On the Situation of Law-enforcement Law in Estonia

The article addresses the situation of the Estonian law-enforcement legislation in relation to the ongoing legislative reform in the associated field. On 23 February 2011, the Parliament of Estonia adopted the Law Enforcement Act, on which the new Estonian law-enforcement legislation shall be based. That act has its foundation in the idea of preventive maintenance of public order, and the core threshold set for implementation of measures restricting fundamental rights is linked to the concept of (specific) threat. Selection of suitable law-enforcement legislation concepts has been accompanied by serious doubts. The author addresses several dispute-laden issues, such as the possible scope for delegation of public-law enforcement tasks to private persons, the legal-cultural suitability of a law-enforcement model that is based on the concept of threat as part of our legal order, the issue of ensuring optimal balance between repression and prevention, and the compliance of several aspects of threat-control legislation with the Constitution – especially with its principles of legal clarity and proportionality

Das estnische Ordnungsrecht als Gefahrenvorbeugungsrecht

1. juulil 2014 jõustus korrakaitseseadus, mis viis lõpule pikalt väldanud korrakaitseõiguse reformi. Üheks uue korrakaitseõiguse läbivaks jooneks on jagunemine ohutõrjeõiguseks, mis rakendub konkreetsete juba selgelt ettenähtavate ohtude ilmnemisel ja ohuennetusõiguseks, mis peab tagama ühiskonna kaitsmise selliste kahjupotentsiaalide vastu, mis on küll võimalikud, et mitte veel konkreetse ohuna realiseerunud. Käesolevas töös seadis autor endale ülesandeks uurida lähemalt ohuennetusõiguse kujunemise põhjusi, Eesti kehtiva ohuennetusõiguse dogmaatikat ning põhiseaduslikke nõudeid ja piiranguid ohuennetusõiguse arendamisele. Kaasaegses ühiskonnas, kus teaduse ja tehnika arengu ning uute kuritegevuse vormide tõttu seisame vastakuti senitundmatute sisemist rahu kahjustada võivate olukordadega, on täheldatav õiguspoliitiline püüe omistada üha suurem tähtsus kahju võimalikult varasele ärahoidmisele korrakaitseliste vahenditega, erandiks pole ka Eesti. Läbi viidud analüüsist saab järeldada, et hoolimata ühtsete õiguslike aluste loomise soovist korrakaitseseaduses on ohuennetusõigus Eestis endiselt killustatud ja ebamääraselt piiritletav õigusnormide kogum. Võib eristada vähemalt nelja ohuennetusõiguse alamvaldkonda, mille kujunemistee ja sisu üksteisest oluliselt erinevad. Põhiseaduslikust seisukohast valmistab raskusi eelkõige ohuennetusõiguse normide suur abstraktsusaste ja neid rakendavate haldusorganite väga lai kaalutlusruum. Ohuennetusõigus laiendab võrreldes ohutõrjeõigusega isikute ringi, kelle suhtes põhiõigusi riivavaid meetmeid võidakse kohaldada ja samas vähendab võimalust, et isik saab riive õiguskuulekalt käitudes ise ära hoida. Kuigi teatud ulatuses on ohuennetuslike vahendite kasutamine avaliku korra tagamisel kaasajal vältimatu, devalveerib ohuennetusliku iseloomuga põhiõigusi piiravate meetmete arvu jätkuv suurenemine ohutõrjeõiguse tähendust ja tekitab probleeme õigusriiklikest põhimõtetest kinnipidamisega.Order Protection Act came into force on 1 July 2014, which led to the completion of the reform of Estonian order protection law. One of the central features of this legal act is the division between danger aversion law, which applies to specific and clear hazards that have already occurred and danger prevention law, which must ensure the protection of society against danger potentials, which are possible, but have not yet obtained a form of concrete danger. In this work author set the task of developing a closer look on the reasons of the emerging of danger prevention law, its legal dogmatics and the constitutional bases. An analyse of this legal area is especially important, as modern societies facing scientific and criminal risks hitherto unknown, tend to use ever more danger prevention measures in early phases of potentially hazardous situations. As a result of the analyse it can be concluded that, despite of the wish to create a common legal bases for Estonian law enforcement law in Order Protection Act, the danger prevention law is still quite fragmented and vaguely definable set of legal norms. At least four sub-areas of danger prevention law can be distinquished, which differ significantly from each other in many aspects. From the constitutional aspect the major difficulty is the high level of abstraction of danger prevention norms and the resulting broad discretion of the implementing administrative bodies. Danger prevention compared to the danger aversion expands the circle of persons whos basic rights could be subject to limitations and at the same time reduces the possibility that a person can avoid the limitation by his or her law-abiding conduct. Although danger prevention is necessary to some extent in order to maintain public order in modern society, the objective tendency to increase in such measures is problematic from the rule of law point of view and needs precaution