Läänemets wrote to Justice Minister Kalle Laanet (Reform) last week that the Code of Administrative Procedure and Code of Civil Procedure allow the court to close proceedings to protect internal use information, but the Code of Criminal Procedure does not.

Läänemets proposed amending the Code of Criminal Procedure to include that possibility. "We would like to point out that information intended for internal use may be highly sensitive, the disclosure of which could, inter alia, harm the external relations of the state or the exercise of the holder's statutory functions. /.../ This may be particularly relevant in the case of crimes against the state, in which case such sensitive information could very easily end up in the possession of a foreign state hostile to Estonia," the minister of the interior said.

Eesti Ekspress, which opened the issue this week, called Läänemets' actions an attack on one of the foundations of Estonian justice – public criminal trials.

The paper explains that currently a court can decide to hear a criminal case behind closed doors if there is a very urgent and justified need to do so, such as to protect state secrets, business secrets, public morals, the interests of a minor or the victim, or the administration of justice. Information marked "internal use only," on the other hand, can be virtually anything, including draft documents, memos, advice, etc. from national and local authorities.

The Ministry of the Interior disagreed with the criticism. Liisa Surva, the head of the legal department of the ministry, told ERR that they have based their proposal on the fact that disclosure of information declared for internal use could harm the state's external relations or the performance of the duties of the information holder under the law, and that currently the court cannot declare a hearing in criminal proceedings closed in order to protect this information.

"With regard to the wording of the proposed amendment, we have taken as a starting point the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure in force, which deal with the declaration of secrecy of a hearing for the protection of classified information," she said.

Surva said that the introductory part of the provision states that the court may declare a hearing closed in whole or in part.

"This means that even in a situation where the ministry's proposed amendment is taken into account – it is a proposal at the moment – and the provision is enacted as proposed, the decision to declare the hearing closed will still be at the discretion of the judge," Surva said.

Šmutov: Facts do not support Interior Ministry claims

Õhtuleht newspaper editor-in-chief Martin Šmutov sharply criticized Läänemets' proposal. "Any attempt to restrict open government or the judiciary must be watched carefully. In this case, Lauri Läänemets' staff say one thing, but the facts show another," he said.

Šmutov pointed out that while Interior Ministry officials claim to be concerned with prosecuting crimes against the state, the wording of Läänemets' proposal means that any criminal case could be closed by referring to some classified documents involved.

In November last year, ERR reported on proposals to amend the Public Information Act put forward by ministries, which revealed a widespread desire to restrict public access to information and expand the possibilities to conceal documents from interested parties.

Following media coverage of the issue, Keit Kasemets, the Undersecretary of the Ministry of Climate, who had proposed sweeping restrictive changes, sent a new letter to the Ministry of Justice asking it to disregard his previous proposals.

"Maybe Läänemets didn't fully understand what was written in the letter he signed, just like Undersecretary Keit Kasemets didn't understand last November, but that's rather doubtful," Šmutov said.

"Besides, even if it is not Läänemets' own initiative, someone let it fly and presented it to the minister. This is not the first time that there has been an attempt to make judicial deliberations closed proceedings in Estonia, which indicates a principled and extremely dangerous mindset circulating in ministries."

In response to the November discussion, Šmutov echoed journalist Tarmo Vahter's 2018 editorial, asking, "Who the hell is creating a state in Estonia where no one is allowed to know anything?"

"We will try to respond to this on an ongoing basis. Some of the names have now resurfaced, and the eagerness to impose further restrictions has temporarily backfired," Šmutov said in November. It is now fitting to say the same about Läänemets' latest proposal, Õhtuleht's editor-in-chief said yesterday.

"I don't know what to add. It's sad, this culture of secrecy," he said.

--

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