“In connection with the withdrawal, Maardu Linnameeskond will finish last in the Esiliiga and lose its licence, as a result of which it will fall out of the licensed leagues.”
“On 25 September, however, the prosecutor’s office also commenced criminal proceedings.”
Maardu Linnameeskond’s decision to withdraw from the Esiliiga means that the club will lose its licence and exit all licensed leagues, as a result of which it will not be entitled to compete in the Meistriliiga, Esiliiga, or Esiliiga B in the following season. At risk is not only the club’s competition place, but also the validity of the athletes’ licences, because proper registration is deemed to consist of a list of athletes holding valid licences issued by the sports federation, based on an application for a licence (Statutes of the Estonian Sports Register, § 15(12) and (13)). The specific legal issue is what competition-law consequences follow from a voluntary withdrawal mid-season and whether the federation is entitled to let prior results stand. This is resolved under the Estonian Football Association’s competition regulations, as reflected in the news report: results from matches played in half of the season remain in force, future matches are recorded as forfeits, and the result of the abandoned match is fixed at 4:0 in favour of FC Tallinn.
The club is obliged to comply with the federation’s decision and accept the forfeits, while its opponents acquire the right to one forfeit win because their final round remained unplayed. Loss of the licence means that the club can no longer belong to the three highest licensed leagues, and its athletes’ licences lose validity within the competition system. Due to suspected betting fraud, in addition to the federation’s disciplinary proceedings, criminal proceedings were commenced on 25 September and are being conducted by the prosecutor’s office. On the betting operator’s side, if the relevant circumstances emerge, the Tax and Customs Board may issue precepts under § 13(3)–(5) of the Gambling Act, which are binding also on the gambling operator and on the person organising the exercise of voting rights.
In practical terms, this is significant for Maardu’s players, who lose the opportunity to play in a licensed league, and for other Esiliiga clubs, whose points totals are affected by the forfeit win and the fixed 4:0 result. For the club itself, loss of the licence means exclusion from the licensed league system and the possibility of applying for a licence again only in a future season, in accordance with the federation’s licensing procedure. The criminal proceedings may entail additional consequences for both the club and individuals, but their outcome is currently undecided.
Employment contracts may be terminated only after consultation and notification of the Unemployment Insurance Fund (§ 103(1)), and collective termination takes effect upon expiry of the notice period, but not earlier than 30 calendar days after the Unemployment Insurance Fund has received the information (§ 103(2)).
Upon termination due to redundancy, the employer must pay the employee compensation in the amount of one month’s average wages (§ 100(1) of the Employment Contracts Act), and the employee is entitled to an insurance benefit in the event of redundancy under the Unemployment Insurance Act (§ 100(2)).
According to Air Baltic, the redundancy process may affect 500-700 positions at its Riga, Vilnius and Tallinn bases, meaning that airline employees working at the Estonian base face a collective redundancy procedure, together with redundancy compensation and unemployment insurance benefits. As this is a collective redundancy, the matter is not governed solely by ordinary redundancy rules, but also by the procedural rules on collective termination under the Employment Contracts Act. The threshold for collective termination is set by § 90(1) of the Employment Contracts Act: in an undertaking employing on average at least 300 employees, collective termination means terminating the employment contracts of at least 30 employees within 30 calendar days. In Air Baltic’s case, 500-700 persons are under discussion, so the threshold is far exceeded. The legal basis for redundancy is provided by § 89(1) of the Employment Contracts Act: extraordinary termination of an employment contract is permitted where continuation of the employment relationship becomes impossible due to a decrease in the volume of work or reorganisation of work.
Before making a decision, the employer must, pursuant to § 101(1) of the Employment Contracts Act, consult in good time with the employee representative or, in their absence, with the employees, with the aim of reaching an agreement on avoiding the terminations, reducing their number and mitigating their consequences. For that purpose, under § 101(2), the employer must provide in writing at least the following information:
After consultation, the employer must, pursuant to § 102(1) of the Employment Contracts Act, submit to the Estonian Unemployment Insurance Fund the information referred to in § 101(2) and information concerning the consultation; Air Baltic has notified the Estonian Unemployment Insurance Fund of the collective redundancy process. Before termination, the employer must, where possible, offer other work and, where necessary, arrange further training (§ 89(3)); upon termination, the employer must observe the principle of equal treatment, and employees’ representatives and employees raising a child under three years of age have preferential rights to remain employed (§ 89(4) and (5)). Since Air Baltic’s consultations with trade unions are ongoing, the trade union has the right during consultation to meet with the employer’s representatives and submit proposals (§ 101(4)), and the employee representative may submit their opinion to the Unemployment Insurance Fund within seven calendar days of receiving a copy of the information (§ 102(3)).
