdivisions. its of any or thepayment of the support is available for everyone, persons themselves can examine it and find municipality’sestablishingthemunicipalityruralthatact legalthe was by Anothergivenreason municipality.theindebted toweresupport they the payment of thestop toorder themaking of time the at becauseheard been not petitionerhad municipality,the the explanations by the to possibility to submit the their opinion notify and objections towithin the administrative failed proceedings. had According municipality petitioner the of the Actadministrative Procedure proceedings Administrative initiated the against them toand did contrarynot give theFirst, petitioner a four in freedoms and aspects. rights fundamental guaranteeing of principle the with comply to failed had government municipality rural Rae that established Chancellor the matter, petitioned the In used. longer no he which address e-mail father’s the to sent was invoice the while mother the to addressed been had journal study pupil’s the of sale the for offer the because incurred been had debt The school. not attending was who had child family’s the petitioner of journal the study the for as cents 50 and home, euros 2 at paid staying toddler a for support of euros 120 pay to refused had government municipality rural Rae whom to petitioner a by contacted was Chancellor The 4. under Constitution. the established equality to right fundamental the with compatible is level school basic the throughout applicable disability intellectual profound and severe with children for education in In conclusion, the Chancellor reached the opinion that the 20-hour weekly load of pupils engaged school. basic the such at years in 12 of total pupils a for study of to education possibility the and adjust potential individual to child’s Act a the to under according instruction obligation the the by diminished also is interference the of seriousness The pupils. such of equality to right fundamental the with interference serious a constitute not does old) years 7–8 children (i.e. grade first the in children for level the on intellectual stays which disability profound the and severe that with children found for education Chancellor in engaged the pupils of treatment, load weekly different the of constitutionality the assessing In teachers). education (special people and money the both of use effective and optimal to an wish make state’s the is aim additional the and learning, in into participate taking to load potential weekly their account a ensure to is pupils intellectual school basic profound other and with comparison severe different in with disability of children aim for the education that in conclusion engaged the pupils of reached treatment Chancellor the analysis, the of result a As Payment of support to a toddler staying at home in Rae rural municipality rural Rae in home at staying toddler a to support of Payment Case No 7-5/130127 No Case CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR 47 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 48 PART IV PART III PART II PART I The Chancellor recommended to the Social Insurance Board in the future to organise the 24-hour provided.beingservice the suitabilityofsystematically regularlytheassess and not did specialcarehomebutdid notgive guidelines whatonkindserviceof suitable is forthechildand a in child the placing whenfreedoms and rightsfundamental the ensuring of principlethe with In view of all the above, the Chancellor found that the Social Insurance Board had failed to comply place. took own-initiative verification such the no case, whether this In initiative purpose. its own fulfils and child its the for on suitable still verify is service constantly must Board the conditions above the to addition in that fact the to Board Insurance Social the of attention the drew also Chancellor The Home. Võisiku in with complied been had requirements these of None education. to access ensured is child the that important is It privacy. in be also can they where and possible as family-like as is which environment safe a in group smaller a in live must child the possible, as far As have manner. suitable a must in time free they spend to opportunities development, their to contributing activities suitable in engage that can ensured child be also the must mental It child. with the of adults interests the from to contrary particular is this (in if adults except disorders), from separated be should child A ensured. must be training relevant with staff of availability First, with. comply to obliged is Estonia which should look like, the requirements can be found in other legislation and international documents ruling court a under provided service 24-hour the what establishing include requirements not specific any does Act Welfare Social the although that explained opinion his in Chancellor The minors. for suitable been have would service care special 24-hour whose home care single a not was there incident above the of time the at However, service. the receiving persons the of rights the ensure to as responsible way a is in developed Board be should Insurance service the Social that the ruling, court a of basis the on service care 24-hour the of provision the organise to how decide to possibility the Board Insurance a Social the gives to person a of referral Act the that the fact the of view in decides that opinion the expressed Chancellor The also home. care particular which Board Insurance Social the by organised is service the of provision The minor. a to including i.e. age, their of regardless person to provided be may service care special 24-hour ruling court a of basis the on Act, Welfare Social the Under a placing risk. at repeatedly were in Board ruling. Insurance court a under life Social and health child’s the and child service the for suitable environment an have not did care home care The the special of of receipt the for activities Home Võisiku the in child petitioner’s verified Chancellor the 2013, In 5. administrative of knowledge the check training. government, appropriate them offer and officials municipality the municipality among requirements procedure rural legal the the improve of to municipality awareness the to recommended also Chancellor The 2012. withheld October been had in which home apologise at toddler to the for municipality support the rural them pay Rae and petitioner to the proposed to Chancellor the violations, above the to Due Act. Procedure Administrative the by down laid delivery electronic for conditions the it with complied delivered having municipality without electronically The law. the with accordance in petitioner the to act) administrative burdensome (a payment the stop to decision the deliver not did municipality rural the Fourth, intended. was support the development and care whose for child their affected also payment the of stopping petitioner, the on impact the Placement of a child in a special care home care special a in child a of Placement Case No 7-4/130602 No Case CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR 118 with dispositions make freely to successor § under property minor their to respect a of the not right under does fund the requirement pension a restrict in the units disproportionately of that redemption the concluded for consent Chancellor court’s a for the Act Law proceedings, Family the of result a As is consent court’s the with only child a of behalf Constitution. the to contrary on securities transfer may parent a stipulating Act that Law Family the under restriction the whether was case this in issue main the securities, of transfer for required is consent court’s a Act, Law Family the under and, securities As redemption of units in a mandatory pension fund inherited by a minor constitutes transfer of fund. pension a in units the of redemption the for needed is consent prior court’s a while consent court’s a without account the to transferred be can units inherited the and successor the child a for opened questioned be a can account in pension petitioner a units that out pointing of fund, The pension redemption the Act. for consent Law court’s a Family have to the requirement under the of child proportionality a of interests or with rights conformity in the not Funded are fund the pension a of of provisions units the the to succession that regulating found Act Pensions who petitioner a by contacted was Chancellor The 7. Constitution. the with incompatible not is a which under restriction court a the of consent the with only that child a of behalf on securities concluded transfer and acquire may parent Chancellor the proceedings, the of result a As investors. other with comparison in situation making (when time every again court transactions the on the basis of an to investment contract) and the child will recourse not be in a less favourable have to have not does representative legal child’s a granted is consent general such If consent. general a giving prefer should courts the transactions the investment of restrict case in Court, disproportionately Supreme the not of opinion the does In persons. that of rights way a in Constitution the with compatibility in Court Supreme the issue, similar a In investors. other to comparison in situation favourable less a in fund) a in shares of owner the (as child the places authorisation court’s a asking that found petitioner The property. one’s to respect with dispositions make or use possess, freely to on securities transfer and acquire may behalf of the child only with the consent of parent a court is contrary to the right under the a Constitution that establishing Act Law restriction Family the the whether under verified Chancellor the individual, and from petition a of basis the On § from arising restriction the of constitutionality the assess to had Chancellor the cases two in 2013, In 6. child. a to provided service care special 24-hour the of suitability the regularly and systematically assess and providers service the with concluded on agreements agreeing framework the including in service the them, of provision the for for conditions suitable and requirements the is which manner a in minors to service care special

