A public competition for the position of Secretary General of a ministry is announced at least six months before the expiry of the incumbent Secretary General's term of service, and the competition is conducted by the top executives' selection committee, chaired by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary General of a ministry is appointed to office by the Government of the Republic after hearing the opinion of the top executives' selection committee, and the committee's final decision on the candidate's suitability is published on the Government Office website.
For the individuals and the institution concerned by the selection of the Secretary General of the Ministry of Defence, the decisive question is whether a lawful public competition and proceedings before the top executives' selection committee preceded the appointment, as this determines whether the service relationship of the appointed Secretary General endures. The news report claims that the minister sought a Secretary General on his own initiative and that the selection procedure has not been explained, which raises the question of whether the selection procedure established under subsection 22 (2) and subsection 10 (2) of the Public Service Act was followed. Under the Act, the Secretary General of a ministry is appointed to office by the Government of the Republic after hearing the opinion of the top executives' selection committee, and it is precisely this committee that conducts the public competition for the position of Secretary General of a ministry. The position of Secretary General is also, by law, excluded from the application of the transfer procedure: subsection 98 (6) of the Public Service Act excludes filling a vacant position of Secretary General of a ministry without a competition, as provided in subsections 2–5. Consequently, a Secretary General cannot be appointed by way of transfer, but only through the committee's proceedings.
The procedure is laid down in the regulation on the requirements for top executives in the public service and the procedure for their recruitment, selection, development and evaluation. A public competition is announced on the proposal of the minister by the Competence Centre for Top Executives of the Government Office, and the competition is conducted by the top executives' selection committee, chaired by the Secretary of State, whose composition is determined by the Government of the Republic. Upon conclusion of the competition, the committee submits one to three candidates in order of ranking, and the committee's final decision on a candidate's suitability is published on the website of the Government Office. If no public competition is organised for the position of Secretary General, the Competence Centre for Top Executives submits at least one candidate to the minister, but even then the minister must, before making a proposal to the Government of the Republic, submit his or her candidate to the committee for an opinion. The committee assesses the candidate's compliance with the law, Chapter 2 of the regulation and the requirements for the position, based on the competence model, and submits a written opinion to the minister. The minister may put forward a candidate himself, but his role is limited: the candidate must undergo the committee's assessment and the committee's decision must be published. The circumstance mentioned in the news report — that the minister repeatedly stated that he was seeking a Secretary General himself — is not in itself unlawful, provided that the candidate was ultimately submitted through the committee and the committee's opinion was published on the Government Office website. If, however, the committee's proceedings did not take place, the lawfulness of the appointment is contestable, since the condition in subsection 22 (2) of the Public Service Act — hearing the committee's opinion — would remain unfulfilled. The Secretary General himself is in a vulnerable position in this situation: the absence of a legal basis for the appointment may give rise to questions regarding the validity of his service relationship, although no specific procedure for revocation is provided for in the sources.
In practice, this is of the greatest significance to three parties: the appointed Secretary General, whose service relationship may be contestable; the minister and the government, who are responsible for ensuring a lawful procedure; and the public sector as a whole, since the credibility of top executive selection affects candidates' willingness to participate in competitions. If the lawfulness of the Secretary General's appointment is contested, the question is ultimately resolved by the court in administrative court proceedings. Point to monitor: the final decision of the top executives' selection committee on the suitability of the candidate for Secretary General of the Ministry of Defence is expected to be published on the Government Office website, its publication being mandatory under subsection 4 (5) of the regulation; if no such decision appears there, this will confirm the doubts raised in the news report regarding the propriety of the procedure.
"Under § 46¹(2), the population's food supply during an emergency situation is ensured to the extent necessary to satisfy basic needs."
"Under § 46⁷(1) of the Food Act, the food reserve forms part of the state's operational reserve: it comprises food, grain, and a reserve of products necessary as production inputs."
The political debate on food security highlighted here concerns rather the state's state of preparedness than consumer prices, because the legal basis for ensuring food supply has been newly codified in its revised version. The facts of the news story — the election campaign surrounding VAT issues and food basket price changes — are overshadowed by the fact that Chapter 7¹ of the Food Act on food supply entered into force on 1 October 2026 (RT I, 30.06.2026, 1). Changing the VAT rate and increasing the economic affordability of food would require a legislative amendment in the Riigikogu. Instead, § 46¹ of the Food Act provides that the measures of Chapter 7¹ of the Food Act and of the Emergency Act and National Defence Act are applied to ensure food supply. For both undertakings and residents, this means that food supply is now codified as part of crisis preparedness, rather than as merely a matter of market-based economics.
