Media coverage of the stories of Ukrainian nationals Taras and Dima has revealed that, instead of focusing on the unlawful actions of the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA), many people in Estonia are preoccupied with a different question: Should Estonia grant a residence permit to a Ukrainian citizen who could instead be defending their homeland's freedom?

It must be acknowledged that, while the question is understandable on a human level, it is not relevant at this moment. Behind the emotionally charged topic, developments are unfolding that are deeply concerning from the standpoint of how a democratic state should function.

Who will defend democracy?

To an Estonian citizen who supports Ukraine, the concerns of Taras and Dima might seem misplaced. It's easy to voice the opinion that the proper place for a father of three small children, working full-time in Estonia, is on the front lines. Still, we hope that Taras' story will prompt not only reflection on each individual's willingness to defend their country, but also a broader discussion about how many compromises we are prepared to make in the name of security concerns. The Estonian Human Rights Center believes that Estonia is safer when the law applies equally to everyone — including, and especially, to representatives of state authority.

Even if the Estonian public were in unanimous agreement that other countries' authorities should, if necessary, send Estonian men back to fight for Estonia — and thus Estonia ought to do the same in the case of Ukrainian citizens — it is unlikely we would agree to abandon the core principle that the Estonian state may exercise its authority only in accordance with the law.

We believe the Estonian people want to live in a country where administrative procedures, in any area and for people from any group, are conducted according to the law — and that once a legal violation has been acknowledged, it is not repeated. Our concern is that the Police and Border Guard Board, as a representative of state power, is knowingly and deliberately disregarding the principles of the rule of law.

In Estonia, residence permit procedures are governed by the Aliens Act, which outlines the legal grounds on which a residence permit may be denied. Since no such grounds exist in the case of Taras or many other Ukrainian citizens legally residing in Estonia, the Police and Border Guard Board has introduced a new approach: it simply leaves applications unreviewed. Although the law does not permit skipping substantive review of residence permit applications, the agency has admitted via ERR that it has been widely applying this practice.

Furthermore, based on the Ukrainian cases brought to the Estonian Human Rights Center, we have witnessed a troubling trend: the Police and Border Guard Board appears unsatisfied with any documentation — nothing seems sufficient to prove that this or that Ukrainian man "does not pose a threat to Estonia's national security." We see the agency repeatedly trying to restrict the rights of Ukrainian citizens in Estonia on grounds not established in law, imposing requirements within the application process that are arbitrary from a legal standpoint, yet impossible, extremely burdensome or even dangerous for applicants to meet.

It's worth noting that already in August 2024, a judge from the Tallinn Administrative Court stated that the issue of dismissing a residence permit application due to lack of a military service card was not worth pursuing in court; instead, the Police and Border Guard Board should simply acknowledge its error. While that was indeed the outcome last year, by the time Taras' case came around, the agency had apparently found new motivation to defend in court its supposed right to dismiss an application without review — despite the fact that once again, the Tallinn Administrative Court proposed resolving the dispute before a substantive hearing could take place.

Why is the PPA muddying the water?

The PPA has publicly claimed that Taras failed to submit any documents to prove his exemption from military service. This claim raises two questions. First: Why is an administrative authority — in this case, the PPA — publicly presenting false information about Taras? Second: How should we interpret the fact that the PPA initially deemed the existing information sufficient to grant him a residence permit, even if only for one year?

It is important to point out that Taras' application was only left unreviewed — effectively as a punishment — after he dared to defend his rights by challenging the shortening of his residence permit. Without offering any detailed explanation, the PPA cited a threat to Estonia's public order and national security.

A Ukrainian citizen may or may not have served in the military, but from the perspective of Estonian national security, neither a Ukrainian military service card nor a certificate of exemption from service actually answers the questions that truly affect Estonia's security. These documents neither confirm nor refute the suspicions raised in the PPA's public statements suggesting that a Ukrainian who has arrived in Estonia may have served in the armed forces of the Russian Federation.

If the PPA were genuinely using Ukrainian military documents to assess whether someone had served in the Russian military, the situation would be alarming from a security standpoint as well — because such documents contain no information about participation in the Russian army.

The suspicion that this practice is not simply the initiative of a single caseworker but stems from a broader internal agreement is based on the fact that several clients have contacted the Estonian Human Rights Center with the same concern. We have directly asked the PPA what specific condition for granting a residence permit they are trying to verify through a certificate of exemption from military service. The PPA has not provided us with any substantive response. From the Ministry of the Interior, we received only references to legal provisions — not an answer about the alleged threat to public order or national security posed by Ukrainian citizens.

Therefore, we urge the people of Estonia to reflect on how they would feel if the power to weigh an individual's rights and obligations were exercised not through a legal process defined by law, but in some backroom, beyond public scrutiny.

We hope that the deliberate arbitrariness of administrative authorities has not become normalized in Estonia, and that what we're seeing are indeed isolated mistakes made by individual PPA officials. Still, either reality is troubling, because administrative agencies bear legal responsibility for their employees' misconduct, regardless of the need to preserve public trust.

Maintaining that trust requires the courage to admit mistakes — but in this case, the PPA has yet to take that crucial step. For this reason, we can only hope that, while Taras' case continues in court, the unlawful practices applied in his case do not continue merely because the PPA has not been sufficiently reprimanded to be motivated to follow the law.

--

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