DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 95 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 95: To what extent does the law require a forum to hear the selected claim type and issue a decision?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Law
Subtopic: Scope and quality of the specific legal framework
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
This indicator assesses to what extent a forum is required to hear the selected claim type. Researchers should consider if
there is a forum to which the selected claim type can be brought and whether the law requires that forum to deal with that
claim. In some situations, the existence of courts and tribunals may be misleading if they are not legally authorized to hear
and decide the selected claim type.
Definitions: “A forum” includes courts, tribunals, independent panels and such institutions as well as environmental
courts.
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Legal Research: Consult laws, codes and regulations of courts, tribunals and such institutions relevant to the selected
claim type. Also consult judicial decisions concerning the power of the forum to hear such claim types. Also consult
juristic opinions where relevant.
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Strong  Weak Performance
Values
Explanation
The law prohibits forums from
hearing and deciding this claim
type
The law is silent on who should
hear and decide this claim type
The law provides inadequate
requirements
The law provides some
requirements
The law provides adequate
requirements
The law provides extensive
requirements
X
The selected case started with a preliminary administrative proceeding –
the so called challenge proceedings (as established in the Administrative
Procedure Act) in the Võrumaa Environmental Department. The
challenge was dismissed.
The Administrative Procedure Act states, that a person whose challenge
is dismissed may file a claim in the administrative court. The Code of
Administrative Court Procedure allows filing an action to annul an
administrative decision. In case of preliminary proceedings the term of
filing the claim starts from the declaration of the challenge-decision.
Not applicable (N/A)
Page 1 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Source(s) Consulted:
Legal Research:
Document Title(s): The Administrative Procedure Act/Code of Administrative Court Procedure
Responsible Authority(ies): the Riigikogu
Chapter/Article/Paragraph: chapter 5 (challenge proceedings)/chapter 2 (recourse to administrative courts)
Document Found at: www.riigiteataja.ee
Additional Information:
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
Administrative Procedure Act art 71(1):
“A person who finds that his or her rights are violated or his or her freedoms are restricted by an administrative act or in the
course of administrative proceedings may file a challenge.”
Art87(1):
“A person whose challenge is dismissed or whose rights are violated in challenge proceedings has the right to file an action
with an administrative court under the conditions and pursuant to the procedure provided by the Code of Administrative
Court Procedure.”
Code of Administrative Court Procedure art 6 (1) and (2)1):
“(1) An administrative court shall commence administrative proceedings on the basis of an action or protest.
(2) An action or protest may be filed to apply for:
1) annulment of an administrative act or a portion thereof;”
It should be observed that the case has not come to a final judgment yet – at the moment it is on appeal to the Circuit
Court. However the case has already passed 2 instances on procedural matters: the first instance court (Tartu Administrative
Court) found that that the term of filing the claim had been exceeded and dismissed the claim. However on appeal the
Circuit Court dismissed the decision of the Tartu Administrative Court and referred the case back for a new hearing by the
same court. The Administrative Court made a judgment on the subject matter of the issue on 30 th Nov 2005 and dismissed
the claim. The decision is currently on appeal.
Examples: There are no examples for this indicator.
Page 2 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 96 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 96: To what extent does the law enable a party to seek review or appeal of selected claim type to an independent
body with the power to reverse a decision?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Law
Subtopic: Scope and quality of the specific legal framework
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
Review and appeal are safeguards against wrong or illegal decisions made by courts, tribunals and other such institutions.
Where a forum decides wrongly or illegally, a claimant must have a way to challenge that decision before another
independent forum which has power to change or cancel that decision. Keep in mind that this indicator is applied to the
selected claim type.
Definitions: “Review or appeal”, although similar, refer to two different ideas. When a decision is “reviewed” the
questions asked are whether it is in keeping with the law and whether it was made according to procedure set down by the
law. When a decision is considered in “appeal” the questions asked are whether the decision is correct on the material
placed before the forum and also whether it is legal and in keeping with procedure. An appeal is wider in scope.
“Independent body” refers to a different forum from that which heard the original claim. The extent of independence of
the body depends on factors such as how the members of the body are appointed, whether they have security in their
position, whether their salary and other benefits are fixed, and how they can be removed from office. (See Indicator 108.)
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Legal Research: Consult laws, codes and regulations that deal with review and appeals from decisions of the forum to
which the selected claim type is first taken. Also consult judicial decisions concerning the right of review and appeal
as well as juristic opinions if relevant.
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Strong  Weak Performance
Values
Explanation
Appeals and reviews are both
prohibited
The law is silent on appeals and
reviews
Appeals and reviews are
inadequately enabled
Appeals and reviews are mostly
adequately enabled
Appeals and reviews are
adequately enabled
Appeal and reviews are
extensively enabled
Decisions of the first instance courts are open to an appeal procedure in
the Circuit Court (the court of second instance). The Circuit Court may,
among others, annul the judgment and make a new judgment itself or
refer it back to the court of first instance for a new hearing.
X
Not applicable (N/A)
Page 3 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Source(s) Consulted:
Legal Research:
Document Title(s): Code of Administrative Court Procedure
Responsible Authority(ies): the Riigikogu
Chapter/Article/Paragraph: art 31 and 46
Document Found at: www.riigiteataja.ee
Additional Information:
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
Code of Administrative Court Procedure art 31(1) and (2):
“Appeal pursuant to appellate procedure
(1) Parties and third persons have the right to appeal against a judgment of an administrative court to a circuit court
pursuant to appellate procedure if the administrative court has applied a provision of substantive law incorrectly, evaluated
evidence incorrectly or materially violated a provision of court procedure.
(2) An appeal may also be filed by a third person who was not involved in the proceedings if the administrative court
adjudicated the person’s rights or freedoms protected by law.”
Article 46(1)1)-3):
“Authority of circuit court
(1) In the hearing of an administrative matter pursuant to appellate procedure, a circuit court has the right:
1) to dismiss the appeal and refuse to amend the judgment or ruling of the administrative court;
2) to amend or annul the judgment or ruling of the administrative court and make a new judgment without referring the
matter for a new hearing;
3) to annul the judgment of the administrative court in full or in part and refer the matter to the court of first instance for a
new hearing;…”
Examples: There are no examples for this indicator.
Page 4 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 97 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 97: How clear and narrow are the limits on claims of confidentiality regarding information relevant to selected
claim type?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Law
Subtopic: Quality of specific legal limits on access
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
Claims of confidentiality can be made by a party to a judicial claim as well as by government agencies and third parties
(including corporations) that are asked to provide information to the forum hearing the claim or the parties. In the former
case, a party to the claim will seek to exclude information, while in the latter, government officer(s) or third parties
summoned to give evidence or produce a document could refuse to do so based on a claim of confidentiality. In both cases,
the forum and the parties are deprived of the benefit of relevant information that would allow the claim to be correctly and
legally decided. In some instances, the forum itself might refuse to part with information about the claim, in which event
the public would be denied that information. Clear and narrow limits on such claims of confidentiality increase
accountability and transparency and make the process less vulnerable to misuse and abuse.
Definitions: “Clear and narrow” refers to the scope of the language which defines the limits on claims of confidentiality.
More information is available when confidentiality is confined by narrow limits. When the language used to define
confidentiality is unclear, officials tend to withhold information. “Claims of confidentiality” refers to information that the
government or a party to the claim asserts ought not to be released for one or another reason. “Information” includes
documents, evidence and testimony.
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1.
2.
Legal Research: Consult laws, codes and regulations that deal with claims of confidentiality in claims of the selected
claim type. Also consult judicial decisions concerning claims of confidentiality of information relevant to the selected
claim type.
Document Review: Consult the official record of the selected judicial claim to assess any claims of confidentiality and
how they were decided.
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Values
Explanation
Limits neither narrow nor clear
There are no grounds in the acts regulating the court procedure for
refusing to present documents as evidence. Evidence are presented by the
parties or requested by the court. However there are number of grounds
that allow a person to refuse to testify. One of those grounds is if the
testimony would reveal a state secret. Other grounds relate to kinship or a
refusal to incriminate oneself. It is also possible to request that the
hearing would be closed. A closed hearing however does not limit the
extent of information provided, but the number of persons that may have
access to the court-room.
Strong  Weak
Performance
Limits not narrow but are clear
Limits are narrow but not clear
Limits mostly narrow and clear
Limits are narrow and clear
Page 5 of 47
X
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
The confidentiality issue has not arisen in the selected claim.