See the Supreme Court Civil Law Chamber judgment of 5 June 2012, No 3-2-1-68-12. No 2012, June 5 of judgment Chamber Law Civil Court Supreme the See Rights of a successor who is a minor in succeeding to units in a pension fund pension a in units to succeeding in minor a is who successor a of Rights child a of behalf on securities of transfer and Acquisition Case No 6-1/130664 No Case 1/130611 6 No Case 188(1) of the Family Law Act. Law Family the of 188(1) CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR 32 of the Constitution. the of 32 118 has found that the Family Law Act can be interpreted be can Act Law Family the that found has 49 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 50 PART IV PART III PART II PART I inhabitant of Haapsalu at least one year prior to the birth of the child. the of birth the to prior year one least at Haapsalu of an inhabitant as register population the in entered was and town Haapsalu in resides permanently parent who a to allowance childbirth a of payment the regards as extent the Town to regulation, Haapsalu Council by approved benefits“ of social constitutionality of payment the and verified granting Chancellor the for the „Procedure individual, the an from petition a of basis the On 8. rtcin pcait eiid opine ih h areet ol mr ta hl a year a half Chancellor. the than by enquiry relevant more the after only and only plan management case agreements the in prescribed than the later with compliance verified child specialist The implemented. the protection actually of are steps duty these The that verify checks. to health was specialist regular protection for child children a the of list take practice would the and in children practitioner the general register would mother the that the mother the After with agreed consistent. specialist protection child as the check-up, not medical initial the were and birth child’s government the of registration municipality the by steps further However, exemplary. were actions municipality’s the regard, this In birth. the establish to court the contacted later days three and day, same the on even check-up medical a for child the took and child the about out finding after immediately steps took government municipality rural the that found was it proceedings the of course the In a to been not had parent the whom check-up. with medical and register population municipality the in rural registered Märjamaa not had of activities the parent the whom municipality initiative the in child six-month-old a of learned own having after government his on verified Chancellor The 9. voluntary its of payment the for benefits. preconditions the establish itself may authority decisive local statutory of each a authorities, local is under of autonomy the not it with accordance (i.e. in regard, and, authority voluntarily local this a benefit by paid In obligation) a is Constitution. allowance the childbirth and the Acts that the importance with conformity in is Haapsalu in town be to allowance birth child the for applying person a of residence permanent the requiring precondition additional the that concluded Chancellor the analysis, the of result a As the town. Haapsalu that in live actually allowance must allowance the childbirth of recipient the of receipt the for precondition additional an as right the establish has to town Haapsalu whether respective was the proceedings of the territory in issue the main in The be authority. local must a benefit the as of recipient establish a of may residence the authority register local the whether dispute no precondition for the payment of a was social benefit the requirement that according there to the population proceedings the In assistance to individuals. to assistance providing when activities implemented and planned the of assessment the to attention more pay to government municipality rural Märjamaa to recommended Chancellor the basis, this On Payment of the childbirth allowance in Haapsalu town Haapsalu in allowance childbirth the of Payment Registration of the birth and medical check-up of a child a of check-up medical and birth the of Registration Case No 7-5/120526 No Case Case No 7-8/121241 No Case CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR s h gada, a nt iltd h picpe f urneig h fnaetl ihs and rights fundamental the guaranteeing petitioner. the of to respect with freedoms principle the violated not function had its guardian, in child the the as of in custody the government, after town looking and Paldiski functions that welfare social concluded its Chancellor fulfilling the proceedings, the of result a As grandchild. petitioner’s the of welfare the ensured and town Paldiski whether verified Chancellor freedoms and rights the fundamental guaranteeing of principle the individual, with complied had government an from petition a of basis the On 11. child. the the with communicate to how fulfilling officials the of regular participation organising on mother the to guidance provide can who with mother the and child the start of guardians the of duties mother to the promised and government child the city between Pärnu meetings Chancellor, the to reply its In those implement then measures. and mother the and child particular the between contacts promote to the this, For initiative. own its help measures organisational which ascertain to on government city the recommended Chancellor child a and mother a the between contacts in promote government to city future the to recommended Chancellor the addition, In representative. legal child’s the not is who person third other or provider service a on of child a duty of representation the legal place not and children, of respect in right rights visiting the and concerning representation custody, explanations of giving when legislation valid from proceed the to to government city recourse Pärnu to immediate recommended also have Chancellor The should measures. necessary it the implement custody, to court of future is right it the danger parent’s the a eliminate in to restrict order that to in and government necessary danger, in city is child Pärnu a of to welfare where recommended situations in Chancellor the basis, this On promote to measures implement to failing contacts. their and mother the of request the at only meetings organising by mother the and child the of rights visiting the violated government city the Third, the and guardian mother’s the to child the family. substitute of providing respect in by rights administration visiting custody, and good of representation right the of of issues the principle concerning explanations the incorrect partly and breached contradictory government city the Second, for need the of aware child. the for guardian obviously a appointing and was father child’s the of government custody of right city the restricting the where situation a in court the to recourse have to delay its by child the of welfare the endangered government city Pärnu First, the in violations several government. found city the Chancellor of activities the proceedings, the of result a As city parents. the Pärnu of of activities rights the restricting the in and family of from separated child lawfulness a of life verified the organising in Chancellor government the petition, a of basis the On 10. h atvte o Plik tw gvrmn i is ucin s h gada in guardian the as function its in government town Paldiski of activities The Activities ofPärnucitygovernmentinorganisingthelifeachildseparatedfrom ensuring the rights of the child the of rights the ensuring family Case No 7-5/130761 No Case 7-5/111603 No Case CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR 51 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 52 PART IV PART III PART II PART I n h cus o te rceig, t a fud ht h pttoe hd en ervd f the of deprived been had petitioner been the not had contact of right the while ruling court that a by child the of respect in custody of rights found was it proceedings, the of course the In family. the from separation Ad- freedoms child’s the after District and child and rights parent Lasnamäe a between fundamental communication Tallinn organising guaranteeing when whether of verified principle the Chancellor with the complied petition, ministration a of basis the On 13. Act. Welfare Social the under required as assistance, long-term of need in person a for plan management case a up draw and management case of principle the from proceed to necessary the implementing for measures. The Chancellor also recommended in Act the future, when providing assistance Law to people, Family the under court the to recourse have to risk, the eliminating for offered measures the from refuses representative, legal other any or child, the of custody has who parent the but risk at is child a of welfare the where situations in future the in government municipality rural Jõelähtme to recommended Chancellor the basis, this On parent. the of wishes the account into taking without child petitioner’s the of life the organising by municipality freedoms and rights rural Jõelähtme that concluded Chancellor the government had failed to comply proceedings, with the principle of guaranteeing the petitioner’s the fundamental of result a As life. child’s the organising of issues the concerning person third the with agreements conclude to continued and account into wish petitioner’s the take not did government municipality The future. the in themselves son their raise to wish the and expressing consent earlier their withdrawing government municipality that the to agreed letter the a had term, sent the petitioner of petitioner arrival the The Before months. person. three for person third third the a with stay with could son the live to son petitioner’s the government municipality placed rural had Jõelähtme that found was it proceedings, the of course the In will. petitioner’s the against government child petitioner’s the to services social municipality rural providing when Jõelähtme freedoms and rights fundamental of guaranteeing of principle the activities with complied the whether verified Chancellor The 12. kindergarten. a attending was child the child’s that ensure to had guardian the the as function its in that government town fact the to Paldiski Thus, government. town Paldiski on was welfare child’s the for government responsibility The child. town the the of respect in of representation of right resulting the and custody of right no had attention grandmother the drew Chancellor The kindergarten. a attend not did child the that responsible was grandmother) child’s (the petitioner the government, town the of opinion the in However, kindergarten. a attend should child the child the of communication the social and development all-round with ensure to order in communication that in Namely, grandchild. petitioner’s out pointed repeatedly had government town Paldiski of workers protection child the the petitioner of safety and welfare the guaranteed sufficiently not had government town Paldiski that found Chancellor the However, Organising contacts between a parent and child and parent a between contacts Organising social of provision the in parent a of decision-making of right the Violating services Case No 7-5/130764 No Case 7-5/121317 No Case CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR

The Chancellor has also submitted his opinion on the Draft Act. Draft the on opinion his submitted also has Chancellor The suspended. is representative legal the of custody of Protection right the family, the from child Child a separates the § Under of Affairs. Amendment Social of the Ministry for the by Act initiated Draft Act the in resolved been have family, the from separated is child a when arise which Chancellor, the by described problems the now, By 18-2/130893). No (case Act Law Family the of Amendment the for Act Draft the on opinion his in problems these described Chancellor The treatment). child’s the from refuses unreasonably example, above the of case the in (e.g. decisions adequate make to fails parent a that reason the for precisely family the from separated be could child a time same the at parent; the by made be to have child a concerning decisions the all Act, Law Family the Under made. be to has needed is representative legal child’s the of consent the which child’s for the treatment concerning decision a and ill is child separated the if example for made, be to child have a to regard with decisions quick when problems practical to leads situation a Such this). request not does authority local the if duty (even immediately the issues these or regulate to protection court the preliminary of of way by representation of right the of resolving request immediately to court the to recourse upon authorities local of duty the stipulate to fails also Act The child. a of separation of case in guardian the of duties the assumes authority local the that or child the of representation of right the assumes immediately authority from local child the a family of the separation of case in that stipulate not does Act Law Family the example, For protection. legal preliminary of way by custody of right the of issue the resolves court the and court the to recourse has authority local the family, from separated is child a when period the during custody of right the and child a of representation the clarity sufficient with regulate not does Act Law Family the that concluded Chancellor the analysis, the of result a As separation. the out carrying authority local the and representative) (legal parent a between child separated a of representation and custody of right the of division and family the from child a of separation concerning Act Law Family the of provisions the analysed Chancellor the initiative, own his On 14. child. the of respect in rights parent’s the restricting for court the with application an file immediately to ruling, court a before family the from child a separates administration district city the where cases in future, the in recommended also Chancellor The daughter. the with contact of right petitioner’s the restrict to court the to recourse have or this, for contact between the petitioner and their daughter by providing them all-round possibilities assistance for create to administration district city the to proposed Chancellor the basis, this On daughter. the with contact of right petitioner’s the restrict to court the to recourse the having not also while daughter violated their and petitioner the between contact for possibilities create had Administration District to refusing by petitioner the of freedoms Lasnamäe and rights fundamental the guaranteeing of principle Tallinn that concluded Chancellor The daughter. the of respect the in custody of which right the under of deprived but was petitioner effect into entered not had which ruling court the to referring daughter, their and petitioner the between contacts organise this. to refused for administration Administration district District city The Lasnamäe Tallinn of assistance the asked and with meet daughter to the wished deprivation and institution on custodial ruling a in the was petitioner against The custody. appeal of right an the of filed had petitioner The court. the by restricted Problems relating to rights of custody and representation of children separated children of representation and custody of rights to relating Problems from family from CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR 28 of the Draft Act, if a local authority local a if Act, Draft the of 28 53 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 54 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 119 Available119 online in Estonian: the addition, In elder. family a with family a in children six and carer with family a in children 8 is which environment safe and stable family-like, than more admit to not recommended Chancellor the children, of development the to conducive a create to order In homes. substitute staff and in children of ratio the concerned homes substitute to criticism main Chancellor’s The homes Substitute children). the for plans management case up drawing by (i.e. management case of principle the with accordance in them support and regularly children visit to aim an set also have before so do not did which not and personally children of delegate representation them to substitute homes (e.g. applying for legal the rehabilitation service). Local authorities of functions the perform to future the in promised shortcomings found Chancellor the activities whose in authorities local the of Most children. of welfare well-being the for responsibility better take to of homes substitute in growing children of services organisers and guardians the as authorities local to recommended Chancellor The authorities Local future. the in organised be will service home substitute the of financing the which to according amendments legislative for proposals specific with along service, home substitute the of forms all covering concept a prepare will Affairs Social of Ministry the 2014 of end the by that replied Minister The standard. service minimum so-called the i.e. children, of welfare material of terms in ensure must home substitute a extent what to and what regarding guidelines clear provide should state the Thus, them. of basis the on given guidelines optional the on and Estonia binding instruments international Constitution, with the from vague derived be and several to Therefore, have child. general requirements a of very needs basic is the satisfying for service necessary expenses home the to substitute regard current the the under of that description was Affairs the Social regulation of Minister the to criticism main Chancellor’s Affairs The Social of Minister agencies. other and homes substitute authorities, local Affairs, Social of home substitute the of service analysis an completed Justice of Chancellor the of Office the 2013, In 1. children and infants 7-8/130943). No case for Home, Children’s Tallinn centre of disabilities with the to visit (Inspection Home with Children’s children and Tallinn infants of for disabilities centre the and 7-9/130668) No case home, substitute Kiikla to visit (Inspection home substitute Kiikla homes: substitute two visited Chancellor the addition, In Tapa to visit (Inspection School, School Special Special Tapa were to visit visits Chancellor’s inspection The the advance. All in institutions. announced care child three inspected Chancellor the 2013, In III. Compliance with the recommendations given on the basis of an analysis of the of analysis an of basis the on given recommendations the with Compliance VISITS INSPECTION substitute home service home substitute 119 , on the basis of which the Chancellor made several recommendations to the Minister the to recommendations several made Chancellor the which of basis the on , case No 7-7/140013 No case CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR http://lasteombudsman.ee/sites/default/files/asenduskoduteenuse_analuus_0.pdf ) was described in more detail in Part I of the report. the of I Part in detail more in described was ) . of the child. the of interests the children in is this when move cases exceptional in to except another, to house not and family one and from law, the to conforms family the of size the before home substitute the to children new admit to not home substitute Kiikla of head the to proposed Chancellor The Act. Welfare family-like Social the stable, with conformity a in not is in practice such grow and environment, to children of right the violates child, occurs the this of unless interests best another, the to in family one from children of moving that found Chancellor The child. the of interests the on based place take not does moving optimising staff, the foremost of time and working the first is aim the case a such in As caretakers. daily their not are who for the period of school holidays, vacation of carer, etc, children are forced to adjust to the carers house family another to move home substitute a in family one of children where situation a In child. the of interests the on based justified and considered carefully be should decision the a such However, justified. be of change the situations certain in would family the of change course, the this hence, and, child the for solution best Of the be if could environment child. only the happen of should interests another the to in house necessary and is family one from children of moving Thus, them. of any with relationship trust a develop will child child the that improbable is the it and superficial and weak of is her or him relationship raising adults the with the family, another of carer a then and family substitute one a of in trust-based carer a child a is a home of develop caretaker can primary the child period certain the a that for If so them. child, with relationship the of care take should people same the model is to offer family-like conditions, which means inter alia that every day, as far as possible, family the on based home substitute the of aim the that explained Chancellor the addition, In service. home substitute the of components important most the of one are child. children each with for activities has Personal carer the time more the carer, one per children of number the model. smaller family The the resembles care of form this less the and relationships the superficial more The family. the and each children for in has person that child time less the each carer one per of children of number well-being the higher and safety the ensure number to sufficient important a is of carers existence of The service. home substitute the of quality the of indicator statutory the that home substitute important the an is This with. complied be must teachers and children of ratio the of for requirements head the to explained Chancellor The family. one into integrated were there families two of Värav children holidays school Avatud the during and association children nine were non-profit the of home substitute Kiikla the at family one In There were problems in both substitute homes visited by the Chancellor during the reporting year. staff.childrenand requiredof ensuringproblemsratiocompliance stillwiththe werewith there homessubstitute several in that found was it 2013 in children visitsinspection the Regrettably,during and staff or Ratio law. the under requirements the with comply to order in take to intend or taken have they steps what Chancellor the to reply their in explained homes substitute the of Most disability. profound or severe a with children or three of age the under children four than more with family a in present carer) and elder family a (or carers two least a have 22:00 to 06:00 from period the in and home, at staying is child one even where family each in elder family or carer one least at of presence 24-hour a ensure to recommended Chancellor CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR 55 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 56 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 120 law. the by established requirements qualification the with comply home substitute the in children with the work care in engaged all people that ensure to steps necessary take to disabilities with children and infants for centre the of head and Home Children’s Tallinn of head the to proposed Chancellor the basis, this On circumstances. exceptional in or need special a to due rearing problems or offer sufficiently professional support and assistance to a child, for example complicated more resolve to able necessarily not are qualification sufficient without personality Staff traits. suitable to addition in knowledge specialist work requires as also possible nowadays be children not with might staff qualified without service high-quality a of provision The the at 20% providers. only service home and substitute 34 Home remaining Children’s Tallinn at worked homes substitute the all in 65) of out (52 staff unqualified the all of 80% 2012, of end the At children. with working staff unqualified of problem the had Home Children’s Tallinn of centres other also that revealed inspection The required the carer. assistant an least at have of qualification required the have not not did people 41 of out did 17 children with working people even disabilities with children and infants nine for centre Home Children’s Tallinn the in qualification, the of Kiikla at two While home children. with substitute working were qualification required the without people homes As a result of the inspection visits during the reporting year, it was found that in both substitute staff of Qualification morning. the in family each in duty on carers two least at be priority, should there first children the a of care adequate as ensure to that, order in emphasised Chancellor The duty. on that is ensuring carers by of Act number Welfare required for the Social centre the with the comply of to head disabilities and with children Home and Children’s infants Tallinn of head the to proposed Chancellor The family. one of children eight or seven of bus the to house the from accompanying and kindergarten the or school carried for preparing carer dressing, washing, one diapers, changing Thus, of responsibility awoke. children the when morning the in fulfilled not was carers disabilities with two of children presence the of and requirement the disability infants profound or severe for a had children the centre where Home Children’s Tallinn in families three In and children living in them were at Tallinn Children’s Home and 80% at the remaining 34 service providers. service 34 remaining the at 80% and Home Children’s Tallinn at were them in living children and In comparison: at the end of 2012, about 20% of all the carers and family elders working in substitute homes substitute in working elders family and carers the all of 20% about 2012, of end the at comparison: In CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR 120

