Estonia / Supreme Court / 5-20-10

Riigikogu, Chancellor of Justice, Minister of Justice, Minister of the Interior, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Police and Border Guard Board, Rostyslav Polishchuk, Mykola Ishchenko, Tulundusühistu Loreta, Hobulane OÜ
Policy area
Borders and Visa
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Supreme Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
20/05/2021
  • Estonia / Supreme Court / 5-20-10

    Key facts of the case: 

    Two Ukrainian citizens arrived in Estonia on 21 July 2020 for seasonal work, they were tested for COVID-19 and brought to their employers to quarantine. Their test results were negative. On 30 July 2020, the Police and Border Guard Board (PBGB) carried out inspections at the employers of the applicants. The PBGB found that the quarantined workers disregarded the isolation requirements and performed their work duties. The PBGB terminated the stay of the applicants in Estonia prematurely on the basis of § 52 (1) 7) and (4) 2) of the Aliens Act (Välismaalaste seadus). The applicants appealed the decision to the PBGB, the PBGB rejected the appeal. The applicants and their employers then lodged an appeal with Tartu Administrative Court. The Court returned the appeal, explaining that according to the law – § 10010 (1), § 10013 (2), § 10018 of the Aliens Act – decisions on premature termination of visa-free stay cannot be challenged in court, but only by submitting an appeal to the PBGB and then submitting an appeal to the Ministry of the Interior for a second review. The applicants lodged an appeal with Tartu Circuit Court seeking the annulment of the ruling of the Administrative Court. The Circuit Court granted the appeal and considered the Aliens Act § 10018 in conjunction with § 10010 (1) and § 10013 (2) to be in conflict with the Constitution insofar as it precludes contesting premature termination of stay in court, and forwarded the case to the Constitutional Review Chamber of the Supreme Court.

     

    Key legal question raised by the Court: 

    The Supreme Court focused in its analysis on whether the possibility of challenging an infringement of the right to a visa-free stay is a matter falling within the scope of EU law; whether the review of the constitutionality of the disputed provisions is permissible; and finally, whether the provisions are in conflict with the Constitution.

     

    Outcome of the case: 

    The Supreme Court found that the right of third-country nationals to enter and stay in Estonia without a visa follows from the EU Regulation 2018/1806. Thus, guaranteeing a third-country national the right to appeal against premature termination of visa-free stay is a matter of protecting a subjective right under EU law. However, the fact that the disputed provisions fall within the scope of EU law does not mean that the review of their constitutionality by Estonian courts is precluded. The Court found that the review of the constitutionality of the restrictions on the applicants' right to appeal does not in any way undermine the level of protection guaranteed by the Charter. Next, the Court assessed the constitutionality of the contested norms. The Estonian Constitution § 15 (1) provides that everyone whose rights and freedoms are violated has the right of recourse to the courts. The Supreme Court explained that complete exclusion of the right to go to court is a serious violation of a person's rights, which requires very compelling reasons. The Court found that no such reasons exist in the current circumstances, making the restriction disproportionate. The Supreme Court declared § 10010 (1), § 10013 (2) and § 10018 of the Aliens Act unconstitutional and invalid insofar as they preclude filing an appeal with an administrative court. The Court clarified that upon the entry into force of this decision, a person has the freedom to either choose to follow the previous appeal procedure and then go to court, or to submit an appeal to an administrative court immediately to resolve the dispute.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    35. Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 19 (1) of the TEU, Member States shall provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law. According to the first sentence of Article 51 (1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the provisions of the Charter are intended to apply to Member States only when they are implementing Union law. Article 47 (1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights states that everyone has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in the event of a violation of rights and freedoms guaranteed by EU law.

    (...)

    38. As stated above, under Article 47 (1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, anyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in that Article. This provision of the Charter is sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional to have direct effect on the situation of challenging the early termination of a visa-free stay (compare, for example, the judgments of the CJEU in Cases C-414/16 Egenberger, paragraph 78; C-556/17: Torubarov, paragraph 56). The European Court of Justice has held that, in the absence of EU rules in some areas of EU law, the legal system of each Member State must, in accordance with the principle of procedural autonomy, lay down procedural rules for access to justice in order to guarantee individuals their rights. In doing so, the Member State must bear in mind that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are observed: that they are no less favourable than rules governing similar situations falling within national law or that they would not make the exercise of rights guaranteed by EU law virtually impossible or excessively difficult (C-403/16: Soufiane El Hassani, paragraphs 26-27).