Not applicable (N/A)
Source(s) Consulted:
Legal Research:
Document Title(s): Code of Administrative Court Procedure/Code of Civil Procedure
Responsible Authority(ies): the Riigikogu
Chapter/Article/Paragraph: in particular articles 256 and 257 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Document Found at: www.riigiteataja.ee
Document Review:
Document Title(s): Written submissions made by the parties in the course of court proceedings
Responsible Authority(ies): partnership Roheline Urvaste/Võrumaa Environmental Department
Page Number(s)
Document Found at: on document request from the Ministry of the Environment
Document Request:
Request Made To: Ministry of the Environment (general e-mail), request answered by Triin Nymann
Agency where Above Person Works: Legal department
Request Made by: Karin Kranna
Law Mandating Response: Public Information Act
Date Sent: 10.01.2006
Date of Response if Received: 10.01.2006
Additional Information:
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
Examples: There are no examples for this indicator.
Page 6 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 98 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 98: To what extent does the law require the selected forum to build the capacity of members with regard to
access to justice?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Law
Subtopic: Quality and scope of the legal requirements to build capacity of the government agencies
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
Uninformed members of the forum, through misunderstanding or by actively rejecting the value of access to justice, can
create obstacles to access. Members of the forum who are unfamiliar with relevant laws and procedures can also obstruct
justice. The capacity of the forum members can be built in a variety of ways, including training, information about recent
changes of legislation relevant to access/environmental rights, etc. Capacity building efforts must be fairly recent to be
effective and reach all staff.
Definitions: “Build the capacity” refers to efforts to improve a country's human, scientific, technological, organizational,
institutional, and resource capabilities. According to Agenda 21, capacity building consists of mechanisms, efforts, or
conditions which enhance effective and meaningful public participation in decisions affecting the environment. Types of
capacity building include educating civil servants to implement access rights, creating a supportive legal and administrative
situation for non-governmental organizations, and ensuring Internet access for the general public. “Access to justice”
refers to the right to ask for just and fair relief from a court, tribunal or other independent institution.
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Legal Research: Consult laws, regulations, and general administrative codes and guidelines relating to the forum.
Review recruitment requirements to check whether forum members are required to have basic legal education and
experience at recruitment.
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Values
Explanation
Strong  Weak Performance
Law prohibits building capacity
Law silent on building capacity
Law requires almost no capacity
building
Law requires limited capacity
X
building
Law requires adequate capacity
building
Law requires extensive capacity
building
According to the Courts Act a special council is set up to assess the needs
for capacity building, to provide for capacity building and to monitor it.
The judge has a corresponding duty to make efforts for professional
development.
However, there is no specific regulatory framework for capacity building
on access to justice issues. Training takes place according to general
rules.
Not applicable (N/A)
Page 7 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Source(s) Consulted:
Legal Research:
Document Title(s): Courts Act
Responsible Authority(ies): the Riigikogu
Chapter/Article/Paragraph: in particular art 44 and 74
Document Found at: www.riigiteataja.ee
Additional Information:
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
Courts Act article 44 (2) and (4):
“(2) Training of judges shall be based on the strategies for training of judges, annual training programs and the program for
judge’s examination to be approved by the Training Council. The foundation shall ascertain the training needs of judges,
prepare the strategies for training, annual training programs and the program for judge’s examination (§ 66), analyse
training results, ensure the preparation of necessary study and methodological materials, assist in the preparation and
selection of training providers, and prepare an annual review concerning the training of judges for the Training Council.
The foundation shall submit an annual training program to the Training Council not later than by 15 August. Taking into
consideration the training needs of judges and the state budget funds allocated for the training of judges, the Training
Council shall approve the training program for judges not later than by 1 October.
(4) Judges participate in training on the basis of an annual training plan. The full court of a court shall approve the training
plan for the court. Records of participation in training shall be kept concerning each judge in a court pursuant to the internal
rules of the court. The chairman of a court shall monitor compliance with the training plan.
Article 74. Professional development
“A judge is required to develop knowledge and skills of his or her speciality on a regular basis and to participate in
training.”
In addition to the legal research, interview questions were asked from two judges (Peeter Pällin from the Viru County Court
and Mare Priks from the Tartu Administrative Court). Both said that there are constant trainings on various issues. In 2005
there was no specific training concerning environmental law, however in the course of trainings on civil and administrative
procedure also the issues of access to justice (not specifically in environmental issues) were touched upon.
Examples: No examples available for this indicator.
Page 8 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 101 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 101: To what extent does the law require the government to offer the public technical assistance, guidance or
training on how to use the selected forum?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Law
Subtopic: Quality and scope of the legal requirements to build capacity of the public
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
The indicator assesses the extent to which the law requires government agencies to aid the public to gain access to the
selected forum. The public cannot use the selected forum unless the government makes active efforts to tell it how to do so.
Formats that can be counted as efforts to disseminate guidelines and/or information about using the forum include websites,
pamphlets available at government offices or libraries or the forum itself, leaflets, and other materials for broad
dissemination.
Definitions: “Technical assistance” refers to assistance given to the public to understand and learn how they can use the
selected forum and where they can receive relevant help.
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Legal Research: Consult the laws establishing the forums as well as the laws under which the recourse / remedy
process was conducted.
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Values
Explanation
Law prohibits offering of
technical assistance etc.
Law silent on offering of
Strong  Weak Performance
X
technical assistance etc.
Law requires government to
offer almost no technical
assistance etc.
Law requires limited
government offering of technical
assistance etc.
Law requires government to
offer adequate technical
assistance etc.
Law requires government to
offer extensive technical
assistance etc.
Although public technical assistance is not provided by law, some
actions are taken by the Ministry of Justice. Namely, there is a short
overview on the main principles and rules on access to courts (e.g. who
can file the claim, when and where; also how to apply for state provided
legal aid) on the web-page of the Ministry of Justice at
http://www.just.ee/7659
Not applicable (N/A)
Page 9 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Source(s) Consulted: legal acts/Web-page of the Ministry of Justice
Legal Research:
Document Title(s): Courts Act/Code of Administrative Court Procedure/Code of Civil Procedure/Statute of the Ministry of
Justice/web-page of the Ministry of Justice
Responsible Authority(ies): the Riigikogu/Government of the Republic
Chapter/Article/Paragraph:
Document Found at:
www.riigiteataja.ee
www.just.ee
http://www.just.ee/7659
Additional Information:
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
During an interview a question on the subject was asked by judge Peeter Pällin who explained that employees of the Court
Secretariat usually help people with administrative matters. However, since they are not persons with legal education, they
may only provide assistance on how to fill in the papers, but cannot provide any assistance on substantial matters.
Examples: No examples available for this indicator.
Page 10 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 102 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 102: To what extent does the law mandate the government to build the capacity of sub-national government
officials to understand and facilitate citizens’ rights within the justice system?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Law
Subtopic: Quality and scope of the legal requirements to build capacity of sub-national governments
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
Sub-national governments are frequently at the front lines in responding to problems and conflicts related to resource use
and the environment. When sub-national officials are unfamiliar with or do not value the justice system, they may create
barriers to citizens seeking redress or remedy. Training for sub-national government officials on the justice system and
citizens’ rights within it can help alleviate such problems.
This indicator assesses whether the law requires the national government to build the capacity of sub-national government
agencies with regard to the justice system and citizens’ rights within it. Training must be fairly recent to be effective and
reach all relevant staff. Research should focus on a sub-national agency involved in or related to the claim at issue in the
selected TAI case.
Definitions: “Build the capacity” refers to efforts to improve a country's human, scientific, technological, organizational,
institutional, and resource capabilities. According to Agenda 21, capacity building consists of mechanisms, efforts, or
conditions which enhance effective and meaningful public participation in decisions affecting the environment. Types of
capacity building include educating civil servants to implement access rights, creating a supportive legal and administrative
situation for non-governmental organizations, and ensuring Internet access for the general public. “Sub-national
government” includes levels of government below the national level. Often these include State, regional, and local
governments and administrative authorities of autonomous regions. “Citizens’ rights within the justice system” refers to
rights to go before courts, tribunals and other such forums, present claims, participate in the process fully and receive just
and fair decisions and relief.
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Legal Research: Consult the laws establishing the sub-national government agency and any laws specifying the
qualifications for agency staff. Laws relating to citizen rights in the justice system may also be relevant, as may past
judicial decisions involving the agency.