On the part of the state, supervision of compliance with food supply requirements is exercised by the Agriculture and Food Board under § 48(4¹) of the Food Act, as well as on the bases provided in the Emergency Act and National Defence Act. The continuity-of-operation requirements are established by Regulation No. 59 of the Minister of Regional Affairs and Agriculture of 21 September 2026, adopted under § 46⁵(2) of the Food Act and § 82(6) of the Emergency Act and National Defence Act. Under § 46⁷(2), the reserve is administered by the administrator of the state's operational reserve, and the minister responsible for the field may establish more precise quantities and grounds for procurement by regulation. The burden on undertakings derives from the permanent crisis tasks constitutionally designated under § 46⁵; to determine market share, data corresponding to the two preceding financial years are used as the basis. An operator's obligation is to notify the Agriculture and Food Board immediately of any circumstances that may arise affecting food safety. Consumer prices and the VAT rate thus remain within the sphere of political decision-making and tax legislation, which the sources presented do not regulate.
For undertakings, the new situation entails the risk of designation with permanent crisis tasks and the obligation to ensure compliance with national supply planning. An undertaking with a larger market share in food retail may, on the basis of the Act, receive a permanent crisis task, assessed on the basis of the annual report and state register data. For the state, it is essential that the minister establishes by regulation the quantities and composition of the food reserve, since without them the application of § 46⁷ remains formal. For consumers, the new regulation changes the possible emergency situation: food supply is ensured to the extent of basic needs, but it does not affect everyday prices or the VAT rate. The demands for lowering VAT put forward by political parties remain at the level of pre-election campaigning.
Where a local authority contributes its own financing to an investment project, the applicant has the capacity to pay the costs only if the requirements of subsection 34¹ (1) of the Local Government Financial Management Act are met and the local authority has the resources in accordance with subsections 34¹ (2) and (3) of the same Act.
The application must contain the applicant's declarations that it is aware of the grounds for reducing support, of the obligation to repay support that is recovered, and of the checks and audits of the project's implementation (GC2021_2027 § 17).
The three major cities' approach to the Ministry of Finance does not, as yet, create any legal obligation or dispute — it is a statement of interests submitted prior to the final confirmation of the plans for the 2028–2034 budget period, whose legal weight depends on how the state drafts the implementation plan and the conditions for granting support for the new period. The cities' interest lies in the fact that their role as implementers of support is already legally established, although the objectives and funding measures are still to be arranged through the ministries. The core of the news is that Pärnu, Tallinn and Tartu demand that, before priorities are definitively set, account be taken of local authorities' experience and that the reporting burden accompanying the support be reduced. Legally, such a situation is governed by the Act on the Implementation of European Union Cohesion Policy Funds and by the general conditions regulation adopted thereunder, which sets out the content of applications, the applicant's declarations and the conditions for the use of support. The practice of previous periods shows that a local authority receives support only if it satisfies the self-financing capacity requirements under subsection 34¹ of the Local Government Financial Management Act, which is, for the cities, a direct precondition for financial participation.
Under the general conditions regulation of the current period, the application must contain the applicant's declarations that it is aware of the obligations associated with receiving support, of the disclosure of data, of the grounds for reducing support, of the obligation to repay support that is recovered, and of the checks and audits to which the project will be subject (GC2021_2027 § 17; references to source [6]). This means that there is a limit to the reduction of bureaucracy demanded by the cities: the reporting and audit obligations derive both from national law and from the common provisions of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, which the implementing body cannot deliberately circumvent. Where a local authority contributes its own financing to an investment project or covers ineligible costs, the applicant has the capacity to pay such costs only if the requirements of subsection 34¹ (1) of the Local Government Financial Management Act are met and the local authority has the resources in accordance with subsections 34¹ (2) and (3) of the same Act (sources [1], [12]). The same subsections 34¹ (4)–(6) apply to the selection of objects in an investment plan, so the large investments desired by the cities — for example, student dormitories or Rail Baltic terminal connections — must already meet these financial capacity conditions at the planning stage. In addition, GC2021_2027 requires that, where the applicant is a local authority, the supported investment must contribute to achieving the area-specific objective related to the investment in the local authority's development plan or county development document (source [6], p. 15). This provision directly supports the cities' argument: investments must be reflected in development plans before funds are distributed, otherwise support cannot be obtained. The conditions for the use of support are laid down in the funding decision or funding agreement pursuant to Article 59(1) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 (source [13]), and the implementing body assesses the implementer's capacity to perform the contract before concluding it. On the audit side, the auditing body is guided by Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, internationally recognised auditing standards and European Commission guidance (source [7]); consequently, the room for simplifying reporting as the cities wish is limited by requirements at the Commission level. The sources contain no case law, so no court decisions can be cited in respect of similar disputes.
