Under § 18(1) ATS, recruitment and selection must be based on previously published conditions and the equal treatment of candidates; accordingly, it is precisely the prior publication of the conditions that is legally reviewable.
All candidates are notified of the results of the competition in writing within 14 calendar days following the date on which the decision is made (§ 20 ATS).
In the case of the alteration, during the course of the competition, of the conditions for the post of Deputy Secretary General of the Ministry of Climate and the case concerning the head of the Natural History Museum, what is at risk is not so much the rights of the candidates as the prior publication of the competition conditions and the equal treatment of candidates, which the Civil Service Act establishes as the basis for recruitment. The legal question is whether, and within what limits, an authority may amend the published conditions of a competition that has already been announced, and whether an adjustment that creates an advantageous position for a candidate infringes the principles of selection. This is to be resolved on the basis of § 18 and § 17 of the Civil Service Act (ATS) and the Government of the Republic regulation “Procedure for the Recruitment and Selection of Officials”. Section 18(1) ATS provides that recruitment and selection must be based on previously published conditions and on the equal treatment of candidates. The provision referring to § 17(2), subsection 2, ATS (source [3]) permits withdrawal from an announced competition or amendment of its conditions only in a justified case, with candidates being notified in writing at the earliest opportunity and, in the case of a public competition, also on the central website. For senior management posts, including a ministry’s Deputy Secretary General, the competition is additionally conducted, pursuant to § 19(4) ATS, by the Top Civil Service Excellence Centre selection committee.
The post of Deputy Secretary General is subject to the obligation under § 16(1) ATS to fill a vacant post by way of a public competition; the only exceptions are the fixed-term filling of a post without competition in a crisis situation under § 16(1¹) ATS and a possible internal competition under § 18(2), where its appropriateness can reasonably be presumed on justified grounds. Under § 17 ATS and § 2(3) of the regulation “Procedure for the Recruitment and Selection of Officials”, the competition notice must include, inter alia, a brief description of the official duties, the requirements imposed on the candidate, and the term of service. If the conditions are amended after the competition has been announced, the authority is required to notify candidates in writing and publicly; accordingly, it is precisely the content of the conditions and the justification for the amendment that constitute the legally reviewable element. Under § 19(3) ATS, an offer to take up the post may be made only to the candidate whose education, work experience, knowledge, and skills most closely meet the requirements established for the official duties. Adjusting the conditions to suit a competing candidate therefore directly concerns the assessment of compliance with those requirements. Under § 3(5) of the regulation, a candidate has the right to receive explanations and reasons from the contact person indicated in the competition notice concerning the recruitment, selection, and decisions affecting that candidate, which provides an unsuccessful candidate with a means of obtaining information to identify possible unequal treatment. No specific court judgment is identified among the sources; the only references to case law concern constitutional review of § 95 and § 15 clause 5 ATS in relation to the release of a police officer from service, which does not extend to the present case. The comparison made in the editorial, namely the amendment of the Government of the Republic Act to abolish the legal-education requirement for the State Secretary in order to appoint Keit Kasemets, illustrates the route of amending the wording of the instrument establishing the requirements, which the principle in § 18(1) ATS limits at the competition level but does not challenge at the legislative level.
In practice, this means that inconsistency with previously published conditions may provide a basis for challenging the administrative act affecting a candidate, namely the decision to appoint to the post, and that, at a minimum, an unsuccessful candidate has the right under § 3(5) of the regulation to receive reasons. The solution proposed in the editorial, fixed-term contracts and a concurrent ten-year limit on service, would require a legislative amendment that the current text of the ATS does not provide for: although the provision referring to § 131 ATS (source [11]) addresses terms of service and the announcement of a competition for the post of Deputy Secretary General at least three months before the expiry of the term of service, it contains no general ten-year limit on service. The next step is to see whether the Ministry of Climate or the supervisory authorities treat the amendment of the Deputy Secretary General notice as a justified case within the meaning of § 17(2) ATS.
The application and monitoring methodology plan must be submitted to the Environmental Board by 30 May and every five years thereafter from that date; the allocation period is five years, with the first allocation period covering 2021-2025.
The operator must submit an activity level report to the Environmental Board by 25 March of each calendar year at the latest, and that report must be verified in accordance with Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2067.
For operators in Estonia’s oil shale sector, the decisive issue is whether the system for allocating free emission allowances will be linked to an investment obligation in Europe, as this would change the substance of the existing procedure for applying for free allowances. The current legal framework in Estonia is based on the Atmospheric Air Protection Act and regulations adopted thereunder: pursuant to § 155(2) of the Atmospheric Air Protection Act, the competent minister establishes the procedure for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading, including the rules on applying for and allocating free allowances, reporting, verification, and surrender. Applications for free allowances are made in accordance with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/331, and the operator submits a verified application together with a monitoring methodology plan to the Environmental Board. The Commission’s proposal to add an investment condition to this system — investments made in Europe in return for free allowances — would amount to a new obligation for which, in the oil shale sector, there is no economically reasonable technological solution, as Minister Erkki Keldo has noted in the context of carbon capture.