122 121 families. of situation economic the describing on only on focus not do approach and broadly the more children welfare of both conditions child development of and that issues the with important deal compendium is the as it well as Children, welfare child the for measuring Ombudsman the of opinion the In publication. this of preparation the to also contribution important an gave Office Chancellor’s the of Department Rights Children’s the from Reinomägi Andra Adviser needs. and practices domestic and international both account into takes approach proposed of The Estonia. list preliminary a offers in decision-making political and in children of welfare describing welfare for used welfare“ be could child which indicators welfare“ measuring child for possibilities the the child of measuring overview the an to „Approach e-publication an measuring to completed also Estonia Statistics Children“, of „Welfare compilation the with time same the At „Approach E-publication welfare. their ensuring for possibilities better creates children of situation the of overview comprehensive a because children, concerning information a the contains of compendium overview separate the that positive is it Children, for Ombudsman the of opinion the In parenting. to relating attitudes and problems as well as society, of life the in participate to children of possibilities the with deals also It possibilities children. support to and measures welfare social system of insurance social the describes security, of issues gives the of also overview and an health, and education composition, time, family free their spending for children, possibilities of situation, topics conditions economic living explores and compendium environment The growth today. the Estonia as in such children of situation the of overview an provides and children of welfare the on topics includes Children“ of „Welfare compendium The compendium. the of completion the to contributed also Board Health the and University, Fund Insurance Tartu Health Estonian University, the Tallinn Development, Health for Institute National the Research, and authors Chancellor, the and Education of Ministry the Justice, of of Ministry the Affairs, Social of Office Ministry the from editors the and Estonia Statistics from the officials the of Alongside Department Rights Children’s compendium. the to contribution important the an provided also Justice of from Chancellor the of Office Paron Kristi and Reinomägi Andra Advisers Children“ of During thereportingyear,StatisticsEstoniapublishedcompendium„WelfareofChildren“ „Welfare Compilation children. on statistics publish to and children, concerning analyses and surveys regular out carry to necessary it considers Children for Ombudsman the children, of rights the In promoting of work his plan better children. and children of situation the of overview better for a get to order important are which problems to attention promoting drawing include and children Children of for rights the Ombudsman the of tasks the functions, supervisory Besides 1. IV.

http://lasteombudsman.ee/sites/default/files/IMCE/lapse_heaolu_mootmise_kasitlus.pdf Available online in Estonian: in online Available Estonian: in online Available Studies, analyses, information materials information analyses, Studies, CHILD THE OF RIGHTS THE PROMOTING CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR http://oiguskantsler.ee/sites/default/files/IMCE/laste_heaolu_0.pdf 122 Te ulcto provides publication The . . . 121 . 57 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 58 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 125 124 123 is it Children, for Ombudsman the of opinion the In conversation. the to parties only the remain between will conversation the psychologist, during spoken a is contacts that parent everything counsellor, a or whether psychiatrist of regardless that explains booklet The arise. private life of confidentiality the to relating issues often counselling, In counselling. of result a as anything do to forced be will nobody attitudes, talk or behaviour their to in change ready to what and are about they what themselves decide can counselling for come who people actually that parents to explains of booklet The afraid issues. delicate being about speak example to daring for not or reasons, accusations various for help specialist contact to afraid are Parents includes also booklet The parents. or children for children. intended raising of topics on and literature the to references fee a for or charge of free either offered possibilities counselling various of list detailed a contains booklet the addition, In it choose. cases to specialist which which and of assistance or in advice for specialist case explains a contact to booklet worth in be would The assistance children. of and raising information concerning doubts additional and seek questions to parents encourages booklet The Estonia. in parents for assistance psychiatric and psychological receive booklet information an prepared Children for Ombudsman the assistance to advisers the with cooperation in specialists assistance, and advice seek to them encourage psychiatric and assistance receive to possibilities the about and parents of awareness the improve to order In seek may they cases which psychological in assistance for resolving problems relating and to a child, or they do where not dare to seek such assistance. know for always not do parents that indicate surveys 2012 in out carried possibilities child the of rights the of the survey monitoring The explaining Booklet child. the of representatives and teachers workers, protection child judges, train to need the out points also survey The contacted. be should court about the and or authority need, local or a danger when in situations child a of notify to duty the custody, of right the of essence the about people of awareness the improve to necessary also is It parent. another or one either to custody of right the awarding of reasoning better a contain should decisions court that fact the to compromise attention draw survey a the of authors change The parents. of to custody concerning matters in possible reached be also should it and child, the of interests the to contrary is this if conciliation a towards parties the guide to obliged be not should court the parents custody of of matters the to regard with that found authors the alia, Inter children. of rights the of protection the improve to how on proposals own their made also survey the of authors The process. this in child the of interests the of protection best the ensure to as so system the changing for proposals make and parents of custody of right the awarding for practices existing the ascertain to was survey the of aim The RAKE. centre research applied sciences social parents completed of was decisions smart for fund the custody of by financed and Chancellery State the and Chancellor the of Office the Justice, of Ministry the by right the During the reporting year, the survey on awarding the right of custody of parents commissioned awarding on Survey http://lasteombudsman.ee/sites/default/files/IMCE/lasteombudsman_psuhh_abi_loplik.pdf http://lasteombudsman.ee/sites/default/files/lapse_oiguste_ja_vanemluse_monitooringu_kokkuvote.pdf uuring_l%C3%B5ppraport.pdf otsuste-fondi-uuringute-kokkuvotted/Vanema%20hooldus%C3%B5iguse%20m%C3%A4%C3%A4ramise%20 http://valitsus.ee/UserFiles/valitsus/et/riigikantselei/strateegia/poliitika-analuusid-ja-uuringud/tarkade- Available online in Estonian: in online Available Estonian: in online available is survey the of Summary Estonian: in online available is survey The CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR . 123 . The survey was carried out by Tartu University Tartu by out carried was survey The . 125 explaining the possibilities to possibilities the explaining 124 as well as several other several as well as . . ebr rahd dlho ad e yugr ebr wr amte. hrfr, during Therefore, admitted. 126 were members previous younger the new as and changed body adulthood advisory reached the members of members several year, school new the Since pupils. with conversations developmental of analysis the to paid be should attention more and public be should schools safe at out carried evaluations internal that A noted also pupils. of values the Pupils pupils. and shape management the for both value also important an be should environment should school schools teaching subject to addition important it in found that also Pupils them. trust always not might pupils and have schools psychologists few school a only that out pointed was it time, same the At bullying. of prevention the to attention pay to important is it pupils, the to According bullying. of problem the to attention A Union. Councils’ Student School Estonian prevailing the opinion voiced by the pupils during the debates was that schools do not of pay sufficient meeting annual the at bullying school on workshops out carried body advisory the with cooperation in Ombudsman the to advisers May, In Ombudsman. the to advisors the of guidance the under problem the this debated board advisory of members March in meeting the During bullying. school and environment school safe a creating of topic the concerning activities and discussions its continued also body advisory The life. local shaping in children of children of Children opinions for Ombudsman the the of of address compiled summary a body advisory the to introduced more and that Ombudsman children the to advisers that October, In debates. expectation and such in involved be level also should people local young their on held expressed be should children clearly for important meeting issues on debates the in participating people Young discussed. were level local on children of involvement for possibilities and children of life daily the affect most which areas authorities: local with connection discussed in children composition for important extended issues an in body advisory the May, In elections. local of principles the explained Ombudsman the to advisers March, in meeting the At them. with people connection young in and children of expectations the and elections government local the all was in meetings topics recurring the of One times. three met body advisory the of members 2013, In association the Student and of Union, Nimel. Assembly Councils’ the Student Eagles, School Young Estonian Welfare, the Child Councils, for Union Estonian the of assembly following Association, Scouts the Estonian from the Council, representatives includes body Youth National Estonian the advisory Association, Guides Estonian the of assembly youth organisations: The organisations. youth and children’s different representing old, years 18 under children are body advisory the of Members is body advisory the statute a by of regulated work The concerned. are children which about problems to society of attention the draw and important find they which issues on views their express to opportunity the work of the ombudsman. Participation in the work of the advisory body provides children an in children involve to 2011 in established was Children for Ombudsman the to body advisory An 2. Russian. and Estonian in Children for Ombudsman on the of available homepage the are booklet information the the of problem Materials them. a help to with specialist dealing a for start is it they easier sooner the that understand to parents for important 128 127 in-organisation-of-local-life http://lasteombudsman.ee/sites/default/files/IMCE/laste_ootused_seoses_kov_valimistega_0.pdf Available online: Estonian: in online Available Available online in Estonian: Advisory body to the Ombudsman for Children for Ombudsman the to body Advisory