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Strong  Weak
Performance
Values
Explanation
Law prohibits building capacity
Law silent on building capacity
X
Law requires almost no capacity
building
Law requires limited capacity
building
Page 11 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Law requires adequate capacity
building
Law requires extensive capacity
building
Not applicable (N/A)
Source(s) Consulted: laws, regulations
Legal Research:
Document Title(s): Code of Administrative Court Procedure/Code of Civil Procedure/Administrative Procedure Act/Statute
of the Ministry of Justice/Statute of the Ministry of the Environment
Responsible Authority(ies): the Riigikogu/Government of the Republic
Chapter/Article/Paragraph:
Document Found at: www.riigiteataja.ee
Additional Information:
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
An interview was held with the lawyer of the Legal Department of the MoE, Triin Nymann, who confirmed that despite the
lack of such obligation in laws, a seminar was held for interested officials of the MoE and its sub-authorities, which dealt
with the issues of the Arhus Convention (including access to justice). The seminar was held on 13 th of October 2005,
around 30 officials attended. (Interview questions asked via e-mail on 16th Jan. 2006).
Document review was made on the materials for the abovementioned seminar. The presentation was made by the Legal
Department of the MoE and consisted of 30 slides.
Another interview was held with the specialist from the Võrumaa Environmental Department. Aulis Saarnits, who
explained that there has been no training on access to information and access to justice issues, but those topics have been
touched upon in the course of more specific trainings on e.g. environmental impact assessment. (Interview held by e-mail
on 25th of Jan. 2006).
Examples: No examples available for this indicator.
Page 12 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 103 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Ca Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 103: How clearly does the law establish a reasonable timeframe for forum decisions?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Law
Subtopic: Legal requirement for timeliness
Research Guidelines:
This indicator attempts to assess the reasonableness of timeframes established by law for the selected forum to give a
decision. For example, a forum decision that stops pollution may be useless if it comes too late to prevent irreversible
ecological damage. Reasonableness may have to be assessed after reviewing individual timeframes set for different points
of the claim process leading to the forum decision. For instance, timely notification of the commencement of the claim
process, timely notification of the final decision, timely notification of hearings and adequate time for preparation, adequate
time at the hearing to participate, etc. The indicator assesses all these individual timeframes as a whole.
Definitions: “Reasonable timeframe” is based on what will enable effective action on the part of parties to the claim or
the public. The timeframe would be unreasonable if the forum decision came too late to be meaningful to the claimants or
the public or both.
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Legal Research: Consult the relevant law that requires the forum to give a decision within a certain timeframe.
Timeframes may also be found in regulations, rules, procedures or guidelines.
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Strong  Weak Performance
Values
The law is silent on timeframe
The law establishes an
unreasonable timeframe for
forum decisions
The law establishes a somewhat
reasonable timeframe for forum
decisions
The law establishes a reasonable
timeframe for forum decisions
X
The law establishes the
timeframe to be established with
public input
Explanation
Timeframe for hearing the case in administrative court is 2 months after
the filing of the claim or 3 months, if the case is especially complicated.
The decision must be made 15 days after the final hearing.
The Code of Civil Procedure (which applies to certain extent also to
administrative courts) establishes that the summonses must be served to
the participants in due time to allow them to prepare for the matter.
The party to the claim may apply for provisional legal protection if there
is a threat that otherwise the execution of a court judgment may become
impracticable or impossible. Provisional protection can be e.g.
suspension of the validity of a contested administrative act or prohibition
to issue a contested administrative act.
Not applicable (N/A)
Page 13 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Source(s) Consulted:
Legal Research:
Document Title(s): Code of Administrative Court Procedure/Code of Civil Procedure
Responsible Authority(ies): the Riigikogu
Chapter/Article/Paragraph: in particular articles 13 and 28(1)/articles 26(2); 195(2) and (5)
Document Found at: www.riigiteataja.ee
Additional Information
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
Interview with Kärt Vaarmari (Estonian Fund for Nature, dealing with the environmental legal aid project):
“The timelines established in laws are generally reasonable and appropriate.” (interview questions were asked via e-mail on
5th January 2006)
Interview with Mare Priks (Tartu Administrative Court, judge):
“The timeline for hearing the case is generally 2 month, which is a bit too short in my opinion for the appropriate and full
review of the case. Most probably that date will be changed in the future. The time for making the final judgment is in my
opinion appropriate.” (interview questions were asked via e-mail on 9th of January 2006)
Examples: No examples available for this indicator.
Page 14 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 105 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 105(s): How strong are the forum’s standards, regulations or formal policy to ensure independence and
impartiality of the forum?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Effort
Subtopic: Scope and quality of effort
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
Independence and impartiality of judicial forums help to ensure that parties obtain a fair and unbiased hearing of their
claim. This indicator assesses the existence of formal standards, regulations, and policies dealing with issues of ethics,
impartiality, and independence of the forum as well as the clarity and scope of these standards. Whether the standards,
regulations, and policies ensure independence and impartiality depends on how they treat issues such as corruption,
appointments to the forum, conflict of interest, tenure, compensation, and appearance of impropriety.
The value for will be driven by the presence of a range of standards or policies that promote or discourage independence or
impartiality. Restrictions on independence and impartiality would affect the value negatively. In assigning a value, consider
whether:
 Forum members act as decision-makers in a permanent, full-time capacity, or are drawn to the forum on a parttime basis.
 Where the forum members are permanent, full-time decision-makers, such as judges, they have life tenure or other
assurance that their livelihood is not threatened as a result of their decisions.
 Where the forum members are permanent, full-time decision-makers, such as judges, they are compensated at a
rate (in light of the national economy) that would tend to minimize their interest in outside financial influences
(such as bribes).
 Standards for ethical conduct by forum members limit relationships and/or contact with the parties to a claim.
 Forum members are expected to recuse themselves from a decision where they might have a conflict of interest.
 Forum members report to, or depend for compensation or advancement upon, a person or constituency that has a
stake in the outcome of a claim.
 The forum members are drawn from a sector that has a clear stake in the outcome of a claim. (For example,
government may have a stake in an official’s refusal to turn over information; members of an industrial sector will
have a stake in claims about that sector’s environmental conduct.)
 Forum members are elected or appointed by an official or constituency that has a stake in the outcome of a claim.
Definitions: “Standards, regulations, or formal policy” include stated rules covering appointments to the forum, conflict
of interest, tenure, compensation, appearance of impropriety and other norms for constituting and maintaining the forum.
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Document Review: Consult forum documents to determine the existence and strength of forum standards, regulations
or formal policy to ensure independence and impartiality. Strength should be measured by the scope and clarity of the
forum’s standards, regulations, or formal policy.
Page 15 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Strong  Weak Performance
Values
Explanation
No standards, regulations or
formal policy in place
Almost no standards, regulations
or formal policy in place
Weak standards, regulations or
formal policy in place
Some adequate standards,
regulations or formal policy in
place
Strong standards, regulations or
formal policy in place
The standards enlisted in the research guidelines are all guaranteed at a
highest value by the requirements set out in the Courts Act and to some
extent also in the Constitution.
X
Not applicable (N/A)
Source(s) Consulted:
Document Review:
Document Title(s): Constitution of the Republic of Estonia/Courts Act
Responsible Authority(ies): adopted at a referendum/the Riigikogu
Page Number(s)
Document Found at: www.riigiteataja.ee
Additional Information
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
Examples: There are no examples for this indicator.
Page 16 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 108 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 108: To what extent was the forum independent and impartial in the selected case?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Effort
Subtopic: Scope and quality of effort
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
Independence and impartiality of judicial forums help to ensure that parties obtain a fair and unbiased hearing of their
claims. This indicator assesses the independence and impartiality of the forum’s activities in deciding the selected claim.
The value for this indicator will be driven by a range of factors that promote or discourage independence or impartiality.
Practices that restrict independence and impartiality will affect the value negatively. Any difference between the value for
this indicator and the value in the same TAI case or indicator 105 suggests a gap between forum policy and practice.
In assigning the value, consider whether:
 Forum members act as decision-makers in a permanent, full-time capacity, or are drawn to the forum on a parttime basis.
 Where the forum members are permanent, full-time decision-makers, such as judges, they have life tenure or other
assurance that their livelihood is not threatened as a result of their decisions.
 Where the forum members are permanent, full-time decision-makers, such as judges, they are compensated at a
rate (in light of the national economy) that would tend to minimize their interest in outside financial influences
(such as bribes).
 Forum members limited their relationships and/or contact with the parties to a claim.
 Forum members recused themselves from a decision where they might have had a conflict of interest.
 Forum members’ conduct appropriately minimized any “appearance of impropriety.”
 Forum members reported to, or depended for compensation or advancement upon, a person or constituency that
had a stake in the outcome of the claim.
 Forum members were drawn from a sector that had a clear stake in the outcome of a claim. (For example,
government may have a stake in an official’s refusal to turn over information; members of an industrial sector will
have a stake in claims about that sector’s environmental conduct.)
 Forum members were elected or appointed by an official or constituency that had a stake in the outcome of a
claim.
Definitions: There are no definitions for this indicator.
