According to the charges, the mayor of Vihula Municipality authorized Küllike Namm to represent the municipality and provide legal services to it for at least the period from August 17, 2016, to September 8, 2017. This mandate, based on a decision by the Vihula municipal council, related to drafting positions on behalf of the municipality during proceedings for the detailed spatial plan of Käsmu Harbor — which sought to amend Vihula's comprehensive plan — and representing the municipality in the county governor's oversight process.

Prosecutors allege that the Vihula mayor verbally authorized Namm to perform a public function in her professional capacity as a legal service provider and representative of the municipality, in accordance with the Local Government Organization Act and Vihula's statutes.

According to the Tartu Circuit Court, the chain of events shows that Namm understood she was acting as a representative of Vihula Municipality and was aware that there was no formal legal services agreement in place.

The charges also state that Namm has served on the management board of the NGO Käsmu Majaka Sadam since May 22, 2012. Therefore, in the course of the Käsmu Harbor detailed plan proceedings, she simultaneously pursued the interests of the NGO Käsmu Majaka Sadam — an interested party — while formally acting as a legal advisor and representative of the municipality. In doing so, she knowingly violated procedural restrictions established by the Anti-Corruption Act to a particularly large extent.

On August 24, 2023, the Viru County Court acquitted Namm of large-scale violation of procedural restrictions and ordered the Republic of Estonia to pay her €40,484.78 in legal expenses.

The Tartu Circuit Court's criminal panel decided to overturn that ruling in its entirety, citing an incorrect application of substantive law, and found Namm guilty of violating procedural restrictions to a particularly large extent.

The circuit court said the key issue in the case was whether Namm qualified as an official during the Käsmu Harbor detailed plan process, which involved amending the municipality's comprehensive plan. Based on the evidence, the court found that the mayor had indeed verbally authorized Namm to represent the municipality in these proceedings.

The court also noted that municipal employees responsible for handling related matters failed to carry out the necessary work themselves, meaning someone else had to do it. This further supported the conclusion that Namm had been authorized to act on the municipality's behalf, according to the court's statement.

The criminal panel emphasized that the absence of a formal written client contract does not exempt an individual from criminal liability. Otherwise, a public official could evade responsibility simply by failing to execute a proper authorization.

The court also found that Namm had, in practice, carried out the assignment given to her by the mayor — advising the municipality on the detailed planning of Käsmu Harbor, including relaying documents and being well-informed about their contents. However, the panel assessed that her involvement in passing along documents did not amount to materially directing the course of the planning process.

The criminal panel ultimately found Namm guilty of using her legal expertise and authority during the county governor's oversight proceedings to steer the detailed plan in favor of the NGO Käsmu Majaka Sadam. This resulted in the Lääne-Viru County Government approving the plan. Namm also violated provisions of the Anti-Corruption Act by acting in the interest of an NGO with which she was affiliated and of which she was fully aware as a board member.

In assessing the severity of the offense, the panel considered that Namm's role in influencing the detailed planning process for Käsmu Harbor was minor, limited to attending a single oversight meeting as the municipality's representative. However, the violation carried significant implications for the exercise of public authority. Approval of the detailed plan would have allowed the NGO to build a harbor with a planned investment of €1.5 million — more than three times the threshold for what is considered a particularly large financial impact. The panel also took into account that the offense occurred nearly eight years ago and that Namm had no prior criminal or misdemeanor convictions.

The ruling has not yet entered into force.

--

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