Andra Pärsimägi
Chair of the Ethics Council, Judge of Tartu Circuit Court

 

Introduction

The Ethics Council of Judges started its activities in 2019, when on 8 February the General Assembly of Judges adopted a decision to amend the Code of Ethics of the Judges and added a new subsection “The Ethics Council of Judges” to the Code of Ethics. The Council consists of five judges elected by the General Assembly of Judges and may include emeritus judges. The term of office of a member of the Council is three years.[1]

Henn Jõks, Uno Lõhmus, Kaire Pikamäe, Meelis Eerik and Tiit Kullerkupp were elected to the first composition of the Ethics Council. As there were more candidates than seats on the new Ethics Council and two candidates received equal votes, Tiit Kullerkupp was elected by a draw of lots decided by the General Assembly of Judges.[2]

From 5 June 2025, the Ethics Council is composed of the following members: Kaupo Paal (Supreme Court, Chair of the Civil Chamber), Liivi Loide (former Chair of the Tartu District Court, Judge Emeritus), Katre Poljakova (Harju District Court, Family and Minors Department, Judge of Offences), Gerty Pau (Tartu District Court, Civil Judge) and Andra Pärsimägi (Tartu Circuit Court, Member of the Civil Chamber); the latter also serves as Chair of the Ethics Council.

Since 2022, the Ethics Council has published an annual report on its activities in the Yearbook of Estonian Courts.[3]

Ethical framework

Courts work to protect people, ensure legal peace and uphold the rule of law. The values of the judiciary are competence, trustworthiness and independence. Estonian judges adhere to the values set out in the Bangalore Principles of independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality, and competence and diligence.[4] Being guided by values helps judges do their job well and with a clear conscience, even in a situation where those who run the judiciary have no vision and there is a relentless drive to reform the system.

The judges established the Code of Ethics, bearing in mind that the mission of the judiciary is to serve the people, and recognising the high moral and legal responsibility that judges have. The Code of Ethics helps to uphold good practice in the conduct of judges and is helpful in resolving ethical dilemmas. The Code of Ethics values the judicial profession and embodies a common understanding among judges of the professional standards of a judge.

Activities of the Ethics Council

In March 2025, ethics training for new judges was held in a new format: as an Ethics Day with a focus on group discussions. The training discussed the judicial profession and values. Mental exercises were held to resolve ethical dilemmas arising in the judicial profession, including procedural issues, judges’ sideline activities, privacy restrictions, social media use and relationships with colleagues. Experiences and good ideas were exchanged on how to spot unethical behaviour, how to prevent it, and who a judge can turn to for help and support in difficult situations. Participants were 15 starting judges, supported by a few experienced judges. The discussions of the Ethics Day were guided by the Chair of the Ethics Council.

In November 2025, Finnish District Judge A. Välimäki, a member of the EU Advisory Mission (EUAM), invited the Ethics Council to participate in a discussion club in support of Ukraine. Judges from Ukraine and the European Union member states take part in the discussion club where they discuss the judiciary, the administration of justice, the rule of law, judicial ethics and the possibilities for judicial cooperation. The aim of the discussion club is to strengthen the ties between Ukrainian judges and their colleagues elsewhere in Europe, and to share the values and professional standards of judges from other European countries. Katre Poljakova, member of the Ethics Council, joined the discussion club.

In 2025, seven inquiries were submitted to the Council. The Council met in full for three sessions, and the written procedure was also used to draft opinions. The Council has the discretion to decide whether to limit itself to providing a personal response or to draft an opinion or recommendation on the appeal. Of the latter, the Council recommendation has a more general scope under the Code of Ethics, but, like an opinion, the recommendation does not give binding or mandatory instructions (section 34 of the Code of Ethics).

In particular, a judge may ask the Council for its opinion on a matter which concerns the judge. However, in several inquiries submitted to the Ethics Council in 2025, the inquirer did not seek the Council’s opinion on a matter concerning them (Opinions Nos 4/2025 and 5/2025). Although the questions raised may have a more general impact, the Council did not make any recommendations on how to act in the situations raised in the questions, but limited itself to expressing its position in the Council’s opinion.

The Council is of the opinion that the Code of Ethics does not prohibit a person who is not a judge from appealing to the Ethics Council. In 2025, the Council was approached by a person who was involved in legal proceedings at the same time. In pending cases, the Council does not give an opinion, but forwards a statement drawing attention to the misconduct or other breach of ethical standards of a judge to the chair of the court where the judge is serving, for verification of the facts and/or initiation of disciplinary proceedings.[5]

In 2025, the Council drafted 5 opinions, which are published on the website of the Supreme Court.