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Document Review: Consult transcriptions of forum proceedings and other descriptive forum documents to gain an
understanding of whether the forum members applied written or informal standards ensuring independence and
impartiality.
2. Interview: At least 2 individuals who were parties to the claim.
Page 17 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Strong  Weak Performance
Values
No independence or impartiality
demonstrated by the forum in the
selected case
Almost no independence or
impartiality demonstrated by the
forum
Limited independence or
impartiality demonstrated by the
forum
Some independence or
impartiality demonstrated by the
X
forum
Strong independence or
impartiality demonstrated by the
forum
Explanation
The considerations enlisted in the research guidelines are all answered in
a way to show a high standard of independence and impartiality. The
judgment and rulings made by the court do not suggest that the forum
would have breached any standards of ethics. The lawyers representing
the two opposing parties both thought that there were no grounds to
suggest that the court was not independent or not impartial. However a
representative of the claimant believes that the court was prone to take
the side of the opposing party and gave more consideration to the
arguments and evidence submitted by the opposite party.
Not applicable (N/A)
Source(s) Consulted:
Document Review:
Document Title(s): The ruling of the Tartu Administrative Court on the application of a provisional legal protection (ruling
of 25.11.2004)/the ruling of the same court on the time limits of the case (ruling of 04.03.2005)/judgment of the same court
(30.11.2005)
Responsible Authority(ies): Tartu Administrative Court, judge Mare Priks
Page Number(s): 6/4/5
Document Found at: Moe, following a document request
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Kärt Vaarmari, head of the environmental legal aid project (represents “Roheline Urvaste”
in the court proceedings)
Agency/company Affiliation: Estonian Fund for Nature
Location of interview(s): e-mail
Date interview(s) took place: 09.01.2006
Interview:
Person Interviewed and Title: Airi Hallik-Konnula
Agency/company Affiliation: partnership Roheline Urvaste
Location of interview(s): e-mail
Date interview took place: 20.01.2006
Page 18 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Evelin Lopman, lawyer
Agency/company Affiliation: Ministry of the Environment, legal department
Location of interview(s): Ministry of the Environment
Date interview(s) took place: 12.01.2006
Additional Information
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
Kärt Vaarmari: “The court was independent and impartial. There are no grounds to suggest anything else.”
Evelin Lopman: “There was nothing to suggest that the court was not independent or not impartial.”
Airi Hallik-Konnula: “I think that when deciding over the merits of the case, the court was superficial and prone to
support the other side. For example, in the first ruling it found that the claim was not submitted within time-limits and
counted the period from the date the decision to give the permit was made, not when it was published. This was overruled
in the Circuit Court. The second time the same court heard the case it started to question the issue of standing, although that
question had not been raised in the previous rulings. The court favored too much the arguments of the environmental
department, in case of Natura inventory even allegations; on the other hand did not pay notice on the expert opinions done
with the initiative of the partnership.”
COMMENT:
The questioning of both parties and evaluating the factors listed in the research guidelines lead to a situation where it is very
difficult to give a value for the indicator within the scale which is foreseen. All factors show that impartiality and
independence is guaranteed, also both lawyers attending the case think that the court did its duty well; however one person
believes that the court was partial towards the opposite side. In this situation it is impossible to evaluate the performance of
the court with “strong”, however the only opposing argument comes from the party whose arguments were not upheld and
who is not a lawyer. Therefore the value was assigned as “some impartiality”, which however indicates a rather weak
performance. Thus, the values “some independence and impartiality” and “strong independence and impartiality” are too
far from each-other and an intermediate value assessment would be necessary to evaluate the indicator appropriately.
Examples: Link to sample interview questions
Page 19 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 109 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 109: To what extent were both parties able to gain access to information and conduct fact finding in the selected
case?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Effort
Subtopic: Scope and quality of effort
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
The process of obtaining information during a proceeding is sometimes called “discovery.” Discovery can take place in a
number of ways. For example, the forum may ask questions and seek information, or the parties may have the right to do
so directly.
This indicator assesses whether the parties were in fact able to obtain relevant information through the forum’s discovery
process, and whether parties had access to all information (including documents, interviews, witness statements, tape
recordings, etc.) that was relevant to the proceeding or that could have led to the discovery of relevant information.
Restrictions on a party’s ability to obtain information would affect the value negatively.
Definitions: There are no definitions this indicator.
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Interview: Both parties to make sure they were equally able to obtain information in the proceedings.
2. Document Review: Consult documents that describe the discovery procedures by which the forum is expected to
abide.
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Strong  Weak Performance
Values
Explanation
No fact finding or access to
information possible for parties
Almost no fact finding or access
to information
Limited fact finding or access to
information
Some fact finding or access to
information
Extensive fact finding and
access to information
X
All documents which the parties requested were adequately presented in
the proceedings. Both interviewed parties agreed that they had all access
to any documents they needed. The discovery process was led by the
parties – the forum did not need to request any documents itself. The
evidence presented by the parties was accepted by the court.
Not applicable (N/A)
Page 20 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Source(s) Consulted:
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Kärt Vaarmari, head of the environmental legal aid project (represents Roheline Urvaste in
the court proceedings)
Agency/company Affiliation: Estonian Fund for Nature
Location of interview(s): e-mail
Date interview(s) took place: 09.01.2006
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Evelin Lopman, lawyer
Agency/company Affiliation: Ministry of the Environment, legal department
Location of interview(s): Ministry of the Environment
Date interview(s) took place: 12.01.2006
Interview:
Person Interviewed and Title: Aulis Saarnits, head specialist
Agency/company Affiliation: Võrumaa Environmental Department of the MoE
Location of interview: e-mail
Date interview took place: 25.01.2006
Document Review:
Document Title(s): Code of Administrative Court Procedure
Responsible Authority(ies): the Riigikogu
Page Number(s): chapter 3 (procedure in the court of first instance)
Document Found at: www.riigiteataja.ee
Additional Information
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
Kärt Vaarmari: “The file was accessible to all parties to a full extent; they had the right and possibility to make copies.”
Evelin Lopman: “There were no difficulties in obtaining the documents.”
Aulis Saarnits: “During the court proceedings all documents were available and transferred through the court.”
Examples: Link to sample requests
Page 21 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 110 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 110: To what extent was the process transparent to the public in the selected case?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Effort
Subtopic: Scope and quality of effort
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
For a procedure to be fair and equitable it should also be transparent. This indicator focuses on the ability of non-parties to
obtain information about the substance and progress of a claim.
The value for this indicator will be driven by a range of factors that indicate whether or not the proceedings were
transparent to the public. In assigning the value, consider whether:
 Members of the public were able to obtain timely updates at key stages in the proceedings.
 Members of the public were allowed to attend the proceedings.
 Members of the public were able to obtain enough information about the proceedings to understand why the final
decision was reached.
Definitions: There are no definitions for this indicator.
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Interview: At least 2 individuals who followed the proceedings but were not parties to the claim.
2. Media review: If the case was followed by the media, review two back issues of relevant press to identify whether the
facts of the case were reflected accurately.
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Strong  Weak Performance
Values
Explanation
No public transparency of
process
Almost no public transparency
of process
Limited public transparency of
process
Some public transparency of
process
Extensive public transparency of
process
X
Not applicable (N/A)
Page 22 of 47
The fact that there were no members of the public who would have
followed the proceedings in the court and were not parties to the claim
makes it difficult to evaluate the indicator according to the guidelines.
However extensive newspaper coverage of all stages of the court
proceedings suggests that the process was transparent and that updates
were available. Nevertheless the media coverage reveals that the articles
are based on the judgment or rulings only and that the journalist has not
read the arguments of the parties – therefore some facts of the case and
some conclusions are presented inaccurately. However this may be due to
the lack of legal knowledge to assess the weight of different arguments,
not so much because of misleading information. The journalists have
interviewed both of the parties and they appear to have answered
questions openly, even admitting that they understand the concerns and
problems of the other side.
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Source(s) Consulted:
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Kärt Vaarmari (head of the environmental legal aid project; represented Roheline Urvaste
in the court proceedings)
Agency/company Affiliation: Estonian Fund for Nature
Location of interview(s): e-mail
Date interview(s) took place: 09.01.2005
Interview:
Person interviewed and title: Aulis Saarnits, head specialist
Agency/company Affiliation: Võrumaa Environmental Department of the MoE
Location of interview: e-mail
Date interview took place: 25.01.2006
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Airi Hallik-Konnula
Agency/company Affiliation: partnership Roheline Urvaste
Location of interview(s): phone/e-mail
Date interview(s) took place: 20.01.2006
Media Review:
Type(s) of Media reviewed (Newspaper, radio, television, etc.): newspapers
Source Name if relevant (e.g. Daily Nation): Postimees/Võrumaa Teataja/Eesti Loodus
Date Media Piece Issued: 05.11.2005 and 02.12.2005 by
Postimees/27.11.2004;01.03.2005;12.03.2005;10.09.2005;22.10.2005; 03.12.2005 by Võrumaa Teataja/ 22.03.2005 by
Eesti Loodus
Date Media Piece Reviewed: 15.01.2006
Media Piece Found at:
http://www.postimees.ee
http://vorumaateataja.ee
http://www.loodusajakiri.ee
Additional Information:
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
Kärt Vaarmari: “The process was transparent. Materials were accessible for the parties.”
