en Juridica ajakiri 2026/5 http://www.juridica.ee/ http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_5_prokuratuuri_p_hiseaduslik_asend_25_aastat_hiljem&lang=en Broadly speaking, the article focuses on the tension between the independence of the Prosecutor’s Office and democratic legitimation. Although the independence of the Prosecutor’s Office has been widely regarded as one of the key principles of the rule of law, the problem is that excessive independence undermines the oversight and accountability of the Prosecutor’s Office and, along with it, essential democratic legitimation. As with so many things in this life, the question ultimately boils down to finding a reasonable balance between the two that is appropriate for a specific time and a specific society. When analysing developments in the Prosecutor’s Office over the past 25 years, it can be safely stated that the Prosecutor’s Office is immune to external and political interference; furthermore, it has demonstrated sufficient courage in investigating suspected crimes involving more complex cases and high-ranking officials. On the other hand, there has been growing criticism regarding whether the internal oversight mechanisms within the Prosecutor’s Office are functioning effectively and whether the Prosecutor’s Office understands the responsibilities that come with the role assigned to it. It is therefore also reasonable to ask whether the balance that has been struck should be reviewed and whether the democratic legitimation of the Prosecutor’s Office should be strengthened through more robust internal oversight mechanisms – though this will inevitably come at the expense of the independence of prosecutors to some extent. At the same time, this would not be anything unheard of. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office is already operating in Estonia today, where prosecutors enjoy considerably less independence than their Estonian counterparts. 2026-07-30 19:47:00 Norman Aas http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_5_prokur_r_kas_s_distaja_v_i_m_jutaja_&lang=en This article examines the role of the prosecutor in contemporary Estonian criminal proceedings. Traditionally, the prosecutor is regarded as the public prosecutor. Less thought is given to the fact that the prosecutor plays a key role in determining whether a person can be influenced without imposing a penalty, and how to do so. Therefore, it can be said that the prosecutor is not merely a prosecutor, but rather an implementer – or influencer – of criminal policy objectives. To better understand the role of the prosecutor as an influencer of criminal policy, this article analyses the duties assigned to the prosecutor by law. In the context of influencing, the article explores the various options available to a prosecutor for terminating criminal proceedings based on considerations of expediency. The article examines, first and foremost, the provisions of §§ 201, 202, and 2031 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as expressions of the principle of prosecutorial discretion, even though the range of provisions based on this principle is much broader than those cited. 2026-07-30 19:50:12 Hendrik Rätsep, Priit Heinsoo http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_5_rmuslike_vaadetega_alaealised_s_teomenetluses_proovikivi_prokuratuurile_ja_taastavale_igusele&lang=en In recent years, isolated cases have emerged in Estonian criminal proceedings in which minors have been associated with extremist ideologies, neo-Nazi networks, or online communities promoting a violent worldview. Although such cases are statistically rare, they demonstrate that Estonia is not immune to radicalisation, including the effects of radicalisation occurring in digital environments. The ideologically motivated behaviour of minors is not merely a matter of legal classification. Procedural decisions require an understanding of the developmental capacity of young people, susceptibility to influence, and the formation of ideological motives. The Prosecutor’s Office plays a central role in such proceedings, as its role is to assess whether the constituent elements of an offence are present and to determine the appropriate measures to be applied. The absence of uniform assessment models makes it more difficult to reach well-reasoned procedural decisions, particularly where provocative behaviour, an identity crisis, and genuine radicalisation must be distinguished from one another. The article first analyses the developmental characteristics of minors and their significance in the context of radicalisation and criminal proceedings. It then analyses the role of the Prosecutor’s Office and procedural practice in handling ideologically motivated offences committed by minors under the existing legal framework. Finally, the article assesses the opportunities and limitations associated with applying restorative justice principles in cases involving radicalised minors and, drawing on international experience, identifies the key bottlenecks facing Estonia. 2026-07-30 19:58:12 Jana Laht-Ventmann, Vahur Verte http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_5_s_lestunnistus_ja_faktiliste_asjaolude_omaksv_tt_kriminaalmenetluses_3264217__&lang=en This article examines the amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure entering into force on 1 November 2026, which introduce the admission of facts into criminal proceedings. These amendments constitute a fundamental change to the regulation of criminal procedure. Whereas the existing procedural framework has so far established the conditions necessary for ascertaining the truth in both regular rules of procedure and simplified procedures, the new regulation partially abandons those conditions in regular rules of procedure. In such cases, the court is, in principle, required to rely on the facts admitted by the parties without independently verifying their accuracy. The conditions for ascertaining the truth and the assessment of evidence collected during pre-trial proceedings in accordance with the judge’s inner conviction are values that should be taken into account in the further development of the legal framework governing the admission of facts in criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the regulation on the admission of facts could be supplemented by a provision requiring the prosecutor’s office, at the conclusion of the judicial examination, to submit to the court, for its independent examination, the evidence collected during the pre-trial proceedings concerning the facts forming the subject matter of the admission, without those items of evidence being examined during the court session. During the judicial examination, the court should also have the power to reject an admission even where a fact has previously been admitted if, owing to the defendant’s denial of guilt, the court has reason to doubt the truthfulness of the admitted fact. 2026-07-30 19:59:23 Meris Sillaots http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_5_digitaalsed_t_endid_kriminaalmenetluses_autentsus_terviklikkus_ja_usaldusv_rsus&lang=en Digital technologies have expanded the evidentiary landscape in criminal proceedings, but they also introduce volatility, intangibility and scale that make traditional approaches to evidentiary scrutiny inadequate. This article explains how digital evidence can be meaningfully assessed through three minimum quality attributes – authenticity, integrity and reliability – and how these attributes should be substantiated in practice. The article reviews Estonian criminal procedure, where digital evidence lacks a dedicated statutory regime and the same digital content may appear as different evidentiary forms, affecting evidence documentation and later contestability. It then analyses recurring practical problems: incomplete documentation of who handled and processed data; limited forensic competence and non-uniform use of standards by investigators; and cross-border evidence and large datasets (e.g., ANOM/SKY ECC-type cases) where chain of custody and processing logic are opaque and automated processing risks material error. The author argues that courts’ reliance on a presumption of reliability in relation to digital evidence, can improperly shift the burden to the defence. The author further connects evidentiary transparency to fair-trial guarantees under CJEU and ECHR case law. The article concludes by outlining potential solutions. 