Estonia / The Administrative Law Chamber of the Estonian Supreme Court / 3-22-1641

The Ministry of Social Affairs v. the State Shared Service Centre
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
The Administrative Law Chamber of the Estonian Supreme Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
06/04/2023
  • Estonia / The Administrative Law Chamber of the Estonian Supreme Court / 3-22-1641

    Key facts of the case:

    The State Shared Service Centre decided that 29,187 uros was not an eligible expense in the project “Raising the Quality of Alternative Care”, managed by the Ministry of Social Affairs. The Ministry complained before the Administrative Court, asking to annul the decision. The Tallinn Administrative Court by its judgment of 1 September 2022 dismissed the complaint, noting that that disputes between State entities are not within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts. The Court further referred to the position of the European Parliament that such disputes should be resolved in an administrative court. The circuit court did not satisfy the Ministry’s appeal. The Ministry then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the denial of the right of access to court is contrary to the principle of equal treatment. The legislature enable State entities to receive support from structural funds. If the Supreme Court considers that a State institution has no right to access a court in a comparable case, it should make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU on the interpretation of Article 74 (3) of Regulation 1303/2013– concretely, whether it is in accordance with the said regulation that financial correction decision is modified or annulled through supervisory control.

    Key legal question raised by the Court:

    Whether a State institution has a right to access a court against another State institution in disputes concerning financing from the structural funds?

    Outcome of the case:

    The appeal of the Ministry of Social Affairs was dismissed. State institutions have no right to access a court against other State institutions. The Ministry of Social Affairs as a State institution is not a subject of fundamental rights.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    17. The right of access to a court does arise in the present case further from Article 15 of the Constitution, Article 19 (1) of the Treaty nf the European Union or Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights , as the Ministry of Social Affairs being a state institution does not have fundamental rights. The Treaty on the European Union article 19 (1) stipulates that member states provide effective remedies necessary to implement the right to a remedy in areas covered by Union law. The CJEU highlighted that the EU Agreement article 19 (1) ‘requires Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law’. /C-685/15 Online Games et al, para. 54, see also C-824/18 A.B. et al para. 143: ‘in particular within the meaning of Charter article 47”). The CJEU further noted that the obligation imposed upon the member states by article 19 (1) of the Agreement “corresponds to the right enshrined in Charter article 47). (C-73/16 Puśkár, para 58, the same also C-682/15 Berlioz Investment Fund, para 44).

    18. It follows from the above that there is no need to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU, as there is no substantiated doubt about the interpretation and application of EU law (for instance CJEU judgment 283/81 Cilfit et al, para 21, see also C-561/19 Consorzio Italian Management, para-s 33 – 51). The applicable EU Regulation provides for the member states procedural autonomy in providing remedies and in the opinion of the collegium - in the instant case - it is not against the principles of efficiency and equality to rely on Government of the Republic Act (Vabariigi valitsuse seadus) Article 101 (3). Nor does the right to access a court in the present case arise from Article 19 of the TEU or Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    17. Kohtusse pöördumise võimalust ei kasva antud juhul välja ka PS § st 15, Euroopa Liidu lepingu (ELL) art 19 lg st 1 või EL i põhiõiguste harta art st 47, sest Sotsiaalministeerium kui riigiasutus ei ole põhiõiguste kandja. ELL art 19 lg 1 sätestab, et liikmesriigid näevad ette tulemusliku õiguskaitse tagamiseks vajaliku kaebeõiguse liidu õigusega hõlmatud valdkondades. Euroopa Kohus on rõhutanud, et ELL art 19 lg 1 kohustab „liikmesriike nägema ette just harta artikli 47 mõttes tulemusliku õiguskaitse tagamiseks vajaliku kaebeõiguse liidu õigusega hõlmatud valdkondades“. (C 685/15 Online Games jt, p 54; vt ka C 824/18 A.B. jt, p 143: „eelkõige harta artikli 47 tähenduses“) Samuti on Euroopa Kohus märkinud, et liikmesriikidele ELL art 19 lg ga 1 pandud kohustus „vastab õigusele, mida on tunnustatud harta artiklis 47“. (C 73/16 Puškár, p 58; sama ka C 682/15 Berlioz Investment Fund, p 44)

    18. Eeltoodust tulenevalt puudub vajadus Euroopa Kohtult eelotsuse küsimise järele, kuna EL i õiguse õiges tõlgendamises ja kohaldamises puudub põhjendatud kahtlus (nt Euroopa Kohtu otsus 283/81 Cilfit jt, p 21; vt ka C-561/19 Consorzio Italian Management, p d 33 51). Vaidlusalune EL i määrus näeb liikmesriikidele kaebekorra kujundamisel ette menetlusautonoomia ning kolleegiumi hinnangul ei ole VVS § 101 lg st 3 lähtumine antud juhul vastuolus ka tõhususe ega võrdväärsuse põhimõtetega. Õigust pöörduda EL i õigusest tulenevate õiguste kaitseks kohtusse ei kasva antud juhul välja ei ELL art st 19 ega EL i põhiõiguste harta art st 47.