Helme said that the Supreme Court hid behind procedural norms and failed to analyze the subject matter [of the complaints]. He highlighted the different position of Supreme Court Chief Justice Vilu Kõve, according to which the court should have considered whether to launch a constitutional review process to determine the constitutionality of e-voting rules.

"In other words, the chief justice also finds that there is no proper way, time or actual decision that can be challenged in order to check the most important aspect: whether the Constitution even allows e-voting to be used this way. The fact that our complaint, as well as all other complaints, challenged the fundamental functioning of e-voting and was rejected by the Supreme Court (just like in all previous cases) based on suggestions that it was filed incorrectly, at the wrong time, regarding the wrong thing or following the wrong considerations shows that we are effectively cut off from legal protection when it comes to potential e-voting violations," Helme wrote on social media.

Helme suggested that the new Riigikogu will convene based on votes that cannot be verified. "The parliament will get to work without a way for us to be in any way sure that its makeup was the will of the people."

"What does that mean? That the legitimacy of the new Riigikogu and its government will be incomplete. The Supreme Court could have remedied this deficiency, but decided not to," Helme wrote.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!