2026-07-30 20:13:36 Simone Eelmaa http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_5_teadmuslikud_valikud_ja_infopimedus&lang=en For the Prosecutor’s Office, the prevention of money laundering and the financing of terrorism (hereinafter referred to as anti-money laundering) is an area in which the quality of procedural decisions depends directly on the data and information sources used and how they are assembled into a coherent body of evidence. In today’s information society, the challenge is no longer a lack of information, but an overabundance of it. Information overload is a situation in which the amount of available information exceeds a person’s capacity to process and understand it and apply it in decision-making. Information overload makes it more difficult to distinguish reliable sources from unreliable ones, obscures meaningful connections, and increases the risk of erroneous decisions. In the context of anti-money laundering, this means that investigators must distinguish, from a vast body of data, the information that has evidentiary or analytical value in the specific case. In that regard, the data are dispersed across various registers, financial flows, and cross-border connections. If relevant information is overlooked or not connected with other information, information blindness arises. This article focuses on three questions. First, which information sources are used in practice in anti-money laundering. Second, how information blindness manifests itself when data are abundant but the logic governing their use is inconsistent. Third, what analytical toolbox does the Prosecutor’s Office need to transform data into well-reasoned decisions. Although the discussion focuses on the field of money laundering, the challenge of managing large volumes of data is also characteristic of other complex criminal proceedings. 2026-07-30 20:16:59 Tuulikki Kantola http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_5_vastulause_arnold_sinisalu_taavi_perni_ja_karel_virksi_artiklile_teabehange_t_endina_kriminaa&lang=en The discussion began with a session entitled ‘Surveillance and Intelligence Gathering in Criminal Proceedings’ at the 2024 Estonian Lawyers’ Days. The article focuses on the principal points of disagreement that have emerged among the participants in the discussion: which categories are comparable within the triangle of ‘criminal proceedings, intelligence gathering and surveillance activities’, and what is the result of the comparison; what aspects of the regulation under the Security Authorities Act plainly and troublingly disregard the inherent overlap between surveillance activities and intelligence gathering as phenomena; whether the question of amending the Security Authorities Act can be left unraised; and whether the Security Authorities Act is compatible with the Constitution. 2026-07-30 20:22:48 Eerik Kergandberg http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_5_kuritegeliku_henduse_koosseisu_neli_kirjutatud_ja_ks_kirjutamata_element&lang=en Seven years ago, the provisions governing criminal organisations in the Penal Code were amended once again. Until the end of 2014, several special provisions, in addition to § 255 (Criminal Organisation) and § 256 (Organising a Criminal Organisation), were found in the Penal Code, which treated involvement in a criminal organisation as a qualifying element. In some cases, a criminal organisation constituted an aggravating circumstance alongside commission by a group, while in others it constituted a separate, particularly aggravating circumstance. During the revision of criminal law, it was concluded that treating a criminal organisation as a separate element of an offence in some provisions but together with commission by a group in others could result in unequal treatment. Therefore, the amendment to the Penal Code removed involvement in a criminal organisation from the Special Part as an aggravating or particularly aggravating circumstance. The characteristics of a criminal organisation have been analysed in dozens of court decisions over the past dozen years. In light of the extensive case law, the author provides an interim summary and analyses which circumstances courts have regarded as sufficient to establish the existence of a criminal organisation and when they have considered it appropriate to speak only of a more highly organised group of co-perpetrators. 2026-07-30 20:26:47 Vahur Verte http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_5_vangistustingimuste_t_hendus_v_ljaandmismenetluses_572203&lang=en When making extradition decisions, countries often face a complex dilemma: on the one hand, the obligation to cooperate internationally and ensure that perpetrators of crimes are brought to justice; on the other hand, the obligation to protect the fundamental rights of the individual. This tension becomes particularly acute in situations where extradition could result in a person being subjected to conditions of detention that threaten their right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). This article focuses on how conditions of detention – both physical living conditions (space, hygiene, fresh air, and lighting options) as well as the measures and regimes applied in prison (searches, measures of restraint, solitary confinement, etc.) – affect the assessment of whether extradition is permissible. First, based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), an overview is provided of the issues regarding detention conditions in the requesting state that may lead to a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR and result in the liability of the requesting state for a violation of the Convention. The article then analyses how objections related to detention conditions can be raised during extradition proceedings. To this end, the article examines the possibilities offered by international and supranational law, as well as the regulation of extradition proceedings in Estonia, to determine whether and how the current procedural framework allows for a substantive assessment of such objections. In the final section of the article, based on the preceding discussion, a conclusion is drawn regarding the substantive arguments and sources that can be relied upon in extradition proceedings to substantiate the claim that detention conditions in the requesting state are problematic within the meaning of Article 3 of the ECHR. 2026-07-30 20:34:00 Anneli Soo, Ksenia Žurakovskaja-Aru, Kaie Proode