For an operator that has applied for free allowances, the quantity allocated is adjusted in accordance with Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1842 to reflect changes in activity levels. A permit under the first trading system is mandatory, pursuant to § 144(2) of the Atmospheric Air Protection Act, for operators of stationary emission sources engaged in listed activities, and is issued by the Environmental Board as part of an environmental permit or integrated environmental permit. No case law appears among the sources provided, so no reference can be made to the resolution of similar disputes in a specific case. It is also worth noting separately that Estonian regulations on support measures already provide that support is not granted for activities carried out under the ETS where the projected emissions are not below the relevant benchmarks. This shows that, within the Estonian legal order, the objective of reducing emissions already exists as a criterion for support decisions.
If Member States reach an agreement by December under which free allowances are linked to an investment obligation, that amendment will have to be implemented at EU level by amending Directive 2003/87/EC and thereafter in the Member States by amending the existing regulations. For Estonian operators, this would mean that the current application process under Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/331 would be supplemented by a new condition, compliance with which would require the planning and verification of investments. If no agreement is reached, the existing regime will continue to apply, under which the quantity of free allowances is adjusted according to changes in activity levels and reporting continues under the applicable deadlines. Estonia’s demand to abolish ETS2 is a separate negotiation point, and the sources do not indicate when or in what form a decision will be made.
“Authorisation for a civil aircraft to fly at supersonic speed in Estonian airspace or in the Tallinn Flight Information Region may be granted by the minister responsible for the relevant area if the flight does not endanger the environment or the flights of other aircraft. Restrictions on supersonic flight by state aircraft shall be established by the Government of the Republic.”
“Aircraft participating in air policing may, where operationally necessary, fly at supersonic speed.”
The NATO air defence training flights taking place in Estonian airspace from 12 to 18 October constitute legally permitted activity subject to a special regime, in respect of which the general requirements of the Aviation Act apply only to a limited extent. For the reader, the key point is that low-altitude flights and sonic booms are not a breach of rules or unauthorised activity, but part of the exceptional regime for conducting air policing, the legal bases for which are § 3(2^1) of the Aviation Act and §§ 69^2–69^4 of the regulation on the use of the airspace of the Tallinn Flight Information Region. The precise legal issue is which provisions permit foreign military aircraft to conduct low-altitude flights and supersonic flights in Estonian airspace, and who coordinates such activity and under what procedure.
The full scope of the general provisions of the Aviation Act does not apply to air defence aircraft: § 3(2^1) specifies the particular provisions (including §§ 4^1, 5, 22^1, 22^2, 37^4, § 46^2(1) and (2), and Chapter 7^3) that nevertheless apply to air defence, unless otherwise provided by law or an international agreement. In relation to supersonic flight, the general rule is that authorisation for a civil aircraft is granted by the minister responsible for the relevant area (§ 5(7) of the Aviation Act), whereas restrictions on state aircraft are established by the Government of the Republic; however, air policing aircraft are subject to the special rule in § 69^4 of the regulation, which permits supersonic flight where operationally necessary without such authorisation. The entry of a foreign state aircraft into Estonian airspace is governed by Government of the Republic Regulation No. 345 of 19 December 2003 and the procedure for granting authorisation, but under § 20 of that regulation, the provisions of the chapter do not apply to aircraft of foreign armed forces participating in air policing. The organisation of flight operations involves the Transport Administration and Lennuliiklusteeninduse AS, with whom, according to the news report, the training flights have been coordinated by agreement; § 69^3 of the regulation gives air policing aircraft priority over other flights and requires air traffic services to direct other air traffic away from the danger area. For training exercises involving Defence Forces aircraft, the Ministry of Defence, in coordination with the Ministry of Climate, may apply to the Government of the Republic for the allocation of a defined part of the airspace (§ 9 of the regulation), and in allocated airspace flight operations are organised by the relevant structural unit of the Defence Forces in cooperation with air traffic services (§ 10 of the regulation). The procedure for using Estonian airspace in the surveillance and protection of air policing is established by the Commander of the Defence Forces in the airspace control plan (§ 5(5) of the Aviation Act). No case law is included among the sources.
For citizens and authorities, this means that from 12 to 18 October, low-altitude flights at a minimum altitude of 152 metres and sonic booms may occur daily between 9:00 and 22:00, and such activity is not unlawful or a basis for a complaint if the flights have been coordinated. In practice, the following is important:
If the flights comply with the law and have been agreed with the Transport Administration and Lennuliiklusteeninduse AS, the sources do not provide an individual with a legal remedy against the booms or low-altitude flights.