    39. It follows from the foregoing that the possibility of challenging an infringement of the right to a visa-free stay is a matter falling within the scope of EU law within the meaning of the EU Treaty and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Resolving these situations is left to the discretion of the Member States, provided that the objectives and principles set out in EU law are respected.

    40. The fact that the disputed norms fall within the scope of EU law does not mean that the review of their constitutionality by Estonian courts is precluded. The European Court of Justice has held that where a national court is called upon to review the compatibility of a national rule or measure with fundamental rights, implemented within the meaning of Article 51 (1) of the EU Charter, but in a situation where the Member State is not fully governed by Union law, national authorities and courts remain free to apply national standards of protection of fundamental rights, provided that the level of protection provided for by the Charter, as interpreted by the European Court of Justice, and the primacy, unity and effectiveness of EU law are not thereby compromised (see Case C-399/11 Melloni, paragraph 60; Case C-617/10 Åkerberg Fransson, paragraph 29).

     (...)

    42. In the present case, the Chamber does not consider that the review of the constitutionality of the restrictions on the applicants' right to appeal could jeopardise the primacy, coherence or effectiveness of EU law or otherwise undermine the level of protection guaranteed by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The EU legislator has clearly decided against more precise regulation of the issue at stake. Estonian laws, including the disputed provisions, must be in conformity with both EU law and the Constitution, and there is no reason not to assess their constitutionality on the sole ground that they may also be in conflict with EU law. Among other things, it is important that conducting constitutional review court proceedings can ensure more effective protection of the rights and freedoms of persons arising from both EU law and Estonian law, because the Supreme Court has the power to declare the legal provision invalid (Constitution § 15 (2), PSJKS § 15 (1) p. 2) and to remove the effect of this provision from the legal framework completely. On the other hand, if a provision of Estonian law is in conflict with EU law, the court has no possibility to declare this provision invalid, and the provision must be disapplied only in a specific dispute (see, for example, the judgment of the Supreme Court of 19 April 2005 in case no. 3-4-1-1-05 49), noting it in the court decision (§ 162 (2) of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure).

     (...)

    60. The European Court of Justice has held that Article 32 (3) of the EU Visa Code in conjunction with Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as requiring Member States to provide for a procedure for challenging decisions refusing visas, the detailed rules of which must be established by the Member State, following the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. In that regard, the requirements of equivalence and effectiveness imply a general obligation on the Member States to ensure judicial protection of individuals' rights under European Union law (see paragraph 38 of the judgment; Case C-403/16 Soufiane El Hassani, paragraphs 26 to 30 and 42 and the case-law cited).

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    35. EL lepingu artikli 19 lõike 1 lause 2 kohaselt näevad liikmesriigid ette tulemusliku õiguskaitse tagamiseks vajaliku kaebeõiguse EL-i õigusega hõlmatud valdkondades. EL põhiõiguste harta artikli 51 lõike 1 lause 1 järgi on harta sätted ette nähtud liikmesriikidele kohaldamiseks üksnes liidu õiguse kohaldamise korral. EL põhiõiguste harta artikli 47 lõige 1 sätestab, et igaühel on õigus tõhusale õiguskaitsevahendile kohtus, kui rikutakse tema EL õigusega tagatud õigusi või vabadusi.

    (...)

    38. Nagu öeldud, EL põhiõiguste harta artikli 47 lõike 1 kohaselt on igaühel, kelle liidu õigusega tagatud õigusi või vabadusi rikutakse, selles artiklis kehtestatud tingimuste kohaselt õigus tõhusale õiguskaitsevahendile kohtus. Harta nimetatud säte on piisavalt selge, täpne ja tingimusteta, et sellest tuleneks vahetu õigusmõju ka viisavaba viibimisõiguse ennetähtaegse lõpetamise vaidlustamise olukorrale (võrdle nt Euroopa Kohtu otsused asjades C-414/16: Egenberger, punkt 78; C-556/17: Torubarov, punkt 56). Euroopa Kohus on leidnud, et olukorras, kus mõnes EL õiguse valdkonnas puuduvad EL õigusnormid, tuleb iga liikmesriigi õiguskorras menetlusautonoomia põhimõttest tulenevalt kehtestada kohtusse pöördumist reguleerivad menetluseeskirjad, mille eesmärk on tagada õigussubjektidele nende õigused. Seejuures tuleb liikmesriigil silmas pidada, et järgitakse võrdväärsuse ja tõhususe põhimõtteid: et need ei oleks vähem soodsad, kui riigisisese õiguse kohaldamisalasse kuuluvaid sarnaseid olukordi reguleerivad eeskirjad ega muudaks EL õigusega antud õiguste teostamist tegelikult võimatuks või ülemäära keeruliseks (C-403/16: Soufiane El Hassani, punktid 26–27).