http://lasteombudsman.ee/en/ombudsman-for-children-children-should-be-more-involved- 126 CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR . http://lasteombudsman.ee/sites/default/files/IMCE/nouandva_kogu_statuut.pdf . 128 in connection with local elections and involvement and elections local with connection in et 4H Eesti Ognsto o Hm Duhes youth Daughters, Home of Organisation , Ühise Eesmärgi Eesmärgi Ühise 127 n the and . . 59 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 60 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 129 Association, Scouts Estonian the Union, Councils’ Student School Estonian the Psychologists, School of Association Estonian with the children: of rights cooperated the government promoting and local also protecting for and bodies, state Children to for addition in Ombudsman organisations, and the associations non-profit to several advisers year, reporting the During 5. people. young also and children of acceded, opinion the has consider seriously and Estonia hear to which us obliges to Child, Ombudsman the The of Rights them. the by on Convention understandable the manner that reminded a in people young and children for also collect to them, with decisions the justify dialogue and explain and expectations and situation their about constant information regular in be to necessary needs is the it people, out young find and to children order of in that emphasised address his in Children for Ombudsman The and themselves, people young adults. with thoughts their share and to ready gladly are they children that showed children with interviews are needs their to possibilities. regard and with needs experts different best have too The they yet vote, to right the have not do population Estonian the of fifth one almost up make who Children life. local shaping called in people young Ombudsman and The issues. local deciding in candidates for local councils to take children better account of the needs, wishes and opinions of children of involvement better address support public a to delivered Children for Ombudsman the elections, local the before October In 4. like who welcome. but were reading competition the in participate not did who children those also which to Children of Protection the for Day International the of framework the Literature in Centre the at place took events Children’s for Centre nice other several the ceremony, award the to addition In June. 1 on Literature Children’s for Centre and Children for the Ombudsman at place taking event the at acknowledged were who authors 20 of works the distinguished the of team joint The and fears „My else?“; someone competition. the at or received were contributions myself 280 Over good“. I feel I where Estonia – 100-year-old „A worries“; behaviour my controls „Who punishment“; without grow children „Good write: to which on topics four between choose could children The Estonia. in children of life the improve to how topics on views discuss to their and relationships and environment express surrounding their children, and of life the concerning write to children invited Literature Children’s Estonian of Centre the with together Children for Ombudsman the society, in them for important topics on In order to hear the opinions of children and help children and young people generate discussions 3. families. and children of situation economic the welfare, including securing and achieving violence; including family, of issues as well as curriculum; the and system educational the to relate Estonia in issues topical most the currently body, advisory and children to listening by the of opinion ways: the In assessments. objective and information several advice, offering and people young in children of life the improving were to body contribute can advisory the and Children for Ombudsman Children the that found was it for debate joint the of Ombudsman result a As again. discussed the of role the meeting October the http://lasteombudsman.ee/et/lasteombudsman-eesti-lapsed-vajavad-rohkem-tunnustust-ja-tahelepanu-2 See in more detail in Estonian: in detail more in See Domestic cooperation Domestic life local shaping in children of involvement the for address Public for Centre the and Children for Ombudsman the by organised competition Writing Children’s Literature in Estonia in Literature Children’s 129 . CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR . 130 definitely adults and this. for people opportunity excellent an young offers children, by equally recognised is which children, festival of film rights own Estonia’s the discussion. generating about and children inform for to important are is which topics Children raising for including Ombudsman the of tasks the of One 8. magazine the of of thenon-profitassociationSEBCharityFund;Andres Aruwasamemberoftheeditorialboard of concept the committee grant study the of work the in participated Sarv Margit and Aru Andres welfare; child preparing for group working other the of in activities participated the Reinomägi in Andra participated institutions: also Department Rights Children’s the of staff 2013, In 7. Icelandic other and Children children. of for rights the safeguarding organisations Ombudsman and agencies state Icelandic the visited Office Chancellor’s the of Department Rights Children’s the of staff the 2013 autumn in visit, study a of framework the In refugees. child many of death the to lead may winter coming the and assistance, medical and water food, enough have not do camps refugee in children that fact the to attention drawing refugees, child Syrian of situation the concerning statement a made also European states and institutions to take necessary measures for improving the situation. ENOC all on calling and children these of rights the protect to need the and who homeland their children left have of vulnerability particular emphasising statement position a adopted members ENOC conference, annual the At move. the on children of rights the was conference annual the the of European Network of Ombudspersons for Children Conference (ENOC) in Brussels. In 2013, the main topic of Annual and Assembly General the attended Paron, adviser Kristi and Chancellor, Aru, the Andres to Office, Chancellor’s the of Department Rights Children’s the of Head children. of punishment corporal prevent and ban to steps and Baltic take to the governments their urging meeting, statement joint a the made also children At for ombudsmen Nordic visits. inspection the of by methodology out the carried and service Office home substitute Chancellor’s the of analysis Andres the of meeting, results the the At introduced Jyväskylä. Aru in countries Nordic and Baltic of children of for meeting ombudsmen the attended of Reinomägi, Chancellor Andra the Chancellor, the of to Office adviser and the Aru, of Andres Justice, Department Rights Children’s the of head 2013, August In Children. for Ombudsman Estonian the of initiative the on 2012 cooperation in began meetings annual future organising of tradition The and discussed. were possibilities problems common and shared, were children experiences for and ombudsman practices Latvian good was the by countries organised Baltic meeting of two-day the children During for Riga. ombudsmen in held the of meeting second the 2013, spring In 6. etc. Foundation, Bullying Against Me, and You Centre Family Chamber, Advocacy Child the Welfare, Child for Union the Film, Just 131 asp?id=32251 The report of the ENOC 2013 conference is available online: available is conference 2013 ENOC the of report The The text of the joint statement is available online: Special programme on the rights of the child at the festival the at child the of rights the on programme Special institutions other of activities the in Participation cooperation International . The texts of the joint statements are published as annexes to the report, pp 35–40. pp report, the to annexes as published are statements joint the of texts The . Märka Last Märka CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR published by the Union for Child Welfare. Child for Union the by published http://www.lapsiasia.fi/nyt/aloitteet/aloite/-/view/1862473 http://crinarchive.org/enoc/resources/infoDetail. 130