Airi Hallik-Konnula: “I think the proceedings were sufficiently transparent. None of the parties have refused to give
comments (except for the third party).”
Aulis Saarnits: “There was constant media coverage offered by the partnership. Some of the facts presented in media were
not right, but we did not consider it to be necessary to correct them as we thought that the court will give the final answer.”
Examples: Link to sample interview questions
Page 23 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 112 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 112: To what extent did the forum keep the costs of bringing a claim low for the parties in the selected case?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Effort
Subtopic: Cost and affordability
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
The cost of bringing a claim can pose a significant barrier to citizens’ ability to successfully seek redress and remedy.
Efforts by the government to keep costs low can enhance access to justice.
Definitions: “Costs of bringing a claim” include administrative fees, legal fees, and the eventual costs of losing a claim.
“Low” costs should be judged in relation to the typical annual salary of an average citizen. Questions that will inform the
value of the indicator include:
 Are forums available in a range of locations to avoid citizens incurring travel costs?
 How high are judicial, administrative or alternative forum fees compared to average salaries?
 Is there a requirement for legal or other representation?
 Are there free services for the selected type of claim?
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Interview:
a. At least 2 representatives of the relevant forum to ask about specific measures taken to keep down the costs of
bringing a claim.
b. The parties to the forum to ask about actual costs incurred related to the claim.
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Strong  Weak Performance
Values
Explanation
No action by forum to minimize
costs
Forum action to reduce costs
limited
Forum action to reduce costs
mostly adequate
Forum action to reduce costs
The councilor for the claimant thinks that the costs were not high because
free legal aid was provided in some stages of the proceedings and the part
for which the partnership had to pay was not too expensive.
X
The judge in the court has explained that weighing all arguments together
and trying to assess the adequacy of submissions by the parties would
help to keep the proceedings as short and thus as cheap as possible. This
was done in the current case
Not applicable (N/A)
The issue of having to pay for the costs of legal aid of the opposing party
did not arise, since the claimant used mostly free legal aid and the
opposing party used its own staff lawyers for the proceedings.
adequate
Extensive forum action to reduce
costs
Page 24 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Source(s) Consulted:
Document Review:
Document Title(s): judgment of the Tartu Administrative Court 30.11.2005 (case nr 3.226/05)
Responsible Authority(ies): Tartu Administrative Court, judge Mare Priks
Page Number(s): 5
Document Found at: on document request from the Ministry of the Environment
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Mare Priks, judge
Agency/company Affiliation: Tartu Administrative Court
Location of interview(s): e-mail
Date interview(s) took place: 12.01.2006
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Kärt Vaarmari, head of environmental legal aid project
Agency/company Affiliation: Estonian Fund for Nature
Location of interview(s): e-mail
Date interview(s) took place: 09.01.2006
Additional Information:
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
Kärt Vaarmari: “The claimant did not incur particularly big costs in this case due to the fact that the respondent was an
administrative body that used its own lawyers for representation and the claimant itself had the opportunity to use free legal
aid in the proceedings in the first instance court.
The claimant used paid legal representation in the appellate proceedings, however these costs may be regarded as
reasonable (below the Estonian average monthly income). However additional costs may arise, as the proceedings have not
come to a final judgment.
Mare Priks: “The judge can reduce the costs of the proceedings by assessing all the arguments and preparing the case so,
that it could be heard in one hearing - thus reducing the costs for traveling and for legal aid. Where a party to the case
applies for a postponement of the hearing (as happened in this case), the judge must evaluate whether the request is feasible
and sufficiently founded.
The costs for bringing the administrative case to court are low – the state fee is 10 kroons, plus additional cost for legal aid.
Where a citizen files a claim that does not correspond to the procedural rules, the court will make a ruling where it
describes how the deficiencies should be eliminated and tries to help the citizen to compose the claim properly.”
Examples: Link to relevant examples
Page 25 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 114 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 114: How well did the forum take steps to make the forum accessible to [pull-down list including women, poor,
minorities, etc.] in the selected case?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Effort
Subtopic: Fairness and Equitability
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
This indicator assesses the extent to which the government has taken proactive measures to provide access to justice to
marginalized communities. Enabling marginalized or disadvantaged groups to use the system may require targeted efforts
on the part of the judicial, administrative, or alternative forum. Different groups may be disadvantaged in different
countries. Apply this indicator separately for each group that you select. Do not apply this indicator if the role of
marginalized or disadvantaged groups was not relevant in this case.
Definitions: “Accessible” means easy to approach, understand, enter and use.
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Interviews: At least 3 members of the selected target group. Choose individuals who participated in the claim, and at
least one who did not.
2. Document Review: Consult documentation of the claim’s proceedings, which may contain information about the
steps taken or resources provided (e.g., court interpreters, subsidized transportation, social workers, instructions in
minority languages, targeted outreach materials) to better enable the target group to use the forum.
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Values
Explanation
Strong  Weak Performance
No effort is made to reach the
target audience
Limited effort is made to reach
the target audience
Effort to reach the target
audience is mostly adequate, but
with room for improvement
Planned and systematic effort to
reach the target audience exists
The role of marginalized or disadvantaged groups was not relevant in this
case.
Plans and systems for reaching
the target audience are welldesigned and comprehensive
Not applicable (N/A)
Page 26 of 47
X
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Source(s) Consulted:
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title:
Agency/company Affiliation:
Location of interview(s):
Date interview(s) took place:
Document Review:
Document Title(s):
Responsible Authority(ies):
Page Number(s):
Document Found at:
Additional Information:
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
Examples: Link to sample interview questions
Page 27 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 117 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 117: How broadly was legal standing interpreted by the forum in the selected case?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Effort
Subtopic: Fairness and Equitability
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
This indicator assesses who had the legal right (called “standing” by lawyers in many countries) to pursue a claim in the
case. It also asks about the basis on which a forum grants standing: for example, does one have to prove economic harm or
another type of loss in order to seek justice, or is it sufficient to be interested in the outcome of a case?
Generally speaking, broader interpretations of standing enable greater access to the forum for interested or affected parties.
However, there are reasons consistent with the access to justice principle that a forum might want to limit standing. If
researchers believe that standing has been constrained in the case, but that the constraint is consistent with the interests of
justice, then a higher value may be given.
Definitions: “Standing” is the legal right to pursue a claim before the forum. “Forum” includes administrative courts or
claim procedures, judicial courts, alternative forums and alternative jurisdictions.
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Document Review: Records of court proceedings to determine the extent of standing acknowledged by the forum,
requirements for proof of interest/harm/loss, and whether different standards were applied to individuals, CSOs,
corporations, or others in this case.
Strong  Weak Performance
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Values
Explanation
Standing was denied to all
parties (so the claim could not
proceed)
Standing was extensively
constrained
Standing was moderately
constrained
Standing had only a few
limitations
Standing granted to all interested
or potentially interested parties
The court recognized the standing of the partnership Roheline Urvaste on
the basis of the Arhus Convention. The positive factor indicating a wide
interpretation of the Arhus Convention was, that while in the cases that
have arisen thus far, Estonian courts have recognized the standing of
non-profit environmental organizations; in this case the standing was also
granted for a contractual partnership of private individuals. The court
recognized that the partnership agreement was entered into with an
intention to protect Ess-soo (the area where the mining is requested) as a
natural and recreational habitat and therefore they ought to be considered
as an environmental civil society organization in the meaning of the
Arhus Convention.
X
Not applicable (N/A)
Page 28 of 47
No interested private individuals tried to separately intervene in the case.
However, had they done so, it is questionable whether they would have
been granted standing.
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Source(s) Consulted:
Document Review:
Document Title(s): Ruling of the Tartu Administrative Court of 4 th March 2005/judgment of the same court on
30.11.2005
Responsible Authority(ies): Tartu Administrative Court, judge Mare Priks
Page Number(s):4/5
Document Found at: on document request from the MoE
Additional Information:
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
Examples: There are no examples for this indicator.