In practice, this means that pilots and cabin crew working at the Tallinn base are, in the event of redundancy, entitled to compensation equal to one month’s average wages and to unemployment insurance benefits, although decisions concerning individual employees have not yet been made. Before terminating employment contracts, Air Baltic must complete consultations with the trade unions and fulfil its obligation to notify the Unemployment Insurance Fund; the company has promised to provide employees with more detailed information during this month, and the organisation’s new structure is expected to be finalised in mid-October.
Under § 38(2) of the Food Act, food information must be truthful, comply with the requirements established by legislation, and must not mislead the operator or the consumer.
Under § 40(1) of the Food Act, altering labelling without changing the actual characteristics of the food is deemed to be food adulteration, except where the labelling is clarified or misleading labelling is corrected.
The cardiologists’ appeal does not in itself change the law, but it highlights that the fate of the introduction of Nutri-Score depends on a decision by the Government and the Minister, not on labelling initiated by producers. The core of the news is that doctors are calling for state support for a voluntary food labelling system, for which a new regulatory framework should be established. The Food Act currently does not provide for any health labelling system: its § 39¹, “Use of a health mark on labelling”, was repealed as of 1 July 2006, which means that the use of Nutri-Score is presently neither prohibited nor organised by the State. The general requirements for food information derive from § 38(2) of the Food Act: the information must be truthful, comply with the requirements of legislation, and must not mislead the operator or the consumer; and from § 38(1), which refers to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The specific legal question is therefore whether, and under what conditions, a voluntary front-of-pack nutritional colour-coding system may be used so that it does not constitute misleading information, and whether the Minister will establish a legal basis for this by regulation, as § 38(4) permits.
If Nutri-Score is implemented voluntarily before a framework has been established for it, responsibility rests with the operator, because under § 21(1) of the Food Act, handling must be carried out in accordance with the Act and the requirements laid down in other legislation, and must ensure that compliant food is obtained. The provision of food information also falls within the operator’s own-check system, being included in the list of matters subject to own-checks, and therefore the producer must itself ensure that the front-of-pack labelling corresponds to the product’s actual composition. At the same time, certification is voluntary under § 37(2) of the Food Act and the costs are borne by the applicant, which reflects the legislature’s general approach: voluntary quality marks are permitted, but the costs and responsibility remain with the operator. State supervision is exercised by the law enforcement authority, which is entitled to inspect, among other things, the provision of food information, including the description of packaging and food information in the technical specification. Under § 38(4) of the Food Act, the Minister may establish, by regulation, requirements for the provision of information by food group, which is the legal route if the Government decides to create a Nutri-Score framework; the sources provided contain no case law.
If the Government does not respond to the appeal, the use of Nutri-Score will remain the responsibility of producers themselves, and the accuracy of each such label will be assessed through the prohibition on misleading information in § 38(2) and the adulteration provision in § 40. If the Government creates a framework, it will be necessary to await a regulation from the Minister responsible for the field, establishing the conditions for use of the voluntary system and the range of parties to be involved. For producers, this means that introducing the system will require updating own-check documentation, including the technical specification and the packaging description, before the label is placed on the market. For consumers, it is important that front-of-pack labelling is, in legal terms, food information, the inaccuracy of which constitutes an infringement for which the operator is responsible, not merely a recommendation.
The underlying material does not contain the text of any direct statutory provision or court decision; I rely on the facts reported in the news item and on the general principle that the legal nature of a transaction is assessed by reference to its economic substance, not its form. According to the news item, proceedings are pending before Harju County Court in a claim brought by the BaltCap infrastructure fund against the audit firm PricewaterhouseCoopers for compensation of approximately EUR 40 million. The Tax and Customs Board assesses, among other things, in the context of loan transactions, whether money actually moved, whether repayments correspond to the repayment schedule, and whether the company had the capacity to repay the loan.