131 Just Film . 61 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 62 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 6 ac. . enmg, rsnain o suet aot h rgt o te hl ad the and child the of rights the Policy. about Social and Sociology of Institute students Tartu of University the at Children for for Ombudsman presentation Reinomägi, A. March. 06 the of staff the for protection“ data Fund. Unemployment and Estonian need in child „A presentation Sarv, M. February. 20 seminar the at care“ Chamber. Advocacy Child alternative the of family] in a in [Care hooldamine“ children „Perekonnas of rights „The presentation Sarv, M. January. 23 below. listed being ones important most the year, reporting the during lectures and speeches presentations, several delivered advisers his and Children for Ombudsman The 10. Chancellor. the easily to petitions submit also can children Ombudsman, the of homepage the and profile Facebook the Through information interesting Children. for Ombudsman various the of work the and and child the Estonia, of rights the to in relating welfare child of organisation the parents, of simple a duties in and rights duties the on information and offers also rights homepage The main language. understandable and their people young and children for explains children for ombudsman as Justice of Chancellor the that is values important most the of one and content key Its design. cheerful and child-friendly a has Children for Ombudsman the of homepage The English. and Russian Estonian, in available is homepage The opened. was Children for Ombudsman the of homepage the 2012 March in and created, been has Ombudsman the of profile Facebook the Children, for To inform about the rights of children and explain the institution and activities of the Ombudsman 9. the within shown films the concerns. their with to alone be should child relation no that was in programme Children for Ombudsman the of message key The adult. an with relationship trustful and long-term a relations, human stable need family biological their from homes. One of the recurring ideas at the debate was that, first and foremost, children separated Chancellor’s the in place took film substitute in children of opportunities and needs the of topic the on debate a by followed Office, a of the showing in free addition, a In programme issues. special related the cinema child of the other framework in and debates protection child included on also experts child by the chaired of hall rights the on programme film special The young neglected were topics central loneliness. and school, to the related issues need, in time children helping and noticing and This people States. United the and Poland Zealand, New Korea, from films were there diverse: very was programme the within films of choice The in participated Welfare child. the the of rights Child the on programme of for special the within shown Union be Office to films the the of selection the the and from Justice of representatives Ministry also the team, Justice, of programme Chancellor Film Just the to addition In films. unique for already shown was selected child carefully seven of consisted the programme special year’s This of year. consecutive third the rights the on programme special a (PÖFF), Festival Film Nights Black the of part as Film, Just festival films youth and children’s the of framework the In Lectures, presentations and speeches and presentations Lectures, profile Facebook and Homepage CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR for the staff of the Ministry of Finance. of Ministry the of staff the for cohesion“ social of indicator an as children of „Inclusion presentation Reinomägi, A. March. 27 School. Viimsi at Chamber Advocacy Child the the of in seminar the children at environment“ of school duties and rights „The presentation Sarv, M. and Paron K. Aru, A. March. 13 05 June. A. Aru, M. Sarv discussed the issues of family law with child protection workers of Hiiu of workers protection child with law family of issues the discussed Sarv M. Aru, A. June. 05 annual the at service Workers. home Home Substitute of substitute Association Estonian the the of meeting of analysis the on presentation Sarv, M. May. 29 Government. County Pärnu at kindergartens of heads for day information the at presentation Aru, A. May. 23 the on Children. and III) Families for Centre Advisory association (cycle persons support non-profit the professional at monitoring and Children for Ombudsman of the child, the of rights training the of issues Paron, K. Reinomägi, A. May. 17 Village. Children’s SOS Põltsamaa of care] alternative the to regard with thought for [Food mõttekoht“ „Asendushooldusteemaline seminar the at service“ home substitute the of analysis the of light the in inclusion to child the of right „The presentation Sarv, M. May. 17 authorities. local County Harju of workers social of day 15 May. A. Aru, M. Sarv, presentation „The rights of children in alternative care“ at the information therapist]. creative the of client a “Abivajav as need seminar in child [A the kliendina” loovterapeudi at laps protection“ data and need in child „A presentation Sarv, M. May. 09 Ühisgümnaasium. Tallinna at Council City Tallinn of simulation the at expert committee work youth a as participated Sarv M. May. 04 Chamber. Advocacy Child the of intervene!] [Notice, sekku“ „Märka, seminar the at noticing“ by children of rights the „Ensuring presentation Sarv, M. Reinomägi, A. April. 19 workers. protection child of seminar the at care“ alternative in children of rights „The presentation Sarv, M. April. 18 Tartu. in kindergartens of heads the trained Aru A. April. 12 the of meeting annual the at bullying on Union. Councils’ workshops Student School Estonian of chairing Sarv, M. Paron, K. April. 05 Riigikogu. the at system] protection child the of effectiveness the [Raising tõhustamine“ „Lastekaitsesüsteemi seminar the at presentation Aru, A. April. 02 German Kadriorg at child the School. of Secondary Upper rights the on presentation Sarv, M. Reinomägi, A. March. 28 Government. County Viljandi at system“ legal the in „Child presentation Aru, A. March. 27 3 ue A Rioäi itouig h Obdmn o Cide ad h rgt o te child, the of rights the psychologists. school of school summer the at and Tight“ Me „Hold film the of debate Children and watching for Ombudsman the introducing Reinomägi, A. June. 13 Government. County Hiiu of officials to visits inspection Justice of Chancellor the of methodology the introduced and authorities local County CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR 63 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 64 PART IV PART III PART II PART I Justice: the state can support creation of kindergartens] – kindergartens] of creation support can state the Justice: of Chancellor the of [Office toetada. rajamist lasteaedade saab riik büroo: Õiguskantsleri Aru. A. – homes] substitute in living children of rights the ensuring in service home substitute the of providers and authorities local of role [The tagamisel. õiguste lapse Rights elava asenduskodus roll osutaja asenduskoduteenuse ja Children’s omavalitsuse Kohaliku Sarv. M. the of head and Teder Indrek – future! a Justice have must child a Teder: Indrek Aru. of Andres Department Chancellor the with interviews Interview opinions, Articles, Pärnu. in Police of the parents“ at the seminar on the 10th anniversary of the Women’s Network of the Estonian closeness without child a of panel„Growth discussion the in participated Sarv M. December. 07 UNESCO. for Commission National Estonian the of day training simulation UN the at child the of rights the on presentation Sarv, M. December. 06 Riigikogu. the in forum youth the at speech welcoming Teder, I. November. 22 Tallinn. in workers protection child for seminar information the at management“ case of principle the to according welfare social and care, parental without „Children presentation Sarv, M. Aru, A. November. 20 services. welfare child Finnish the of officials supervisory to homes“ substitute to visits inspection in children of „Involvement presentation Sarv, M. November. 11 County. Põlva in seminar youth the at people young of duties and rights the and Children for Ombudsman the on presentation Aru, A. November. 07 Estonia. Statistics of department statistics social and population the of council research the to welfare child the measuring to approach the of introduction Reinomägi, A. November. 04 Children, for Ombudsman kindergartens. and schools County Valga the of trustees of boards of heads for of activities seminar the at Tight“ Me „Hold the film the of watching and need of in child a noticing on discussion introduction Reinomägi, A. October. 08 the Association. at Village Children’s care“ SOS Estonian the alternative of seminar in children of security to right „The presentation Sarv, M. October. 08 year. school the of beginning the of occasion the on Children for Ombudsman the of Greeting September. 01 prevention. HIV of field the in working organisations from people for Development Health for school Institute summer National the the of at protection“ data and need in child „A presentation Sarv, M. August. 26 Research. Education for Institute Public the of seminar summer the at welfare child the 27 June. A. Reinomägi, introducing the Ombudsman for Children and the approach to measuring House. Union European the at Children for Ombudsman the and ombudsman the of tasks the on presentation Aru, A. June. 21 CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR Postimees Sotsiaaltöö Postimees , 12 July 2013. July 12 , No 3, 2013. 3, No , 1 June 2013. June 1 , connection with the project „101 children in the Riigikogu“. the in children „101 project the with connection in Vikerraadio to interview radio substitute a gave Teder Indrek Justice the of Chancellor the and service, home of analysis the with connection in Radio Kuku by interviewed was Sarv Margit poverty. child on Elmar Radio to and competition writing the of results the on Radio Kuku to interview an gave she and assistance, psychological receive to possibilities the explaining booklet the about Vikerraadio on spoke Reinomägi Andra life. local of matters organising in children involve better to Children for Ombudsman the by call the with connection in Radio Kuku by interviewed was he and Vikerraadio) (on Act Protection Child Draft new the on commented Aru addition, In Radio). 4) and he also gave one interview on compliance with the requirements for test papers (on Kuku Radio and Vikerraadio Radio, Kuku (on Literature Children’s Estonian of Centre the and Children Andres Aru spoke about the results of the writing competition organised by the Ombudsman for interviews radio three In times). (3 Reinomägi Andra and times) (6 Aru Andres by programmes radio in covered were child the of rights the of issues the often Most year. the during child the of rights the of topic the on interviews radio 11 gave advisers his and Justice of Chancellor The (ETV report annual 2012 Chancellor’s the summarising interviews television in Kalmo Hent by covered was child the of rights the of programme programmes news ETV2 and ETV in aired were which child the of rights the of topic the on interviews television four gave Aru Andres year, reporting the During of children for „Justice newsletter Parents], 2013. prisoners“, Imprisoned of Children for Network [European – Estonia. in parents imprisoned with connections Children’s Žurakovskaja-Aru. K. – children] of views the to 2013. autumn [Listening arvamust. laste Kuulame Reinomägi. A. 2013. festival Film Just the of paper special – alone] be should child no [That üksi. oleks ei laps ükski Et Leps. A. Reinomägi, A. with]– reckon to society Postimees of fifth [One arvestada. kellega ühiskonnast, Viiendik Reinomägi. A. õpetajat. samasugust eeldab – kasvatamine õpilase teacher] similar a presumes cooperate to koostööalti ready is and initiate the takes who pupil a of [Raising ja Initsiatiivika Kivioja. A. Õpetajate Leht Õpetajate , 10 October 2013. October 10 , Reporter , 13 September 2013. September 13 , n Tlin V programme TV Tallinn and CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN FOR OMBUDSMAN AS JUSTICE OF CANCELLOR ut Leht Just pbihd s n net of insert an as (published Aktuaalne kaamera Aktuaalne aajg päevakorral Parasjagu , Delfi Video). Delfi , Postimees Aktuaalne kaamera Aktuaalne I adto, h topic the addition, In . al) 1 November 15 daily), äk Last Märka Eurochips , Kanal 2 Kanal , ,

65 PART IV PART III PART II PART I OVERVIEW OF THE PERFORMANCE OF OTHER FUNCTIONS ENTRUSTED BY LAW TO THE CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE PART I PART II PART III PART IV

PART III OVERVIEW OF THE PERFORMANCE OF OTHER FUNCTIONS ENTRUSTED BY LAW TO THE CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE

66 compatible with the fundamental right to equality. to right is fundamental the year with compatible study additional the during as well as development of stages three the all in hours 20 maximum is disability intellectual profound and severe with children pupils for of education in load engaged weekly the which under provision the opinion, Chancellor’s the In Constitution. the and Act the with conformity in is disability intellectual profound and severe with children of education for curriculum simplified school basic the under established load weekly the whether verify to proceedings initiated Chancellor the that noted is it Overview 2013 Chancellor’s the In time. a at year one than longer no for years three following the of in each extended a be may granted permit the be and year may one to alien up the of period Estonia, a for in permit residence residing temporary legally person a to years three than less for married been has alien an if that stipulates it that extent the to equality and family a to rights In addition, the Chancellor found that § marry. cannot married who partners same-sex for for permit residence permit a for apply residence to grounds a no are there for while couples apply to grounds of created unconstitutionality has the state the noted where Chancellor situation The a Estonia. in life family a lead them enable to same-sex permit residence a a of basis the on to Estonia in living permit foreigner a or citizen residence Estonian an of partner a granting for basis legal a establish not does it because 14 § to contrary is Act Aliens the assessment, Chancellor’s the to two According treatment. equal submitted of principle the with Chancellor conformity in the acts, legislative not is Act of Aliens the that found he as 2013, in Affairs Internal of Minister the review to memorandums constitutional the to regard With law). labour pension, special a of payment the for conditions installations, electrical of inspection technical of frequency expenses, tax, land teaching the university from relief of compensation partial for request mandates, council local of distribution vote, to right justice, to access benefits, transport fees, kindergarten in differences (e.g. law of (i.e. areas different Constitution with dealt the proceedings with The proceedings). act review legal constitutional the a of conformity concerned matter equality. the discrimination. proceedings, to of 20 attribute In right specific a fundamental to due general treatment different the concerned proceedings concerned Five these Mostly, treatment. equal and equality of issues the with connection in occasions 39 on contacted was Chancellor the 2013, In treatment. equal and equality of principle the promoting in Chancellor the of activities the establishes Act Justice of Chancellor the of 4 Chapter of 4 Division law. private under persons between disputes resolving for proceedings conciliation arrange and competence) ombudsman the (i.e. authority the and public of Constitution representatives of activities the verify competence), the review constitutional the (i.e. Acts with legislation of conformity verify to competent is Chancellor treatment the equal and equality of issues the to regard with Act, Justice of Chancellor the Under Act. Treatment Equal the and Act Equality Gender the by elaborated been has treatment equal of principle The grounds. other on or status, social or property views, other or political religion, origin, language, sex, colour, race, Estonian nationality, of basis the the on against under discriminated be principles fundamental the of § one Under Constitution. is treatment equal of principle The I. OVERVIEW OF THE PERFORMANCE OF OTHER FUNCTIONS ENTRUSTED BY LAW TO THE CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR THE TO LAW BY ENTRUSTED FUNCTIONS OTHER OF PERFORMANCE THE OF OVERVIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY AND EQUAL TREATMENT EQUAL AND EQUALITY OF PRINCIPLE THE 12(1) of the Constitution, everyone is equal before the law. No one may one No law. the before equal is everyone Constitution, the of 12(1) 6 n 2 o te osiuin n obnto wt § with combination in Constitution the of 27 and 26 143(1) of the Aliens Act is in conflict with the fundamental 2 and 12 67 PART IV PART III PART II PART I 68 PART IV PART III PART II PART I Riigikogu initiated the Draft Partnership Act. The Chancellor monitors the progress of this draft. this of progress the monitors Chancellor The Act. Partnership Draft the initiated Riigikogu the of members 2014, April 17 regulate On persons. same-sex of to relationships family of Justice issues legal the of Minister the to memorandum a sent Chancellor the 2011 in addition, In adopted. been not still has regulation the relevant however, 2012; in resolved be would issue the that hoped was it Affairs the Social by of reply Minister the to According data. such of list employment-related the of and collection data statistical the gender-disaggregated for procedure the establish to Act Equality Gender the § under required regulation the adopted not still Chancellor has Government the the that memorandum, out pointed the In Affairs. Social of Minister the to Act Equality Gender of the implementation the to regard with memorandum a submitted also Chancellor the 2011, In sexual or disability activities). occupational in and age, work at only beliefs, prohibited is orientation other or religion of grounds on individuals of (discrimination discrimination of attributes different to regard with established been has protection of scope different a that and narrowly Constitution defined been the has Act Treatment to Equal the contrary of application is of scope it the that fact the to attention drew Chancellor the 2011, In insufficient. still is memorandums the in explained issues the to regard with individuals of rights fundamental of protection the therefore, and, amended not were acts legal respective the 2013, In provisions. existing the implement to failure or regulation legal in gaps concerning memorandums Chancellor’s the explained overview 2012 and 2011 Chancellor’s The not has still Chancellor the and 2013 proceedings. conciliation in reached in agreements any approved out carried were proceedings conciliation no Thus, proceedings. conciliation out carry to wish a show working concerned petition One not did also petitions the and law, private in persons of activities verify cannot he rule, a as that, treatment. equal of petitioners the to principle explained Chancellor The work. similar for remuneration equal and conditions the with complied had law private in persons whether verify to asking petitions some received also Chancellor the 2013, In grounds. other on or nationality their to due favourably less unjustifiably treated been had petitioner the that public indicate not did proceedings the during a gathered facts the Chancellor, the of that opinion found the In who student. exchange student an become to foreign applying in a them discriminated from had university petition a received Chancellor the 2013, In fee. kindergarten the establishing in treatment equal and lawfulness of principles the of violation a found Chancellor the proceedings two of result a as addition, In 2014. in continue matter this in proceedings The notary. a of services the to right the guaranteed are impairments hearing or visual mobility, with people how investigate to proceedings own-initiative opened also Chancellor the 2013, In others. with opportunities equal ensure also and society, of life the in actively more participate the independently, life their improve organise disabilities better around, move would to disabilities with service with people of possibilities bus people flexible more for a that intended out pointed service Chancellor The bus found. be special can the of flexibility the measures increasing suitable for The whether consider equality. to to Government right City Tallinn fundamental to the recommended Chancellor to contrary for group was target services the of with interpreting from exclusion impairment language hearing the opinions sign a that with found several minors Chancellor are who The issued Tallinn disabilities. of with ombudsman, inhabitants people of as rights functions the to his regard performing Chancellor, The OVERVIEW OF THE PERFORMANCE OF OTHER FUNCTIONS ENTRUSTED BY LAW TO THE CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE OF CHANCELLOR THE TO LAW BY ENTRUSTED FUNCTIONS OTHER OF PERFORMANCE THE OF OVERVIEW 11(2) of 11(2) STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS PART I PART II PART III PART IV