Page 29 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 120 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 120: To what extent did the forum minimize delays in processing and reviewing the claim and in issuing a
decision?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Effort
Subtopic: Timeliness
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
This indicator focuses on the timeliness with which the review and ultimate decision of the claim were made, rather than
the process itself (which is covered by Indicator 119).
The value for the indicator will be driven by whether the final outcome was obtained in time to resolve the principal
concern of the parties bringing the claim. In assigning the value, consider whether:
 The status quo changed adversely pending the outcome.
 Whether the special needs and circumstances of the claim required a more timely decision.
 Reaching a decision in the claim took longer than in similar claims.
Definitions: “Minimize delays” means that the forum took actions to avoid delays, such as returning intermediate
decisions or distributing documents in a timely manner. “Processing and reviewing” includes the steps taken by the
forum towards issuing a final decision. These steps will vary among forums.
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Interview: At least 2 individuals involved in the claim to determine:
a. Any steps taken by the forum to minimize delays.
b. Any special needs and circumstances of the claim that may have required a more timely decision.
2. Document review: Review reports of the proceedings to ascertain the duration of the claim.
Strong  Weak Performance
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Values
Explanation
Forum took no action to
minimize delays
Processing & reviewing of
claims not timely
Some delay in processing &
The hearing of the case took clearly longer than set out in the law,
however it should be considered that this is normal practice for the court
procedures in Estonia. In addition, the final judgment was delayed due to
the fact that the initial ruling of the court on the timelines of the case was
appealed by the claimants. After the appellate court found that the court
of first instance had erred in refusing to hear the case on the merits, the
case was sent back to the same court, where it was then judged on the
merits a year after the initial claim was filed. Also, during the process
one hearing was postponed on the request from the 3 rd person intervening
in the case. In addition – the forum member pointed out that as the claim
was filed just before the summer holidays, the time-period until the first
hearing was a bit longer.
X
reviewing of claims
Minimal delay in processing &
reviewing of claims
Processing & reviewing of
claims without any delay
Not applicable (N/A)
Page 30 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
The delay in the final judgment did not affect the outcome of the case, as
the court had granted a provisional legal protection by forbidding any
further actions in the administrative proceedings for issuing the mining
permit in Ess-soo. The preliminary ruling was granted 6 days after the
filing of the claim. This is considered to be done in a very timely manner.
All rulings and judgments were made within the timelines set out in law.
Source(s) Consulted:
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Airi Hallik-Konnula
Agency/company Affiliation: partnership Roheline Urvaste
Location of interview(s): phone/e-mail
Date interview(s) took place: 20.01.2006
Interview: Kärt Vaarmari, head of the environmental legal aid project (representing the partnership in the court
proceedings)
Agency/company Affiliation: Estonian Fund for Nature
Location of interview(s): e-mail
Date interview took place: 09.01.2006
Document Review:
Document Title(s): rulings of the court on 25.11.2004 and 04.03.2005/judgment of the court on 30.11.2005/claim of the
partnership Roheline Urvaste submitted to the court on 19.11.2004/written submissions by all parties during the
proceedings in the court
Responsible Authority(ies): Tartu Administrative Court/partnership Roheline Urvaste/Võrumaa Environmental
Department/OÜ Ketal Võru
Page Number(s):
Document Found at: on document request from the Ministry of Environment
Additional Information:
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
Kärt Vaarmari: “As the timeline for hearing the case as set out in law is 3 months, this deadline was clearly exceeded in
the case as it was decided more than 1 year after the submission of the claim. It took more than 3 months to schedule for the
first preliminary hearing. However all other deadlines were followed – the judgments were granted within timeframes and
the court always gave sufficient notice before the hearings (from sever weeks to 2 months).”
Airi Hallik-Konnula: “I think the judgments have been made in a timely manner. However it should be borne in mind that
the case is not finalized. Only one, initial hearing was postponed, because the court did not send the materials to the third
party early enough to allow them to acquaint themselves with the materials.”
Examples: Link to sample interview questions
Page 31 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 121 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 121(s): To what extent was there a choice of forums which could consider the selected claim?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Effort
Subtopic: Channels of Access
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
The availability of a choice of forums enhances access to justice, since different forums will have different levels of
expertise, convenience, etc. with regard to a particular claim. This indicator assesses the number of forums in which the
selected claim could have been filed.
Definitions: “Forum” includes administrative courts or claim procedures, judicial courts, alternative forums and
alternative jurisdictions.
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Interview: At least 1 individual who was involved in the initial process of bringing the claim.
2. Document Review: Review forum documents that establish and describe the scope of work of different forums.
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Values
Explanation
No choice of forums available
Strong  Weak Performance
X
Almost no choice of forum (due
to lack of relevance, cost or
convenience of alternative forum
options)
Multiple forums but of limited
relevance or only one forum but
of high relevance.
Multiple forums some of which
were of high relevance.
Multiple forums all of high
relevance.
The choice of forums in administrative court procedures is established by
law. In case a person wishes to file a claim against a decision of an
administrative body the forum is decided on the basis of the location of
that body. However, as Estonia is small there were altogether 4 different
administrative courts available, which could hear the case. All those 4
have the same expertise. It should also be noted that among 4 options, the
forum mandated by law was the most convenient for the claimants as it is
located closest to them.
On the basis of the abovementioned arguments it is suggested, that the
choice of forums would not have enhanced access to justice in the
selected case.
Not applicable (N/A)
Page 32 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Source(s) Consulted:
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Kärt Vaarmari, head of the environmental legal aid project (represented the partnership in
the court proceedings)
Agency/company Affiliation: Estonian Fund for Nature
Location of interview(s): e-mail
Date interview(s) took place: 09.01.2006
Document Review:
Document Title(s): Code of Administrative Court Procedure
Responsible Authority(ies): the Riigikogu
Page Number(s): in particular art 8 (jurisdiction)
Document Found at: www.riigiteataja.ee
Additional Information:
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
Code of Administrative Court Procedure art 8(1):
“Unless different jurisdiction is provided by law, an action or a protest specified in subsection 6 (2) or clause 6 (3) 1) or 2)
of this Code shall be filed with the administrative court of the seat or place of service of the agency, official or other person
who issued the administrative act or took the administrative measure against which an action or protest is filed. An action
or protest against an administrative act or measure of several agencies, officials or other persons who perform
administrative functions in public law whose seats or places of service are within the territorial jurisdiction of different
courts is filed according to the seat or place of service of one of the agencies, officials or other persons, as chosen by the
person who files the action or protest.”
Examples: Link to sample interview questions
Page 33 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 123 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 123(s): To what extent were guidelines or training offered regularly over the last 3 years to forum members on
access to information, participation?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Effort
Subtopic: Efforts to build the capacity of government agencies
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
Access to justice requires that forum members be familiar with and understand laws, procedures or common practices
relating to claims that they review. Training for forum members on access to information and participation can help build
capacity for claims related to the access principles. Training must be fairly recent and involve all relevant staff to be
effective.
Definitions: “Guidelines or training” can include workshops, lectures, distribution of printed materials, etc.
“Regularly” means that the guidelines or training are part of an on-going series or program; not a single, isolated instance.
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Document review: Consult guidelines and training manuals for the forum, if such exist.
2. Interview: At least 2 officials or members of the forum to determine whether any training on access to information or
public participation has been given in the last three years. In the Explanation section, specify the type and content of
training given.
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Values
Strong  Weak Performance
No guidelines or training in the
last three years
Almost no guidelines or
training in the last three years
X
Limited and irregular
guidelines or training in the last
three years
Somewhat regular guidelines
or training in the last three
years
Extensive and regular
guidelines and training in the
last three years
Explanation
One interviewed persons said that during 2004-2005 there were no
trainings on environmental law, however general principles of access and
standing were explained in the lectures dealing with procedural law.
However no specific emphasis was put on the Arhus Convention.
The other interviewed person told that there has been enough training on
environmental law and that during those trainings materials/booklets were
given. It is unclear from the answer, whether there was any training on
access to justice issues specifically.
The trainings for the judges are organized by the Estonian Law Centre
Foundation. From the information on their web-page no specific training
on access to justice is scheduled for 2006.