The proposition reported in the news item is that a written loan agreement does not protect the owner if the economic substance of the transaction indicates otherwise, and that the movement of money through several companies’ accounts into real estate registered in the name of a family member is a pattern that an accountant must recognise.
In practice, this means that the formal correctness of loan-transaction documentation is not, in itself, a defence. The tax authority and the courts will assess the actual movement of funds, repayment capacity, and the economic logic of the transaction; accordingly, the stronger argument is now a substance-based analysis, not reliance on the written agreement. For accountants and auditors, there is a risk that failure to identify, or silence about, the scheme may give rise to liability, the contours of which may be clarified in the pending approximately EUR 40 million claim between BaltCap and PwC before Harju County Court.
The outcome of that case should be monitored, as it may define the limits of service-provider liability in comparable money-laundering schemes.
“While temporary traffic management is in force, people must be ensured access to their residence and property by their desired mode of movement, provided that such access existed before the temporary traffic management was established.”
“The person responsible for traffic management is obliged to organise: 1) the planning of temporary traffic management and its coordination with the road owner; … 4) the documentation of restrictions, prohibitions and obligations after each material change in traffic management, but not less frequently than once every 24 hours.”
During the special stages of the Saaremaa Rally, gravel road sections are closed to ordinary traffic, making it decisive for residents and emergency vehicles on what basis and within what limits access to residences is nevertheless ensured. The practical substance of the news item — closures, the access arrangements mediated by G4S security personnel, and subsequent road maintenance — is not a matter of goodwill on the part of the organisers, but compliance with the statutory requirements for temporary traffic management. Temporary traffic management established for holding a public event on a road is defined as traffic management established for a specified period, which must be unambiguous and take account of the traffic management in force on the road and of the duration and nature of the event (Requirements for Temporary Traffic Management § 2, § 3(1)). The right to close a road or restrict traffic is conferred on the road owner by § 12(1) of the Traffic Act, which permits traffic to be temporarily restricted or prohibited in order to ensure the safety of road users. The organisational framework for the event follows from § 58 and § 59(1) of the Law Enforcement Act, under which the requirements for organising an event are established by a regulation of the local authority council, and, in the case of a sporting event, from the Sports Act.
If vehicular access is not practicable during the event, the organiser must reach an agreement on access with the affected persons; the road owner may permit access to be closed only where there is an overriding public interest. The system described in the news item — notifying a G4S security officer and a decision by the competition centre to suspend the stage — is precisely the mechanism for ensuring such agreed access. Access for emergency vehicles must be ensured independently: under the Police and Border Guard Act, the police have the right to use roads also at other times, including for the performance of urgent official duties, and under § 7(5) of the Traffic Act, the owner of a private road must permit the road to be used by emergency vehicles and surveillance vehicles. Organisational responsibility is specifically allocated: the event organiser must appoint a person responsible for traffic management, who is responsible for ensuring safe traffic conditions in the event area and is obliged to intervene if a danger to life, health, property or the environment arising from traffic management becomes apparent (Requirements for Temporary Traffic Management § 4(1) and (3)). The same person organises the planning of traffic management and its coordination with the road owner, the installation of devices according to the approved drawing, monitoring in the area, and documents every material change, but not less frequently than once every 24 hours (§ 4(5)). Road users must be given advance notice of the restriction by traffic signs both on the closed road and, where necessary, on intersecting roads (§ 4(9)), and the restriction imposed must be appropriate, necessary and proportionate (§ 3(4)). If the organiser uses traffic management solutions not covered by the regulation, these must be agreed in advance with the Road Administration (§ 3(3)). The road owner or the person responsible for road maintenance is responsible for the correct placement and condition of traffic management devices (Traffic Act § 3(4)), and in the event of a conflict between the requirements of a temporary and a permanent traffic sign, the temporary sign must be followed (§ 3(3)).
For residents, this means that during a closure they have a legal entitlement to access, not merely the organiser’s friendly permission — if vehicular access is not ensured, the organiser is obliged to reach an agreement, which in practice is implemented through the decision, mediated by a G4S security officer, to suspend the stage. The road owner and the organiser bear responsibility for ensuring that the closure is signposted, documented and proportionate; if deficiencies are identified, the devices must immediately be brought into conformity. After the competition, the previous traffic management is restored or new traffic management designated by the road owner is established (§ 3(5)), and the road repair works promised by the organiser are, in this context, an additional obligation rather than a voluntary ancillary service.