PART IV STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS

69 STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS

1. General outline of statistics of proceedings

1.1. Petition-based statistics

In 2013, the Chancellor of Justice received 1901 petitions. In comparison to 2012, the number of petitions has dropped by 6.8%. PART I PART II

Figure 1. Number of petitions 2000–2013 PART III

1.2. Statistics based on cases opened

Statistics of the Office of the Chancellor of Justice are based on cases opened. A ‘case opened’ means taking procedural steps and drafting documents to resolve an issue falling within the jurisdiction of the Chancellor. Petitions that raise the same issue are joined and regarded as a

PART IV single case.

The Chancellor initiates proceedings based either on a petition or on his own initiative. In dealing with a case, the Chancellor decides whether to carry out substantive proceedings or reject a petition for proceedings.

Substantive proceedings are divided as follows based on the Chancellor’s competencies: • review of the legality or constitutionality of legislation (i.e. constitutional review proceedings); • verification of the legality of activities of the Government, local authorities, other public-law legal persons or of a private person, body or institution performing a public function (i.e. ombudsman proceedings); • proceedings arising from the Chancellor of Justice Act and other Acts (i.e. special proceedings).

The distribution of cases by substance only includes all the proceedings initiated during the reporting year.

During the reporting year, the Chancellor opened 1552 cases, which is 3.6% less than in 2012. As at 4 February 2014, 1447 of the cases had been completed and 105 cases were still being investigated. In 411 cases substantive proceedings were conducted, and in 1140 cases no substantive proceedings were initiated for various reasons. 92 cases were opened on the Chancellor’s own initiative, and 49 inspection visits were conducted.

70 Table 1. Distribution of cases by content by cases of Distribution 1. Table Figure 2. Distribution of cases opened and outcome of proceedings proceedings of outcome and opened cases of Distribution 2. Figure 2): Figure also (see follows as divided be can opinions Chancellor’s the cases of types By case shows what a solutions the Chancellor found or what closing steps to he took as a result of upon the proceedings. measures opinion Chancellor’s investigative The necessary investigation. independent taking and effective by ensure and proceedings, of expediency and form of freedom of principle the to according place takes Chancellor the by received petitions Resolving 2. proceedings, including proceedings, for accepted Cases Total cases, including cases, Total proceedings of cases of proceedings Non-substantive + ProposaltobringanActinto authorities toadoptalegalact ombudsman proceedings ombudsman + Proposaltobringaregulation authorities toinitiateDraftAct + Memorandumtoexecutive unconstitutional andinvalid + Memorandumtoexecutive Constitutional reviewproc. + RequesttotheSupreme + Resolvedbyinstitution + ReporttotheRiigikogu CourttodeclareanAct – Opiniononfinding intoconformitywith during proceedings constitutional review constitutional Opinions of the Chancellor of Justice of Chancellor the of Opinions conformitywith the Constitution special proceedings special the Constitution Type of case of Type of noconflict inspection visits inspection own-initiative proceedings proceedings Case acceptedforproceedings + Recommendationtocomply 24.7% 75.3% 13.3% with lawfulnessandgood Ombudsman proceedings 1944 2008 1464 + Resolvedbyinstitution 7.8% 3.5% 3.7% 480 258 151 administrative practice 66 71 33 – Opiniononfinding during proceedings eliminate violation of noviolation Own initiative + Proposalto STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS OF STATISTICS 22.1% 11.4% 77.9% 2009 2033 1584 4.6% 6.1% 231 124 449 49 4% 82 94 Number and proportion of cases opened cases of proportion and Number Proceedings ofcases anddrawupstatementofcharges immunity ofmemberRiigikogu + Proposaltoconsentlifting 10.7% conciliation proceedingsdueto 2010 2003 1523 3.7% 4.9% 8.4% Opinion withinconstitutional 214 168 24% 480 76% – Terminatingorsuspending + Agreementinconciliation failuretoreachagreement 42 75 98 Opinion ondraftlegislation proceedings againstjudge Reply towrittenquestion review courtproceedings of amemberRiigikogu – Decisionnottoinitiate disciplinary proceedings by memberofRiigikogu + Initiatingdisciplinary Reply tointerpellation – OpiniontoRiigikogu on liftingimmunityof member ofRiigikogu Special proceedings against judge proceedings 22.7% 10.6% 77.3% 2011 1739 1344 7.3% 4.1% 4.7% 186 127 395 53 72 82 Petitions 18.4% 81.6% 2012 1610 1314 6.8% 3.2% 5.5% 296 109 52 89 6% 98 44 Explanation ofrefusal proceedings initiated Forwarded toother competent bodies No substantive Taken noteof to investigate 26.5% 73.5% 10.8% 2013 1552 1140 8.8% 5.9% 7.0% 411 107 168 136 49 92 71 PART IV PART III PART II PART I STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS

The Chancellor’s opinions in reviewing the constitutionality and legality of legislation, depending on whether a conflict was found or not

A conflict was found: + a proposal made to bring an Act into conformity with the Constitution; + a proposal to bring a regulation into conformity with the Constitution or an Act;

PART I + a request to the Supreme Court to declare a legal act unconstitutional and invalid; + a report to the Riigikogu; + a memorandum to executive authorities for initiating a Draft Act; + a memorandum to executive authorities for adopting a legal act; + a problem resolved by the relevant institution during the proceedings.

No conflict was found: – an opinion stating a finding of no conflict. PART II

The Chancellor’s opinions in reviewing the legality of activities of bodies performing public functions, depending on whether a violation was found or not

A violation was found: + a proposal for eliminating a violation; + a recommendation for complying with lawfulness and the principle of good

PART III administration; + a problem resolved by the relevant institution during the proceedings.

No violation was found: – an opinion stating a finding of no violation.

The Chancellor’s opinions in special proceedings

PART IV o an opinion within constitutional review court proceedings; o a reply to an interpellation by a member of the Riigikogu; o a reply to a written enquiry by a member of the Riigikogu; o an opinion on a draft legal act; + a proposal to grant consent to lifting the immunity of a member of the Riigikogu and drawing up a statement of charges in respect of the member; – an opinion to the Riigikogu on lifting the immunity of a member of the Riigikogu; + initiating disciplinary proceedings against a judge; – a decision not to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a judge; + an agreement reached within conciliation proceedings; – terminating or suspending conciliation proceedings due to failure to reach an agreement.

The Chancellor’s opinions in case of petitions declined for proceedings o explanation given of reasons for refusal; o petition forwarded to other competent bodies; o petition taken note of.

2.1. Review of constitutionality and legality of legislation of general application

The figures concerning statistics of proceedings are based only on the proceedings opened in 2013. All the opinions of the Chancellor, including those concerning cases opened before 2013, are available on the website of the Chancellor of Justice132.