Not applicable (N/A)
Page 34 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Source(s) Consulted:
Document Review:
Document Title: web-pages concerning the training of judges at http://www.lc.ee/foorum/lc/kohtunikud/kalender/
Issuing Authorities: Estonian Law Centre Foundation
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Mare Priks, judge
Agency/company Affiliation: Tartu Administrative Court
Location of interview(s): e-mail
Date interview(s) took place: 12.01.2006
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Peeter Pällin, judge
Agency/company Affiliation: Viru County Court
Location of interview(s): e-mail
Date interview(s) took place: 12.01.2006
Additional Information:
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
Mare Priks: “There have been enough training on environmental law, but every case needs special attention because of its
subject matter. Thus far there have been no problems with access to information. Relevant materials are distributed at the
trainings; sometimes these materials become handy in deciding the case.“
Peeter Pällin: „No special trainings on environmental law in 2004-2005. In year 2006 there is a special environmental law
training course scheduled, which will last ¼ of a day. The subject matter will be nature protection and environmental
impact assessment. Every year there are extensive trainings on civil and administrative procedure law, where among other
topics, the access to court principles and corresponding regulations are also briefly touched upon.“
Examples: Link to sample interview questions
Page 35 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 125 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 125(s): How adequate is the government budget allocation to support the forum’s justice functions?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Effort
Subtopic: Efforts to build capacity of government agencies
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
This indicator assesses whether the government as a whole recognizes the importance of public access to information and
participation, and whether the forum dealing with the selected case has sufficient resources to perform its judicial functions.
Are salaries for the responsible staff adequate and secure? Over the past three years, have budgets increased, decreased, or
remained stable? How do they compare to the budgets of other forums?
Definitions: “Government budget allocation” means all funding given by the government to support the work of the
forum. “Adequate” refers to whether or not the budget is sufficient to fund all the forum’s functions.
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Document Review: Consult budget allocations to the selected forum.
2. Interview: At least 2 relevant staff at the forum. Ask about areas of their work where funds are sufficient and those
where funds are lacking. What would additional funds enable them to do?
Strong  Weak Performance
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Values
Explanation
No funds allocated
The budget allocation is mostly adequate as far as the salaries of the
judges are concerned. The salary rate is set down by law and thus is the
same for all judges in Estonia – the rate is connected to the average
salary and increases together with it. Generally the budgets of the courts
have not increased considerably during recent years; however in the
beginning of 2005 the salary of consultants rose almost 30%.
Budget inadequate
Budget about 50-75% of what is
needed
Budget mostly adequate
X
Extensive budget allocated
It is suggested in the interview that more funds would enable to hire
more judges and thus lessen the workload and raise the quality of the
judgments. In this respect - new court system reform is under way, which
would allow distributing the cases more evenly between courts, as until
now the courts in bigger towns had much bigger case-load than some
smaller courts.
Not applicable (N/A)
The budget allocation is valued as “mostly adequate”, since all required
judicial functions are being performed. The budget is not extensive, as
some more funds would allow raisinc efficacy in certain areas.
Page 36 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Source(s) Consulted:
Document Review:
Document Title(s): The Law on the Official Salaries of the state officials nominated by the Riigikogu and the President of
the Republic/ budgets of the Tartu Administrative Court for years 2003-2005
Responsible Authority(ies): the Riigikogu/Ministry of Justice
Document Found at:
www.riigiteataja.ee
http://www.kohus.ee/9832
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Peeter Pällin
Agency/company Affiliation: Viru County Court
Location of interview(s): e-mail/phone
Date interview(s) took place: 12.01.2006
Additional Information:
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
Peeter Pällin: “To my knowledge the speed of hearing the case is above the average of EU in Estonia. However, the
percentage of judgments that are amended or annulled in Circuit Courts is worse than the average in EU. This is caused
among others because of tight schedules of judges, lack of assisting personnel, lack of literature and lack of access to
trainings. Another reason is the small efficacy of state legal aid – in civil cases there are not enough qualified advocates
willing to provide state legal aid.”
Examples: Link to sample interview questions
Page 37 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 127 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 127(s): How clear and easily accessible are the public guidelines on how to use the forum?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Effort
Subtopic: Effort to build the capacity of the public.
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
Members of the public will have difficulty asserting their right to justice unless the government actively informs them how
to use the available forums for redress and remedy. This indicator assesses whether there are guidelines or information that
educate the public about available forums; procedures to submit a claim; rules regarding standing, representation, etc.; fees
and other relevant expenses; and contact information about a staff member who can be reached for help.
Definitions: “Clear” means in simple language easily understood by the average citizen. “Easily accessible” means
available in more than one public format and source.
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Document review: Consult websites, pamphlets, and other materials published by or about the selected forum.
Consult materials that give the public instructions or guidelines on how to use the forum.
2. Interviews: At least 2 parties to the case to determine whether information about how to access and use the forum was
easily accessible and understandable to them.
Note: Formats that can be counted as efforts to disseminate guidelines on how to use the forum include websites,
pamphlets available at government offices or libraries, leaflets, radio/TV spots, and other materials for broad
dissemination.
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Values
Strong  Weak Performance
No guidelines can be found
Guidelines are present, but
difficult to find and understand
X
Guidelines are either clear or
easily accessible, but not both
Guidelines are clear and easily
accessible
Exemplary provision of
guidelines could serve as a
model for other forums
Page 38 of 47
Explanation
Guidelines are available on the web-page of the Ministry of Justice. They
are easy to read and clear. The guidelines explain what documents are
necessary in order to file a claim, who can file a claim, where and when;
also how to apply for state legal aid and how to compose a claim. The
web-page contains a sample of a booklet in paper version. However
according to a question asked at an interview, those booklets were not
available at least in one of the County Courts.
Also, a representative of the partnership said, that they were only able to
file a claim, since they found out about the free legal aid project provided
by an NGO. Otherwise, they would not have had the expertise to go to the
court.
There are no public guidelines on access to court in environmental issues.
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
However considering, that the access for civil society organizations in
environmental cases is very different from the general access issues, such
information would definitely be necessary.
Not applicable (N/A)
Accordingly, the guidelines for general access should be evaluated as
clear, but since they are only available on the internet, they are valued as
not easily accessible. Since there are no specific guidelines for access to
justice in environmental matters, a weaker value is allocated.
Source(s) Consulted:
Document Review:
Document Title(s): web-page on access to courts at http://www.just.ee/7659
Responsible Authority(ies): Ministry of Justice
Document Found at: http://www.just.ee/7659
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Triin Nymann, lawyer
Agency/company Affiliation: Ministry of the Environment, legal department
Location of interview(s): e-mail
Date interview(s) took place: 15.01.2006
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Airi Hallik-Konnula
Agency/company Affiliation: partnership Roheline Urvaste
Location of interview(s): e-mail/phone
Date interview(s) took place: 20.01.2006
Additional Information:
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
Triin Nyman: “There are no materials for the public which would concern specifically access to justice in environmental
matters. General information on access to justice – i.e. how to file a claim, where and when and how to formulate it and
how to apply for state legal aid – can be found from the web-page of the Ministry of Justice.”
Airi Hallik-Konnula: “I have not seen any publicly accessible guidelines (these should be definitely present and available
in the environmental departments and NGOs). Since we were found out about the free environmental legal aid project in the
Estonian Fund for Nature, we discussed the issues of filing a claim and standing already with them. This is a very specific
field and I doubt that we would have been able to file a claim without getting any legal help.”
Examples: Link to sample interview questions
Page 39 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 129 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 129: To what extent was the forum decision implemented in the selected case?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Effectiveness
Subtopic: Impacts of access
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
This indicator assesses the extent to which the forum’s decision prompted change on the ground. In assigning a value,
consider factors such as:
 Did the party of whom compliance was required provide sufficient information to establish compliance to either
the forum or the complaining party on a timely basis?
 Did the party whose conduct was dealt with in the forum decision actually change behavior in a manner that was
supportive of the environment or access to information or public participation?
 Did the complaining party, or a responsible official, have to bring compliance failures to the attention of the forum
(or another responsible office) in an effort to enforce the forum decision?
 Was there beneficial change to the environment, community or public who were affected prior to the forum
decision?
 Did the forum retain continuing jurisdiction/oversight over a case, or conduct periodic reviews of compliance?
Definitions: “Implemented” means enforced in this context.
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Document review:
a. Consult reports/records or other public information maintained by the forum about compliance by parties and the
evolving state of the affected environmental resource.
b. Consult compliance reports by parties.
2. Interviews: Interview both parties to the case to determine effectiveness their efforts to ensure compliance.
3. Site visits: A visit to the facility, community or location affected by the decision may provide the best information
about the impact of the decision.
Page 40 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Strong  Weak Performance
Values
Explanation
No implementation of forum
decision
Minimal implementation of
forum decision
Some implementation of forum
decision
Adequate implementation of
forum decision
Based on the research guidelines and the definitions, the indicator cannot
be applied for the selected case, as it has not come to the final judgment
yet and thus has not been enforced.