In practice, this approach matters to three parties: to the cities, because their compliance with the self-financing and development-plan requirements determines whether they can be recipients of support at all in the next period; to the Ministry of Finance, because, according to the state plan's primary allocation plan, more than half of the support is directed to the competitive economy and to security and crisis preparedness (33 and 19 per cent), while 38 per cent is allocated to rural life objectives, leaving narrower room for local authorities' investments; and to the European Commission, because the volume of approximately €6.5 billion intended for Estonia will still be shaped during the agreement on the EU's 2028–2034 budget. If the state does not simplify the reporting requirements in the conditions for the new period, the current control and audit obligations will remain in force for local authorities, constituting a direct source of cost for them.
Under section 8(2) of the RSanS, a sanction imposed by a UN Security Council resolution must, during the period of temporary implementation, be applied immediately by all natural and legal persons.
Under section 6^1(1) of the RSanS, a person is not liable for the application of a sanction if they acted in good faith and neither knew nor should have known that their activity conflicted with the measures of the establishing legislation.
The measures imposed by the United States of America against judges, prosecutors and other staff of the International Criminal Court are national sanctions that restrict those individuals' access to US services, banking and technology. For Estonian companies and public authorities, these measures do not create a direct obligation, because they are not an international sanction for which a basis for domestic implementation would exist in the International Sanctions Act (RSanS). Section 3(1) of the RSanS defines an international sanction as a foreign policy measure whose purpose is to support the preservation of peace, international security, democracy and the rule of law, or the objectives of the UN Charter and the European Union's common foreign and security policy. Unilateral measures by a single state fall outside this definition. As a matter of law, the key question becomes whether and how European states must ensure the conditions for the ICC's functioning in a situation where the Court's staff face serious practical restrictions. Under section 11(1) of the RSanS, the competent authority responsible for the field handles enquiries related to sanctions and performs the administrative acts and proceedings provided for in the implementing legislation — but that framework applies only to international sanctions in force.
The RSanS system operates on three levels: the implementing legislation is, pursuant to section 9(1) of the RSanS, an international agreement, a Council of the European Union regulation, or a law of the Republic of Estonia on the basis of which the obligations and prohibitions laid down in the establishing legislation are applied. A sanction imposed by a UN Security Council resolution is applied, pursuant to section 8(2) of the RSanS, immediately by all natural and legal persons during the period of temporary implementation. In the case of financial sanctions, the financial sanction provisions of the RSanS prohibit, among other things, the granting of loans and credit, the opening and use of accounts, securities transactions, the conclusion of insurance contracts, and investment. Persons with special obligations — including credit institutions — must establish a risk mitigation and risk management system in accordance with section 22^1 and comply with notification obligations; under section 13^3, a credit institution must report suspicions to the Tax and Customs Board and the Consumer Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority. Domestic implementation is coordinated, pursuant to section 10(1) of the RSanS, by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which monitors the imposition and amendment of sanctions and informs implementers. Where a sanction cannot be implemented on the basis of existing legislation, the Government of the Republic, on the proposal of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, establishes the implementation procedure to the necessary extent. The subject of a sanction is, under section 5, a natural or legal person designated in the establishing legislation by a general criterion or by a list. A person against whom measures have been imposed is not left without legal protection: domestically, administrative measures may be contested in an administrative court, and several Russian oligarchs have also challenged international sanctions before the Court of Justice of the EU and the European Court of Human Rights. These are not criminal-law measures — no entry is made in the punishment register; rather, they are administrative-law measures restricting rights.
