en Juridica ajakiri 2026/4 http://www.juridica.ee/ http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_4_kas_tehisarule_tuleks_anda_igussubjektsus_&lang=en The development of artificial intelligence (AI) has been exceptionally exponential in recent years. Instances already exist today where AI-based systems have caused harm to humans. In the view of the authors, it is legally difficult to attribute legal blame (for example, in terms of liability) to the manufacturer or user of the AI in situations where humans themselves no longer (fully) understand or control the operation of the AI. Arguing that AI nevertheless remains a product for which the manufacturer or user is liable creates gaps in our legal system (for example, through the concept of force majeure). Thus, the authors contend that we cannot limit ourselves to the question of who is liable for the consequences caused by AI, but must ask whether and when independent legal significance should be attributed to the actions of AI. The article analyses the arguments for and against granting legal personality to AI. However, it goes further than that. If AI were to be assigned the status of a person, what should that status be? Our current legal system, which separates people into two groups – natural and legal – may be facing a new challenge, as AI does not inherently fit into either category. Consequently, an additional question arises: does our civil law system require a reform, whereby a third, sui generis category of person – an electronic person – should be created alongside natural and legal persons, or can the aforementioned problems be resolved by other means? 2026-06-05 20:29:54 Olavi-Jüri Luik, Kadi Saluste, Mats Volberg http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_4_keelemudelitest_praktikas_vastuste_asjakohasus_usaldusv_rsus_ja_kasutaja_kontrollikoormus&lang=en This article examines how large language models (LLMs) can be used to retrieve relevant and verifiable case law and how prompt design affects the lawyer’s verification burden. The empirical part compares two popular LLMs in the context of a practical task: finding Estonian criminal procedure case law under the ‘reasonable time’ requirement and remedies for undue delay. Four prompt types were tested in January 2026: a minimal query, a contextualised query, context plus role, and a highly constrained prompt requiring full citations, links, short theses, and pinpoint quotations (or an explicit statement that such details cannot be provided reliably). Outputs were evaluated against five criteria: existence of the cited decision, substantive relevance, accuracy of paraphrases/quotations, verification burden, and hallucination indicators. Across all prompts, one model produced existing and relevant decisions in 97% of its outputs, and its paraphrases were generally consistent with the underlying texts, although linking was sometimes indirect and case summaries occasionally superficial. The other model produced existing decisions in 72% of its outputs, but only ≈28% were substantively relevant, and under strict quotation requirements it often fabricated quotations and pinpoint references and attached plausible doctrines to the wrong cases. The results suggest that stricter output constraints help only if the model can refuse to guess and can explicitly state when it cannot reliably fulfil parts of the prompt. Otherwise, format pressure may increase hallucinations. The article concludes with practical recommendations for lawyers: test different models and prompt types, treat LLM output as unverified, consider the effect of the context window, force controllable citations and links, prefer workflows that surface source text, and systematically validate every cited authority before using it in legal argument. 2026-06-05 20:38:45 Simone Eelmaa http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_4_kr_pteeritud_suhtlusele_ligip_s_m_tisklusi_kohustusliku_ja_s_steemse_eelkontrolli_kehtestamis&lang=en In recent years, a critical question has arisen in European Union digital policy on how to protect children in the online environment without compromising privacy or the functioning of encrypted communications. In the spring of 2022, the European Commission presented the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse (Child Sexual Abuse Regulation, CSAR), bringing this debate to the legislative level for the first time. Although the European Union has previously addressed encryption within the context of data protection and the confidentiality of communications, no legal framework has yet been established that mandates service providers to analyse content stored on users’ devices or to ensure systematic access to encrypted data. The draft CSAR raises, for the first time, the possibility of obliging private service providers to analyse the content of encrypted communications to detect child sexual abuse material. This article analyses the technical and legal models for accessing encrypted communications within the context of European Union and Estonian law, assessing their compatibility with the protection of fundamental rights. 