Complete implementation of
forum decision
Not applicable (N/A)
X
Source(s) Consulted:
Document Review:
Document Title(s):
Responsible Authority(ies):
Page Number(s):
Document Found at:
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title:
Agency/company Affiliation:
Location of interview(s):
Date interview(s) took place:
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title:
Agency/company Affiliation:
Location of interview(s): e-mail
Date interview(s) took place:
Site Visits:
Page 41 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Additional Information:
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
Examples: Link to sample requests
Page 42 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 131 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 131: To what extent did the forum decision in this case lead to measures to avoid or reduce negative impacts on
the environment or human health or improve access or participation?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Effectiveness
Subtopic: Outcomes of access
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
This indicator assesses the change in behaviors, policies or activities that resulted from the forum decision.
Definitions: “Measures” may include specific actions, activities, or policies that respond to the final decision taken by the
forum.
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Interviews: At least 2 individuals involved in the claim (ideally, at least one person from each side of the claim)
2. Media review: Consult the internet and newspapers for reports on how parties to the claim responded to the final result
and how, if at all, they have taken measures to reduce negative impacts on the environment or human health or to
improve access or participation.
Strong  Weak Performance
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Values
Explanation
No measures taken
It is impossible to evaluate the final outcome of the case, as the case is
pending an appeal and has not been enforced yet. Therefore the indicator
is valued as not applicable.
Almost no measures taken
Very limited measures taken
Some measures taken
Extensive measures taken
Not applicable (N/A)
Page 43 of 47
X
However, as the case concerned the issue of how the Võrumaa
Environmental Department dealt with the administrative procedure of
issuing a mining permit, some evaluation on the effects of the case can be
evaluated already now. In an interview, a lawyer in the MoE suggested
that the officials in the Environmental Department will hence definitely
pay more attention to and follow the procedural regulations more
accurately.
The representative of the claimant was hoping that if the case is decided
positively for the claimant, this will improve the regulations concerning
access to information and public participation at least as far as mining
permits are concerned. She is also hoping for positive changes for the
environmental impact assessment procedure.
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Source(s) Consulted:
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Evelin Lopman, lawyer
Agency/company Affiliation: Ministry of the Environment, legal department
Location of interview(s): Ministry of the Environment
Date interview(s) took place: 12.01.2006
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Kärt Vaarmari, head of the environmental legal aid project
Agency/company Affiliation: Estonian Fund for Nature
Location of interview(s): e-mail
Date interview(s) took place: 09.01.2006
Media Review:
Type(s) of Media reviewed (Newspaper, radio, television, etc.):
Source Name if relevant (e.g. Daily Nation):
Date Media Piece Issued:
Date Media Piece Reviewed:
Media Piece Found at:
Additional Information:
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
Kärt Vaarmari: “One can hope that if the claimant wins, the regulations for informing the public will be amended –
currently the system of informing about the initiation of the procedure for the mining permits is only internet based and the
system is too complicated for an average person. If the case turns up positively for the claimants it may also affect the
practice of starting the environmental impact assessment procedure in cases, where the decision to start the EIA is
discretionary.”
Evelin Lopman: “The case definitely makes the officials in the Võrumaa Environmental Department to pay more attention
on procedural norms and hopefully will make them to follow those rules more accurately.”
Examples: Link to sample interview questions
Page 44 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Indicator Research Worksheet—Indicator 132 **CORE**
Indicator Research Context:
Case Title: case of partnership Roheline Urvaste (Tartu Administrative Court case nr 3-596/04)
Case Type: Public Participation & Non-compliance
Indicator 132: How well did forum members and staff execute their access to justice responsibilities in the selected case?
Category: Access to Justice
Topic: Effectiveness
Subtopic: Effectiveness of capacity building for government agencies
Researcher: Airi Andresson
Research Guidelines:
The purpose of capacity-building for government agencies is to provide staff and officials with the skills, tools, knowledge,
attitudes, and resources needed to effectively facilitate access to justice in claims related to access or the environment.
Stakeholder satisfaction with the officials’ performance provides a valuable indication of how well capacity-building
activities have succeeded.
Definitions: There are no definitions for this indicator.
Recommended Research Methods and Sources:
1. Interview:
a. At least 5 different individuals who were involved in the case or who have a stake in its outcome. Potentially
relevant stakeholders include claimants, defendants, witnesses, legal or environmental professionals involved in
the case, representatives of monitoring or enforcement agencies, and media representatives. Ask about
stakeholders’ level of satisfaction with the performance of forum staff and officials. In the Explanation section,
note particular areas of dissatisfaction or of especially good performance.
b. At least 1 official at the forum responsible for the selected case. Inquire whether any training on Access Principles
has been given in the past 2years (e.g., workshops, lectures, distribution of printed materials on the principles of
public information and participation). In the Explanation section, specify the type and content of training given.
Strong  Weak
Performance
Indicator Score and Explanation:
Values
Explanation
Staff/officials did not interact
with stakeholders at all
Stakeholders were consistently
dissatisfied with the performance
of staff/officials
Stakeholder impression of
staff/officials’ performance was
mixed
Most stakeholders were satisfied
with staff/officials’ performance
The lawyer of the partnership and the lawyer of the MoE representing the
environmental department both think that the judge was independent and
impartial. However, the member of the partnership (a.k.a. the claimant)
thinks that the court paid more attention to the arguments of the opposite
party. Both persons on the side of the claimant think that the court was
superficial in deciding on the merits of the case. The lawyer from the
MoE believes however that the court understood and weighed the
arguments well. All parties are mostly satisfied with how the procedural
part was dealt with.
most of the time
Page 45 of 47
X
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Stakeholders unanimously
agreed that performance was
good
Not applicable (N/A)
Source(s) Consulted:
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Airi Hallik-Konnula
Agency/company Affiliation: partnership Roheline Urvaste
Location of interview(s): phone/e-mail
Date interview(s) took place: 20.01.2006
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Kärt Vaarmari, head of the environmental legal aid project
Agency/company Affiliation: Estonian Fund for Nature
Location of interview(s): e-mail
Date interview(s) took place: 09.01.2006
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Evelin Lopman, lawyer
Agency/company Affiliation: Ministry of Environment, legal department
Location of interview(s): Ministry of Environment
Date interview(s) took place: 12.01.2006
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Aulis Saarnits, head specialist
Agency/company Affiliation: Võrumaa Environmental Department of the MoE
Location of interview(s): e-mail
Date interview(s) took place: 25.01.2006
Interview:
Person(s) Interviewed and Title: Mare Priks, judge
Agency/company Affiliation: Tartu Administrative Court
Location of interview(s): e-mail
Date interview(s) took place: 12.01.2006
Page 46 of 47
2/16/2016
DRAFT: TAI Ver2.0 Indicator Worksheets – Access to Justice – CORE only
Additional Information:
Record any additional information relevant to this indicator here.
Airi Hallik-Konnula: “The availability of environmental decisions on local level is very unsatisfactory. The publications
made in Ametlikud Teadaanded do not guarantee that local citizens find out about the decisions. … There were difficulties
in obtaining information from local government and local environmental department. However, during the court
proceedings all required information was available. The proceedings were mostly timely. One can be satisfied with the
procedural part of the proceedings. However I think that when deciding over the merits of the case, the court was
superficial and prone to support the other side. For example, in the first ruling it found that the claim was not submitted
within time-limits and counted the period from the date the decision to give the permit was made, not when it was
published. This was overruled in the Circuit Court. The second time the same court heard the case it started to question the
issue of standing, although that question had not been raised in the previous rulings. The court favored too much the
arguments of the environmental department, in case of Natura inventory even hearsay; on the other hand did not pay notice
on the expert opinions done with the initiative of the partnership.
Kärt Vaarmari: “One can be especially satisfied with the fact that the court acknowledged the standing of a body that is
not a legal person, but is made up on the basis of a contract. However I am not satisfied with how the court dealt with the
issue of informing the public. Despite the fact that it was proven that there was no effective informing and that the local
citizens did not manage to find out about the mining permit, the court did not establish any breach of law. The court applied
the internal law, but disregarded the regulation mandated by the Arhus Convention, which goes much further than internal
law.”
Evelin Lopman: “I think one can be satisfied with the way court dealt with all the issues.”
Aulis Saarnits: “I don’t know how to comment the accuracy of the performance of the judge with regard to Arhus
Convention. The only problem for me was the timeliness of the hearings, but this is a general problem for Estonian courts,
as the case load is very big. Also, it might be noted that the first hearing was postponed because the court had not delivered
the papers to the third party in due time in order to allow them to acquaint themselves with the documents.”
Mare Priks: “There have been trainings on environmental law, but none specifically on access to justice issues.”
Examples: Link to sample interview questions
Page 47 of 47
2/16/2016