Professor Jaan Ginter of the University of Tartu said this week that there must be compelling reasons for official supervision of a prosecutor being put in place; reasons which, in the case of current Prosecutor General Andres Parmas, are lacking, Ginter went on.

Professor Ginter made his remarks in an interview given to Vikerraadio's "Uudis+" broadcast Friday, which follows in its entirety.

If and when do you consider it justified for a minister to tell the prosecutor general that they might consider resigning?

This is certainly possible in principle; the law indeed states that the Minister of Justice exerts official supervision over the prosecutor general.

However, all hinges on there having to be highly compelling reasons for an official supervision of this kind. But if you examine how the current controversy started to unfold, in which one prosecutor neglected to add three lines at the end of the order closing a criminal case, leading to the situation now where the chief prosecutor is the major culprit, that he did not start to penalize this prosecutor via disciplinary proceedings, then it seems that this scandal has started to be parlayed up, but without much rhyme or reason.

Prosecutor General Andres Parmas has been receiving media criticism for some time now. Since he has already applied for other positions several times during his tenure [as prosecutor general], the conclusion drawn is that he is not 100 percent committed to his current job.

Furthermore, during the course of Parmas' leadership, the prosecutor's office has been charged with problematic court proceedings. For instance, the Port of Tallinn case has been in jeopardy as a result of the change in prosecutors. There have been criticisms on the proceedings with regard to several cases which don't have that many prospects, eg. [SDE former Tartu deputy mayor] Kajar Lember's €8 haircut, things which, in the opinion of many, damage the prosecutor's office's reputation. Against the backdrop of all the public discussions, has Andres Parmas disbursed his duties as prosecutor general well, and with full dedication to the task?

Viewed from the sidelines, it appears that even the prosecutor general's transition to his new position did not go very smoothly. The current composition of the prosecutor's office did not welcome him with raucous applause. If you examine these protracted criminal cases, there are indeed causes for criticism of the institution, but you do have to look at when these criminal cases began. If you do that, you see that these highly protracted criminal cases did not start during the current chief prosecutor's term, but instead during that of their predecessor (Lavly Perling – ed.). Plus in the case of these criminal cases, one should perhaps look to the past with a reproachful gaze, rather than to the position of the current prosecutor general.

But has the current prosecutor general, Parmas, been able to start resolving these issues?

Not much has changed within the prosecutor's office. But those things that stand out, that the prosecutor will become a judge; this is a natural process (Parmas has applied for the role of judge at the second-tier circuit court – ed.) That people move between the prosecutor's office and the courts is like that in all countries.

It has also been the case in Estonia, for a very long time, that people from the prosecutor's office then become judges. You certainly can't blame the prosecutor general over that. As for the fact that the Port of Tallinn case is not making progress; well we still have to look at the earlier period. The prosecutor general must be able to manage this situation, and now. If you look at the defense, as of today, it is as if there is no longer even a criminal case to process, that it had already expired some time ago.

How then do we attempt to encapsulate the matter: Is it the case that the prosecutor's office is being poorly managed and needs a new leader, meaning [Minister of Justice] Kalle Laanet is doing the right thing, or is it rather a case of political persecution that is currently taking place?

I can't tell right now if it's political. The prosecutor general naturally holds political views; all rational people hold certain political views, but he is not at all in opposition to the current coalition. I tend to get the impression from afar that the issue here is a conflict between the police and the prosecutor's office. This Eerik Heldna [alleged irregularities with pensions continuity] criminal case, in other words. It is possible that the police wanted to see all these criminal cases fade away. But the prosecutor's office did not go down that route, and wrapped up only a few, while some cases, the criminal ones, remain, and against some quite high-ranking police officers.

Former Prosecutor General Norman Aas said yesterday that the political pressure on the current incumbent could set a dangerous precedent. What is your view on this?

It is certainly not a nice thing when, in a democratic state, the Minister of Justice starts the process of getting rid of the prosecutor general, by initiating disciplinary proceedings. I reiterate that yes, this is viable and it can sometimes be the case that it is necessary to get rid of the prosecutor general, but then again, there must also be very clear reasons for doing so.

As of now, the fact that a subordinate prosecutor inadvertently omitted three some lines in am order closing the criminal case is not the fault of the prosecutor general to the extent that it is necessary to dispose of him.

What is your opinion on an optimal solution in the situation which has developed today, or is there any possible good solution available anyway?

Because this scandal is already so prominent, I would expect the prosecutor general to be able to take on the position of circuit court chair, so this issue would be resolved without these two very important structures, from the country's perspective, not coming into conflict with each other.

--

Prosecutor's Office Act on disciplinary proceedings:

Under the terms of the relevant legislation, the Prosecutor's Office Act, any prosecutor (including the prosecutor general) may be subject to disciplinary proceedings in the case of an offense.

Disciplinary offenses consist of negligence in or inappropriate performance of official duties, or an unworthy act - a wrongful act which contradicts generally accepted standards of conduct or discredits the prosecutor or the prosecutor's office, regardless of whether such an act was committed in the course of performance of official duties or not.

Disciplinary penalties under the law include scope for a formal reprimand, a fine of up to one month's wage, a professional pay cut of up to 25 percent for up to one year, and, ultimately, dismissal from service.

--

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