  • The Ethics Council of Judges Opinion No 1/2025

Is it consistent with the requirements of judicial ethics for a judge in a civil case to clearly state to the parties how they intend to adjudicate the dispute before making a decision?

The opinion was drafted in January 2025, while the Yearbook of Estonian Courts 2024 was still being prepared, and as it was an important issue, it has already been included in the 2024 annual summary of the Ethics Council.[6]

  • The Ethics Council of Judges Opinion No 2/2025[7]

Is it consistent with the requirements of judicial ethics for a judge to be the majority or sole shareholder of a private limited company? How should subsection 49(2(3)) of the Courts Act be interpreted?

The Ethics Council considered the question raised in the context of the interaction of laws (the Courts Act and the Commercial Code) and the value principles of the Code of Ethics.

In the opinion of the Ethics Council, having a sole or majority shareholding may have the same impact on the performance of a judge’s duties as working outside their office. The Ethics Council recommended that the judge inform the chair of the court of their sole or majority shareholding in each individual case and take their views into account.

The Courts Act (subsection 49(2(3)) does not prohibit a judge from being the majority or sole shareholder of a private limited company. In the case of a general partnership and a limited partnership, the shareholder participates in the management of the partnership, i.e. the shareholders are members of a body that replaces the management board. Therefore, a judge cannot be a shareholder in a general and limited partnership. Having the rights and obligations of a sole or majority shareholder can create a conflict of interests and a conflict of roles for the judge. The Ethics Council was of the opinion that, although the law does not prohibit a judge from being a majority or sole shareholder in a private limited company, the judge should consider the following:
– whether being the majority or sole shareholder of a private limited company cannot, even seemingly, jeopardise the reputation of the integrity and independence of the judiciary;
– whether the private limited company complies with good conduct and honest business practices;
– whether the rights and obligations arising from the sole or majority shareholding interfere with the diligent and proper performance of the judge’s duties or give rise to a risk of corruption or conflict of interest.

  • The Ethics Council of Judges Opinion No 3/2025[8]

Is it allowed for a judge to run as an independent candidate in local government (KOV) council and Riigikogu elections? Is it permissible for a judge to be a non-partisan candidate for mayor under a political party at the time of the local elections and only decide after receiving a proposal to become mayor after the local elections whether to accept the proposal and resign from their judicial position or to continue as a judge and not accept the proposal?

The Ethics Council of Judges was of the opinion that it was not in accordance with the ethical standards of judges for a judge to stand as a candidate in local government and Riigikogu elections, or to agree to stand as a candidate for mayor of a political party or an electoral alliance. The Courts Act stipulates which positions a judge may apply for and in which cases a judge’s powers are suspended. The legislator has not regulated candidacy for the Riigikogu or local government bodies. The court must operate independently of the legislative and executive branches. Standing as a candidate in local government‑ or Riigikogu elections is by its nature an active political activity that requires, among other things, the expression of one’s political views and attitudes, even by a candidate who does not belong to a political party or an electoral alliance. Such activities pose a risk of conflict of interest and may start to interfere with the judge’s activities in the administration of justice. A judge shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to a reasonable observer to be free therefrom (Bangalore Principle 1.3).

  • The Ethics Council of Judges Opinion No 4/2025[9]

If a court employee (e.g. a law clerk or a court clerk) is a party or a participant to the proceedings in a civil dispute, would it be right that:
– the dispute is resolved by a judge of the same courthouse to whose procedural group the employee does not belong to (provided that the judge does not have a close personal connection with the employee);
– the dispute is resolved by a judge of another courthouse of the same court;
– the dispute is transferred to another court for a resolution under the procedure of change of jurisdiction?

The Ethics Council does not have the power to give definitive guidance on how to act in the event of the question raised, but the last of the options suggested – transferring the matter to another court – must be specifically justified.

The fact that the judge and the party to the proceedings work in the same court is not a ground for withdrawal expressly mentioned in the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, according to the Code of Civil Procedure, the consideration of removal can be based on any other circumstance that gives reason to doubt the impartiality of the judge (subsection 23(7) of the Code of Civil Procedure). The Code of Ethics may be helpful in providing substance to other circumstances.

In a situation where the court employee is a party to the proceedings in a civil case, there can be no question of whether the judge is in fact approaching the resolution of the case impartially. An ethical judge is so professional that they cannot be influenced in their decision by the fact that they have to resolve the case of a court clerk, law clerk or referent of another procedural group working in the same courthouse. Based on the above, the Ethics Council found that merely working in the same courthouse is not a basis for a conflict of interest, so a situation where the personal interests of the employee are in conflict with a judge’s duty to resolve a case impartially should not arise.