The US unilateral measures against the ICC do not alter the Estonian or EU sanctions environment, but they create inequality: Court staff who also retain EU citizenship and activities in Europe face serious operational and financial restrictions in the US. In practice, this matters primarily for the financial sector and technology companies — they must distinguish between US national measures and obligations arising from EU legislation, because good-faith conduct exempts from liability under section 6^1(1) of the RSanS only where the person neither knew nor should have known that their activity conflicted with the measures of the establishing legislation. For Europe, the principal risk lies in the question of pre-trial access to Ukraine's war criminals: if ICC staff cannot use services internationally, this affects the ability to prosecute war crimes. Estonia's official position is to support the ICC, so the realistic scenarios are a political counter-reaction at the European level and possible new EU measures to protect the Court.
"The unjustified generation of noise propagating in outdoor air is prohibited" (Ambient Air Protection Act, subsection 55 (1)) — this is the norm whose breach should be assessed first in the case of wind farm noise.
"National supervision over noise propagating in outdoor air is exercised by the Health Board" (Ambient Air Protection Act, section 218) — this determines which authority takes the noise complaint into proceedings.
A resident living near the Saarde wind farm is in a situation where the Health Board's decision not to re-initiate supervisory proceedings has been subject to judicial review and has remained in force. The complainant's legal interest remains unchanged: their dissatisfaction concerns the impact of noise on health, but this issue is not resolved in court; henceforth, it depends on the authority's assessment of whether grounds for proceedings exist. Legally, the central question of the case turns on which statute and which limit value apply to the wind farm's noise at all, and whether the authority is obliged to initiate supervision. The noise, including ultra- and infrasound, standards applicable in dwellings and buildings for public use derive from subsection 16 (5) of the Public Health Act and the regulation adopted thereunder by the Minister of Social Affairs on 12 November 2025 (entering into force on 17 November 2025) [6]. In outdoor conditions, including ambient airborne noise in the vicinity of a dwelling, section 55 of the Ambient Air Protection Act applies, under subsection 55 (1) of which the unjustified generation of noise propagating in outdoor air is prohibited [2]. Pursuant to subsections 16 (1)–(3) of the Public Health Act, the level of physical hazard factors in the living environment must be safe for health, and the possessor of the source must ensure that the source complies with the requirements [1]. Supervision over noise propagating in outdoor air is exercised by the Health Board under section 218 of the Ambient Air Protection Act [7], [13]. The authority has the competence to handle a complaint concerning wind farm noise, but its exercise depends on the classification of the noise and on measurement results.
For supervisory proceedings to be re-initiated, circumstances would have had to arise giving the authority grounds to re-examine the noise level or its health impact. Where noise is assessed in the context of dwellings and buildings for public use, the regulation establishing sound pressure and ultra- and infrasound norm levels and measurement methods must be taken into account [6]. Where the noise is treated as a source of noise propagating in outdoor air, section 55 of the Ambient Air Protection Act applies, and under clause 57 (2) residential land falls into noise category II [2], [17]. The norm levels for noise propagating in outdoor air and the measurement methods are established by the minister responsible for the field by regulation under section 56 (4) of the Ambient Air Protection Act [17]. The possessor of the noise source — in this case, the wind farm operator — is responsible, pursuant to subsection 16 (3) of the Public Health Act, for ensuring that the source complies with the established requirements [1]. The regulation establishing limit values for workplace noise [5] does not apply to the present situation, as it regulates the employer's obligations towards employees, not the living environment of residents. Likewise, the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act concerning the Health Board's tasks in the field of occupational health do not concern this complaint [9]. A significant legal fact in the case is also that the version of Chapter 8 of the Ambient Air Protection Act entered into force on 1 October 2026 [2], [7].
In practical terms, the ruling means that the Health Board is not obliged to re-initiate supervisory proceedings concerning the wind farm noise, and the resident's remaining remedy is an appeal to a higher court. For the wind farm operator, liability for the source's compliance with requirements under subsection 16 (3) of the Public Health Act remains in force [1]. For the Health Board, competence under section 218 of the Ambient Air Protection Act continues to apply [7], [13]. If the resident submits a new complaint together with measurement results or new circumstances, the authority must assess whether they provide grounds for re-initiating proceedings. If the resident does not do so, the court judgment becomes final and the noise issue will no longer arise on the administrative supervision agenda. The application of regulation [6] from the beginning of 17 November 2025 means that new norm levels will be used in assessing measurement results, which makes comparisons of earlier data with the limit values inconsistent. For residents and local governments, it is significant that the basis for noise standards for dwellings and buildings for public use was established only in November 2025 [6].