2026-06-05 20:42:34 Mariann Avi-Allas, Krista Juhanson, Vahur Verte http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_4_kas_midase_puudutus_teose_ja_esituse_puutumatuse_iguse_piiritlemisest&lang=en One of the central and highly complex tasks of copyright is finding a balance between competing interests. On the one hand, copyright provides authors, performers, and producers with exclusive rights over a work, performance or other objects of rights, thereby motivating them to express themselves creatively, enrich culture, and earn an income through the exercise of these exclusive rights. On the other hand, in ensuring these rights, account must be taken of the fact that the public may have legitimate interests in using the works, driven, for example, by freedom of expression, the protection of privacy or the rights of the owner of the property. One of the essential exclusive rights of an author, which was recognised in the Berne Convention as early as 1928, is the right to the integrity of the work. This exclusive right of the author may also conflict with the interests of other persons in using the work. The article dissects the scope of protection of the right to the integrity of a work under current law, drawing comparisons with the approaches of comparative jurisdictions. Thus, the article broadly delineates the regulatory models for the right to the integrity of a work and compares them with the provisions of the Copyright Act, while also identifying the strengths and weaknesses of each model. Although the primary object of study in this article is neither economic rights nor the legal relationships between the author and the person commissioning the work, certain aspects of the right to alteration of a work are briefly addressed due to the points of convergence between certain moral and economic rights. 2026-06-06 10:41:49 Alex Luik, Daniel Moppel http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_4_kas_eestis_on_vaja_erandliku_koondumiskontrolli_ehk_call-in_i_igust_&lang=en The Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs has prepared an intention to develop the amendments to the Competition Act, the focus of which is to raise the common turnover threshold for merger control. This means that state control would be reduced, leaving smaller concentrations out of consideration. At the same time, on rapidly developing innovative markets, concentrations that fall below the legally set turnover thresholds may also turn out to be of significant importance from the point of view of free and undistorted competition. In particular, killer acquisitions, i.e. transactions in which a large company acquires a small innovative company with the aim of shutting down the latter’s innovative projects, thereby eliminating the small company as a potential competitor from the market, pose a risk. In order to keep such concentrations under control, some countries have, in addition to traditional merger control regulations based on turnover thresholds, introduced the right to call in mergers. In essence, this additional regulation gives the state the opportunity to control concentrations below the turnover rates set by law in a situation where there is reason to assume that some such concentration may nevertheless harm competition on the relevant market. The intention to develop the amendments does not, however, address the possibility of establishing such a right in Estonia. The article discusses the nature of call-in regulation and analyses whether the establishment of such a regulation is economically justified. The aim of the article is to demonstrate that the right to call in mergers may also be a necessary and appropriate tool for the Estonian economy and legal order, and that, in any case, this topic deserves a public debate, which would result in the making of appropriate legal and political decisions. 2026-06-06 10:47:22 Natalia Mäekivi http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_4_korteriomanike_kaasomandis_oleval_maal_s_idukite_parkimisest_tulenevad_leppetrahvin_uded&lang=en Many apartment associations have entered into agreements to organise motor vehicle parking on land that forms part of the shared property of the apartment ownerships (the so-called parking management contracts). Under these agreements, parking operators (as the service providers to the apartment associations) have issued contractual penalty claims against apartment owners and other persons who have allegedly entered into a contract with the operator to park their vehicle (the so-called parking contract) and have parked in violation of those terms. The courts have resolved numerous claims brought by parking operators to enforce these penalties. The typical reason for issuing a contractual penalty has been the driver’s failure to display a document proving parking permission (a parking card) in a visible place. This article analyses contractual penalty claims arising from the violation of parking contracts concluded for the use of land under the shared ownership of apartment owners, focusing primarily on the Supreme Court’s Order of 21 February 2024 in Case 2-22-100795, alongside relevant broader case law. 2026-06-06 10:51:05 Tambet Tampuu http://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2026_4_kui_kaua_ja_mis_alusel_v_ib_avaldada_makseh_ireid_kommentaar_riigikohtu_lahendile_asjas_3-23-&lang=en At the end of January, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment clarifying several contentious legal questions surrounding the publication of credit defaults in default registries. The Supreme Court dissected the legal basis for publishing default data as a form of personal data processing, established that expired claims must not, as a general rule, be recorded as active defaults, and debated whether § 10 of the current Estonian Personal Data Protection Act complies with European Union law, specifically the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Furthermore, the data subject’s right to object under Article 21 of the GDPR and the corresponding obligations of the data controller were thoroughly outlined. In addition, the judgment sets out a fundamental position on automated decision-making (Article 22 of the GDPR) within the context of Estonian law, the implications of which extend significantly beyond the operation of credit default registries. This article provides a comprehensive commentary on the aforementioned judgment. 2026-06-06 10:53:38 Karin Sein