However, from a judicial perspective, a conflict of interest also includes circumstances in which an informed and reasonable bystander would (or could) reasonably perceive a conflict. If the court employee is a party to the proceedings, all the circumstances must be taken into account, including the size of the court and courthouse, location, length of service, etc.

In the event of the judge’s removal, arbitrary reallocation of the case is not appropriate, but the general principles of case allocation must be followed. Where there is an actual conflict of interest or other grounds for removal, there is no need to inform the parties to the proceedings in advance. In a situation where a judge may appear to be biased, i.e. where an informed and reasonable bystander may, due to additional circumstances, have a reasonable apprehension that a judge may be biased because of the fact that the judge is hearing a civil case against a colleague, all parties to the proceeding should be informed as soon as possible of the position and subordination relationship of the judge and party to the proceedings and, if necessary, discuss with the parties to the proceedings whether there are grounds to remove the judge.

  • The Ethics Council of Judges Opinion No 5/2025[10]

Can a judge receive remuneration for performing the duties of a member of the Ethics Tribunal of the Estonian Bar Association?

In the view of the Ethics Council, the answer to this question must be based on the premise that, although subsection 49(1) of the Courts Act imposes broad professional restrictions on judges, the obligations of judges derive not only from that provision but also from other provisions of law. Thus, subsection 38(3(8)) of the Courts Act prescribes the obligation that some judges must be members of the Ethics Tribunal of the Estonian Bar Association. Being a member of the Ethics Tribunal of the Estonian Bar Association means assuming all the rights and obligations of a member of the Ethics Tribunal. Thus, if the members of the Ethics Tribunal of the Estonian Bar Association are paid remuneration, it is not contrary to the ethical rules if the corresponding remuneration is also paid to a member of the Ethics Tribunal who is a judge.

A similar request was submitted to the Ethics Council on the admissibility of the payment of remuneration to a member of the Admissions and Aptitude Assessment Committee of the Bar Association. The Council did not take a position, explaining that, by analogy, the Council’s opinion 5/2025 can be extended to all the elected bodies mentioned in subsection 38(3(8)) of the Courts Act[11], provided that all members are treated equally.

____________________________

[1] Code of Ethics of Judges p. 33-40. – https://www.riigikohus.ee/sites/default/files/elfinder/Lisa_5_kohtunike_t%C3%A4iskogu%20otsus.pdf (22.01.2026).
[2] The voting minutes are available on the website of the Supreme Court: https://www.riigikohus.ee/sites/default/files/elfinder/Lisa_nr_1_h%C3%A4%C3%A4letusprotokoll.pdf (22.01.2026).
[3] https://aastaraamat.riigikohus.ee/category/aasta-2022/iv-aasta-kokkuvotted-2022/ (22.01.2026).
[4] https://www.riigikohus.ee/et/kohtunike-omavalitsuskogud/kohtunike-eetikanoukogu (22.01.2026).
[5] See also https://aastaraamat.riigikohus.ee/eetikanoukogu-2024-aastal/ (22.01.2026).
[6] Same.
[7] See more at https://www.riigikohus.ee/sites/default/files/3.%20V%C3%A4lisveebi%20sisu%20materjalid/Eetikan%C3%B5ukogu/KOHTUNIKE%20EETIKAN%C3%95UKOGU%20ARVAMUS%20nr%202.pdf (22.01.2026).
[8] See more at https://www.riigikohus.ee/sites/default/files/3.%20V%C3%A4lisveebi%20sisu%20materjalid/Eetikan%C3%B5ukogu/KOHTUNIKE%20EETIKAN%C3%95UKOGU%20ARVAMUS%20nr%203%202025.pdf (22.01.2026).
[9] See more at https://www.riigikohus.ee/sites/default/files/3.%20V%C3%A4lisveebi%20sisu%20materjalid/Eetikan%C3%B5ukogu/Kohtunike_eetikanoukogu_arvamus_nr_4_2025.pdf (22.01.2026).
[10] See more at https://www.riigikohus.ee/sites/default/files/3.%20V%C3%A4lisveebi%20sisu%20materjalid/Eetikan%C3%B5ukogu/Kohtunike%20eetikan%C3%B5ukogu%20arvamus%20nr%205%20(December%202025).pdf (22.01.2026).
[11] Pursuant to subsection 38(3(8)) of the Courts Act, the Court en banc elects the members and alternate members of the Ethics Tribunal and the Admissions and Aptitude Assessment Committee of the Estonian Bar Association, the Prosecutors’ Competition and Disciplinary Committee, the Court of Honour of the Chamber of Notaries and the Methodology Committee of the Chamber of Enforcement Agents and Trustees in Bankruptcy.