    39. Eeltoodust tuleneb, et viisavaba viibimisõiguse kui EL õigusest tuleva õiguse riive vaidlustamise võimalus on EL-i õiguse kohaldamisalasse kuuluv küsimus EL lepingu ja EL põhiõiguste harta mõttes. Selle lahendamisel on liikmesriikidele jäetud menetlusautonoomia eeldusel, et järgitakse EL õigusega seatud eesmärke ja põhimõtteid.

    40. Vaidlusaluste normide kuulumine EL-i õiguse kohaldamisalasse ei tähenda seda, et nende põhiseaduspärasuse kontrollimine Eesti kohtute poolt on välistatud. Euroopa Kohus on asunud seisukohale, et kui liikmesriigi kohtul palutakse kontrollida niisuguse riigisisese õigusnormi või meetme kooskõla põhiõigustega, millega – olukorras, kus liikmesriigi tegevus ei ole täiel määral reguleeritud liidu õigusega – rakendatakse seda õigust EL põhiõiguste harta artikli 51 lõike 1 tähenduses, on riigi ametiasutustel ja kohtutel õigus kohaldada põhiõiguste kaitse riigisiseseid standardeid, tingimusel, et see ei kahjusta hartas ette nähtud kaitse taset, nii nagu seda on tõlgendanud Euroopa Kohus, ega liidu õiguse ülimuslikkust, ühtsust ja tõhusust (vt C-399/11: Melloni, punkt 60; C-617/10: Åkerberg Fransson, punkt 29).

    (...) 

    42. Kolleegium ei näe praeguses asjas, et kaebajate kohtukaebeõiguse kitsenduste põhiseaduspärasuse kontrollimine võiks seada ohtu EL õiguse ülimuslikkuse, ühtsuse ja tõhususe või kahjustaks muul viisil EL põhiõiguste hartaga tagatud kaitse taset. EL seadusandja on selgelt loobunud vaidlusaluse küsimuse täpsemast reguleerimisest. Eesti seadused, sh vaidlusalused normid, peavad olema kooskõlas nii EL-i õigusega kui ka põhiseadusega ning ei ole põhjust jätta nende põhiseaduspärasust hindamata ainuüksi põhjusel, et need võivad olla ühtlasi vastuolus EL-i õigusega. Muuhulgas on oluline, et põhiseaduslikkuse järelevalve kohtumenetluse läbiviimine võib tagada nii EL-i õigusest kui ka Eesti õigusest tulenevate isikute õiguste ja vabaduste tõhusama kaitsmise, sest hinnates normi põhiseaduspärasust on Riigikohtul volitus tunnistada põhiseadusevastane õigusnorm kehtetuks (PS § 152 lõige 2, PSJKS § 15 lõige 1 punkt 2) ja kõrvaldada õiguskorrast selle normi toime täielikult. Seevastu Eesti õiguse normi vastuolu korral EL-i õigusega puudub kohtul võimalus selle normi kehtetuks tunnistamiseks, ning norm tuleb jätta üksnes konkreetses vaidluses kohaldamata (vt nt Riigikohtu üldkogu 19. aprilli 2005. a otsus kohtuasjas nr 3-4-1-1-05 punkt 49), tehes selle kohta märke kohtulahendi resolutsioonis (HKMS § 162 lg 2).

    (...)

    60. Euroopa Kohus on leidnud, et EL-i viisaeeskirja artikli 32 lõiget 3 koosmõjus EL põhiõiguste harta artikliga 47 tuleb tõlgendada nii, et see kohustab liikmesriike ette nägema viisa andmisest keeldumise otsuste vaidlustamise menetluse, mille üksikasjalikud eeskirjad tuleb liikmesriigil menetlusautonoomiat rakendades kehtestada, järgides võrdväärsuse ja tõhususe põhimõtteid. Seejuures tähendavad võrdväärsuse ja tõhususe nõuded liikmesriikide üldist kohustust tagada isikutele liidu õigusest tulenevate õiguste kohtulik kaitse (vt otsuse punkt 38 ja Euroopa Kohtu otsus asjas C-403/16: Soufiane El Hassani, punktid 26–30 ja 42 ning seal viidatud Euroopa Kohtu praktika).