The Chancellor opened 136 cases to review the constitutionality and legality of legislation of general application, which makes up 8.8% of the total number of cases and 33% of the total

72 132 Available in Estonian: http://oiguskantsler.ee/et/seisukohad/viimased-seisukohad. Figure 4. Chancellor’s opinions upon review of conformity with the Constitution and Acts and 134 Constitution the 133 with was indicator the 2012, In conformity 13%. cases. the of of 7.4% in Act an or Constitution the with conflict review found Chancellor the Acts, and Constitution the upon with conformity of review for proceedings of case In opinions Chancellor’s 4. Figure proceedings application general of legislation of legality review and constitutionality the of review of result a as opinions following the reached Chancellor The constitutional of Distribution 3. Figure scrutinised: were following the proceedings review of constitutional Within basis the on opened were 114 these, Of initiative. own on 22 and cases. petitions of proceedings substantive of number are available in Estonian on the on Estonian in available are the on Estonian in available are • • • • • • • • • • Together with the cases opened in the previous years, in 2013 the Chancellor issued 21 memorandums which memorandums 21 issued Chancellor the 2013 in years, previous the in opened cases the with Together which Riigikogu the to requests 5 made Chancellor the 2013 in years, previous the in opened cases the Within based on a petition by an individual). an by petition a on based initiative); own on 3 and individuals by petitions on based 6 these by petitions on based 11 which of individuals); proceedings, (17 Acts and Constitution the with initiative); own on 13 and individuals by petitions proposal to bring a regulation into conformity with the Constitution (1 case). (1 Constitution the with conformity into regulation a bring to proposal case); (1 Constitution the with conformity into Act an bring to proposal case); (1 act legislative a adopting for authorities executive to memorandum cases); (3 proceedings the during institution the by resolved issue memorandum to executive authorities for initiating a Draft Act (7 cases) (7 Act Draft a initiating for authorities executive to memorandum cases); (79 conflict no of finding a stating opinion proceedings (5 Acts and Constitution the with regulations Government of conformity of proceedings, (9 Acts and Constitution the with Ministers of regulations of conformity on based governments city and municipality rural 92 and councils local of regulations of conformity these of proceedings, (105 Constitution the with Acts of conformity website website STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS OF STATISTICS of the Chancellor of Justice of Chancellor the of Justice. of Chancellor the of 133 : 134 ; 73 PART IV PART III PART II PART I STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS

2.2. Verification of lawfulness of activities of agencies and institutions performing public functions

The Chancellor initiated 168 proceedings for verification of legality of activities of the state, local authorities, other public-law legal persons or of a private person, body or institution performing a public function. This makes up 10.8% of the cases opened and 40.8% of the total number of

PART I substantive proceedings. Of these, 95 were based on petitions by individuals and 73 on own initiative.

In proceedings initiated to verify the activities of agencies and institutions performing public functions, the following were scrutinised: • activities of a state agency or body (79 proceedings, of these 64 based on petitions by individuals and 15 on own initiative);

PART II • activities of a body or agency of a legal person in public law, or of a body or agency of a private person performing state functions (54 proceedings, of these 10 based on petitions and 44 on own initiative); • activities of a local government body or agency (35 proceedings, of these 21 based on petitions and 14 on own initiative) (see Figure 5). PART III

Figure 5. Distribution of cases opened for scrutiny of activities of persons, agencies, and bodies PART IV

The Chancellor’s reached the following opinions upon supervision of activities of agencies and institutions performing public functions: • recommendation to comply with lawfulness and good administrative practice (50 cases); • opinion stating a finding of no violation (43 cases); • proposal to eliminate a violation (34 cases); • resolved by the institution during the proceedings (8 cases) (see also Figure 6).

Figure 6. Chancellor’s opinions upon scrutiny of activities of agencies and institutions performing public functions

In proceedings initiated for scrutiny of activities of persons, agencies and bodies, the Chancellor found a violation of the principles of good administration and lawfulness in 50% of the cases. In 2012, the indicator was 38.5%. 74 rceig o ohr o-oploy r-ra poedns r pnig te Chancellor’s the case. particular pending, are proceedings each of circumstances the account into takes which discretion, of right pre-trial the on based is decision non-compulsory other or proceedings challenge administrative if or remedies legal other use or challenge person administrative a an of file when can cases violation In remedies. of legal other cases any use resolves cannot individual Chancellor the if The rights people’s enforcement. of means any direct no use with to body, petition possibility a not is Justice is of Justice Chancellor of the Rather, Chancellor remedy. the legal with a considered petition a filing of possibility the as proceedings, these duplicate to permitted not is and cannot, Chancellor The body). pre-judicial similar or committee proceedings (e.g. when a complaint is being reviewed by an individual labour dispute settlement complaint pre-trial or proceedings judicial to subject concurrently is matter the petition, the of matter the in made been has judgment court a if intervene to competent not is Chancellor The administration. good of principles or rights petitioner’s the is it if of violation petition alleged the constituted a what petition the from reject clear not is it also if or unfounded clearly can Chancellor The issue. the with deal should institution which petitioner the to explains Chancellor the case, that In competence. his within not is resolution The Chancellor of Justice does not initiate substantive proceedings with regard to a petition if its 2.4. respectively). proceedings 27 and (40 law from arising within activities other act and proceedings legal review a constitutional on opinion an providing to related were proceedings of number largest proceedings The special of Distribution 7. Figure follows: as divided are proceedings Special of number total the proceedings. substantive of of number total 7% the of 26% and i.e. opened cases year, reporting the during proceedings special 107 were There 2.3. • • • • • Cases without substantive proceedings substantive without Cases proceedings Special activities of courts (17 cases); (17 courts of activities replying to written questions by members of the Riigikogu (5 cases) (see also Figure 7). Figure also (see cases) (5 Riigikogu the of members by questions written to replying the to relating proceedings other and judges against proceedings disciplinary initiating cases); (19 documents and acts legal draft on opinions cases) (27 law from arising activities other cases); (40 proceedings review constitutional within act legal a on opinion an providing STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS OF STATISTICS 75 PART IV PART III PART II PART I STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS

The Chancellor may also decide not to initiate proceedings with regard to a petition if it was filed more than one year after the date on which the person became, or should have become, aware of violation of their rights. Applying the one-year deadline is in the discretion of the Chancellor and depends on the circumstances of the case – for example, severity of the violation, its consequences, whether it affected the rights or duties of third parties, etc.

PART I In 2013, the Chancellor declined to open substantive proceedings in 1140 cases, which makes up 73.5% of the total number of cases.

Proceedings were not opened for the following reasons: • lack of competence by the Chancellor (382 cases); • the individual could file an administrative challenge or use other legal remedies (348 cases);

PART II • judicial proceedings or compulsory pre-trial proceedings were pending in the matter (178 cases); • petition did not comply with requirements under the Chancellor of Justice Act (130 cases) • a petition was manifestly unfounded (59 cases); • no public interest for the review of conformity of legislation of general application with the Constitution or an Act (18 cases);

PART III • administrative challenge proceedings or other voluntary pre-trial proceedings were pending (13 cases); • the petition had been filed one year after the petitioner discovered the violation (12 cases) (see also Figure 8). PART IV

Figure 8. Reasons for declining to initiate proceedings of petitions

76 petitioned matter or against whose activities the petitioner complained. petitioner the activities whose against or matter petitioned the resolve to competent was who on depending institutions other and of agencies responsibility government of areas by divided are Proceedings 13. and 12 Figures and 3 and 2 Tables in respondents shown is proceedings of type and government of areas by 2013 in opened by cases of Distribution cases of Distribution 10. Figure proceedings for petition a follows: as accept divided were cases of proceedings respondents, of to types By declining of case in 3. replies of Distribution 9. Figure follows: as divided be could petitions of basis the on taken steps The petitioners. the to explained were legislation other and Acts Chancellor, the of competence the proceedings, for declined petitions of case In

• • • • • • • • Distribution of cases by respondents by cases of Distribution a legal person in public law, except local authorities (20 cases) (see also Figure 10). Figure also (see cases) (20 authorities local except law, public in person legal a cases). (41 person natural a cases); (155 law private in person legal a cases); (236 authorities local cases); (1072 state the 9). Figure also (see cases) (65 of note taken was petition a cases); (52 bodies competent to forwarded was petition a cases); (1027 given was reply explanatory an STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS OF STATISTICS

77 PART IV PART III PART II PART I STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS

Table 2. Distribution of cases by respondent state or government agencies or institutions

Finding of Pending Finding of violation of No pro- proceedings Pro- Cases conflict with lawfulness ceedings Agency, body, person or proceedings ceedings opened the Constitution or good con- with no initiated or an Act administrative ducted outcome PART I practice

Riigikogu or the Chancellery of 29 1 10 1 1 18 the Riigikogu Supreme Court or other courts, 151 2 19 0 1 130 except registry departments State Audit Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 President of the Republic or

PART II 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office of the President Government of the Republic or 5 0 5 0 0 0 Prime Minister Chancellor of Justice or 14 0 1 0 0 13 Chancellor’s Office Area of government of the Ministry of Education and 15 2 3 0 0 10

PART III Research Ministry of Education and 13 2 3 0 0 8 Research Agency subordinate to the Ministry of Education and 2 0 0 0 0 2 Research Language Inspectorate 0 0 0 0 0 0

PART IV Area of government of the 475 20 104 5 9 351 Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice 157 15 80 4 3 62 Agency subordinate to the 5 0 1 0 1 4 Ministry of Justice Bar Association 6 0 0 0 0 6 Data Protection Inspectorate 3 0 1 0 1 2 Harku and Murru Prison 22 1 0 0 0 21 Tallinn Prison 97 2 10 0 2 85 Tartu Prison 87 1 5 1 1 81 Viru Prison 37 0 2 0 0 35 Bailiffs 35 0 4 0 0 31 Notaries 4 0 1 0 1 3 Chamber of Bailiffs and 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trustees in Bankruptcy Trustees in bankruptcy 1 0 0 0 0 1 Prosecutor’s Office 20 1 0 0 0 19 Area of government of the 30 3 18 0 1 9 Ministry of Defence Ministry of Defence 15 1 11 0 0 3 Agency subordinate to the 14 1 7 0 1 6 Ministry of Defence Defence Resources Agency 1 1 0 0 0 0 78 Ministry of Internal Affairs Internal of Ministry Affairs Internal of Ministry the of government of Area agencies subordinate or administration, county Affairs, Regional for Minister Estonia Statistics Board Customs and Tax Finance of Ministry the to subordinate Agency Finance of Ministry Ministry Area Board Food and Veterinary Board Information and Registers Agricultural Board Agricultural Agriculture of Ministry the to subordinate Agency Agriculture of Ministry Agriculture of Ministry the of government of Area Administration Maritime Authority Surveillance Technical Board Protection Consumer Office Patent Administration Roads Board Competition Communications and Affairs Economic of Ministry Communications and Affairs Economic of Ministry the of government of Area Board Heritage Culture of Ministry Culture of Ministry the of government of Area Inspectorate Environmental Board Land Board Environmental Environment the of Ministry the to subordinate Agency Environment the of Ministry Environment the of Ministry the of government of Area person body, Agency, of government of Finance of the opened Cases 111

24 18 30 49 24 35 29 34 5 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 6 0 1 2 1 6 1 2 0 2 0 2 2 1 STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS OF STATISTICS or proceedings or proceedings outcome Pending with no with

2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 7 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 ceedings initiated Pro- 11 28 13 14 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 the Constitution the conflict with conflict Finding of Finding or an Act an or 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 administrative violation of violation lawfulness Finding of Finding practice or good or 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ceedings No pro- No ducted con- 18 27 22 27 10 76 17 16 34 2 0 2 0 2 2 1 3 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 4 0 1 2 0 5 1 79 PART IV PART III PART II PART I STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS

Finding of Pending Finding of violation of No pro- proceedings Pro- Cases conflict with lawfulness ceedings Agency, body, person or proceedings ceedings opened the Constitution or good con- with no initiated or an Act administrative ducted outcome practice Agency subordinate to the PART I 1 0 0 0 0 1 Ministry of Internal Affairs Security Police Board 3 0 1 0 0 2 Police and Border Guard Board 82 4 15 0 7 63 Rescue Board 1 0 1 0 0 0 Area of government of the 79 2 24 1 7 54 Ministry of Social Affairs

PART II Ministry of Social Affairs 29 1 14 0 0 14 Agency subordinate to the 1 0 0 0 0 1 Ministry of Social Affairs Social Insurance Board 30 0 6 0 4 24 Health Board 4 1 1 0 1 2 Labour Inspectorate 2 0 0 0 0 2 Unemployment Insurance Fund 9 0 0 0 0 9 PART III State Agency of Medicines 1 0 0 0 0 1 Health Insurance Fund 3 0 3 1 2 1 Area of government of the 18 0 3 0 0 15 Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ministry of Foreign Affairs 18 0 3 0 0 15 State Chancellery 0 0 0 0 0 0

PART IV National Electoral Committee 1 0 0 0 0 1

80 Figure 11. Distribution of cases by respondents on state level Table 3. Distribution of cases by respondents on local government level government local on respondents by cases of Distribution 3. Table of Ministry the of government same. of the was indicator this area 2012, In initiated. were the proceedings substantive no within Justice, proceedings the of 78.9% In prisoners. by of area criminal the to related within still were enforcement law and fell imprisonment law these (see Table 5) and were initiated of on the basis of proceedings petitions majority the of and Justice number of Ministry the largest of government the years, previous the to Similarly authorities local County Võru authorities local County Viljandi authorities local County Valga Tartu city Tartu except authorities, local County Tartu authorities local County Saare authorities local County Rapla authorities local County Pärnu authorities local County Põlva authorities local County Lääne-Viru authorities local County Lääne authorities local County Järva authorities local County Jõgeva Narva city Narva except authorities, local County Ida-Viru authorities local County Hiiu Tallinn city Tallinn except authorities, local County Harju person body, Agency, opened Cases 15 59 45 11 20 5 5 6 7 1 3 3 7 8 1 5 5 5 with no outcome no with proceedings or proceedings proceedings Pending STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS OF STATISTICS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 7 Proceedings initiated 10 1 0 8 1 1 1 1 3 0 0 2 5 1 0 1 0 0 Constitution of conflict of or an Act an or with the with Finding 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 tion of lawfulness of tion or good adminis- good or Finding of viola- of Finding trative practice trative 1 0 5 6 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 conducted ceedings No pro- No 50 35 10 10 13 6 1 4 4 4 5 5 1 6 1 2 2 7 81 PART IV PART III PART II PART I STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS PART I PART II PART III

Figure 12. Distribution of cases by respondents on local government level

4. Distribution of cases by areas of law PART IV Similarly to previous years, in 2013 the largest number of cases was opened in connection with criminal enforcement procedure and imprisonment law. The number of cases relating to social welfare law and family law has also increased. At the same time, the number of proceedings relating to financial law and law of obligations has dropped by 16 cases in comparison to the previous year (by 26 and 20 cases respectively)

Table 5. Cases opened by areas of law

Area of law Number of cases

Criminal enforcement procedure and imprisonment law 287

Social welfare law 82

Civil court procedure law 77

Family law 67

Criminal and misdemeanour court procedure 62

Education and research law 60

Health law 56

Financial law (incl. tax and customs law, state budget, state property) 56

Other public law 52

Social insurance law 51

Enforcement procedure 48 82 Telecommunications, broadcasting, and postal services law services postal and broadcasting, Telecommunications, law Bankruptcy law protection Consumer law institutions credit and bankruptcy, Company, law Notarial law) veterinary and food (including law Agricultural law competition and management trade and Economic law penal Substantive law Heritage law fishing and hunting, protection, Animal law copyright and property intellectual including law, Ownership law private Other law organisation Government law parties political law, referendum and Electoral law International aid legal State law regulation Traffic law foundations and associations Non-profit procedure Misdemeanour law defence National law reform Ownership law procedure court Administrative law Environmental law road and Transport law enforcement law and Police law) labour collective (including law Labour service Public law planning and Building law secrets state information, public and databases protection, data Personal law sewerage and supply water public Energy, law migration and Citizenship etc) law, property public enforcement, administrative procedure, administrative management, (administrative law Administrative law organisation government Local procedure criminal Pre-trial obligations of Law law of Area STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS OF STATISTICS Number of cases of Number 19 21 22 22 23 23 28 28 28 31 31 36 37 41 42 10 11 13 13 14 14 15 16 17 18 19 3 3 3 5 3 5 5 6 9 83 PART IV PART III PART II PART I STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS

5. Distribution of cases by regions

Still the largest number of petitions and cases opened on the basis of them was from the largest cities, including Tallinn (431 cases) and Tartu (255 cases). Among the counties, the largest number of proceedings were still in relation to Harju County and Ida-Viru County. 128 proceedings were initiated on the basis of petitions from Harju County, followed by 92

PART I proceedings on the basis of petitions from Ida-Viru County. As before, the smallest number of proceedings was in relation to Hiiu County (3 cases). 30 proceedings were initiated on the basis of petitions received from abroad. With regard to 245 cases, the region is unknown, including mostly petitions sent by e-mail. PART II PART III PART IV

Figure 13. Distribution of cases by location of petitioner

6. Language of proceedings

Most petitions are in Estonian. 1254 cases, i.e. 80.8% of the total number of cases, were opened based on petitions in Estonian (see Figure 14). 187 cases, i.e. 12% of the total number of cases, were opened based on petitions in Russian. The number of petitions in English makes up only 0.8% of the total number of cases opened.

Figure 14. Distribution of cases by language of petition

84 Table 5. Inspection visits conducted by the Chancellor of Justice of Chancellor the by conducted visits Inspection 5. Table There 6). Table (see authorities visits. inspection unannounced administrative 26 were to 8 and institutions, open to 31 institutions, closed to were 17 which of visits, inspection 49 made Chancellor the year, reporting the During institution or agency the on depending categories, inspected: three into divided are visits Inspection individuals restricted. be of may freedom where institutions other all institutions, custodial national to addition in inspect, to obliged is ill-treatment for mechanism preventive national the as Chancellor The to prior immediately notified are inspection. they or advance, in notified not the are which institutions about supervised visits inspection unannounced conduct to authorised also upcoming is Chancellor his The of advance visit. his to prior in information necessary the provide well to institution the asks institution and visit inspection supervised the notifies Chancellor the Usually homes. youth and homes children’s with homes, care general pupils needs, educational special for schools homes, registration care special or hospitals, reception psychiatric seekers, centres, asylum for expulsion centres centres, detention police to units, visits inspection military out carry prisons, example, for may, Chancellor to the basis, subject this institutions On to supervision. visits his inspection conduct to authorised is Justice of Chancellor The 7. Total inspection visits inspection Total authorities administrative to visits Inspection institutions open to visits Inspection institutions closed to visits Inspection of which, unannounced inspection visits inspection unannounced which, of • • • Inspection visits Inspection respect of which compliance with good administrative practice is verified. is practice administrative good with compliance which of respect homes); children’s (schools, restricted; be may freedom their where and npcin f diitaie uhrte – ainl r oa gvrmn aece, in agencies, government local or national – authorities administrative of inspection voluntarily staying are individuals where institutions – institutions open of inspection inspection of closed institutions – institutions where individuals are staying involuntarily STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS OF STATISTICS 2008 33 10 19 8 4 2009 49 17 25 4 7 2010 13 42 27 9 6 2011 29 53 14 33 6 2012 19 44 13 23 8 2013 26 49 24 17 8 85 PART IV PART III PART II PART I STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS

8. Reception of individuals

In 2013, 94 individuals came to a reception in the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, which is 85 people less than in 2012 (see Figure 15). PART I PART II

Figure 15. Number of persons coming to reception with the Chancellor in 2000–2013 PART III Similarly to the previous years, the largest number of people coming to a reception were from Tallinn and Harju County (70 and 11 people respectively).

Questions raised during the receptions most frequently concerned issues relating to family law and pre-trial criminal procedure (9 persons both), followed by issues of civil court procedure (8 persons), social insurance law and enforcement procedure law (5 persons both). PART IV Mostly, people coming to receptions needed clarification concerning legislation, and legal advice.

9. Conclusion

Similarly to 2012, the number of petitions received by the Chancellor of Justice decreased during the reporting year. In 2013, the Chancellor received 1901 petitions, which is 6.8% less than in the previous year. In total, the Chancellor opened 1552 cases, which is 3.6% less than in the previous year.

During constitutional review proceedings, in 10 cases (i.e. 7.4% of the total number of review proceedings) the Chancellor found a conflict with the Constitution or an Act. As a result of ombudsman proceedings, the Chancellor found a violation of the principle of good administration and lawfulness in 84 cases (i.e. 50% of the total number of ombudsman proceedings), of which 8 were resolved by the institution in the course of the proceedings.

Periodic decrease of the number of cases opened could also be seen in the previous years (see Figure 1). No significant changes have occurred in the distribution of the types of cases. As a particular development in the reporting year, only a certain increase in the share of the ombudsman proceedings could be pointed out.

Most cases were still opened based on petitions by prisoners to resolve issues relating to criminal enforcement procedure and imprisonment law falling within the area of government of the Ministry of Justice. In the majority of these cases (78.9%), no substantive supervision proceedings were initiated. 86 n 03 9 idvdas ae o rcpin o a oslain Te usin rie most raised questions and law. welfare social procedure The criminal consultation. pre-trial procedure, a court civil for to relating reception issues concerned a frequently to came individuals 94 2013, In open to 31 institutions, authorities. administrative to closed 8 and institutions, supervise to 17 year, them of reporting out, the carried During were 2012. visits in inspection than 49 higher was 2013 in visits inspection of number The received. petitions of number total the of 58.5% is which 2013, in the 1112 was of e-mail by 12% received petitions of up number The making cases. of number increased, has Russian in petitions on The based opened. opened cases cases of of number number total the of 80.8% up making year, previous the to comparison in level same the on remained Estonian in petitions on based opened cases of proportion The place. first the holds still County Ida-Viru counties, Among year. previous the in as same the also is picture the received counties to petitions regard With Tartu. on and Tallinn based from again were cases of number largest the distribution, regional By law. family and law welfare social to relating issues in occurred has increase significant A law. The years. the over similar rather been imprisonment and procedure enforcement criminal to relate still proceedings has of number largest law of areas by proceedings of distribution The STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS OF STATISTICS 87 PART IV PART III PART II PART I