In an ideal world, interactions with the state should follow the principles of good administration, which primarily means speedy handling of matters, simple procedures and efficient resolution of issues. Yet this does not rule out decisions that ordinary citizens find unreasonable and unjust because officials have acted solely on the principle that any violation of the rules must be dealt with through formal proceedings.

Naturally, administrative authorities must act in accordance with existing law and any departure from it would constitute an arbitrary exercise of authority that could result in an administrative decision being overturned. But perhaps it is time to introduce exceptions that would give officials room to exercise discretion in situations where they currently have none?

Ignorance as a legal basis

Every lawyer knows that stupidity is not in itself punishable in a state governed by the rule of law, but ignorance can deprive a person of certain benefits, or an unintentional mistake can lead to a decision that leaves them having to pay money into state coffers. The question is not so much whether ignorance of the law should sometimes exempt a person from liability, but rather that the final outcome should always be proportionate, humane and reasonable.

It is also all too convenient for an administrative authority to say that if you do not like our decision, you can file an administrative appeal or go to court to defend your rights. But how many people actually have the energy, knowledge and resources to do so? And is it really necessary to seek a legal ruling from a court when the same issue could be resolved through a compromise with the administrative authority? Unfortunately, the administrative appeals process offers little opportunity for this.

Even if someone in a difficult situation thinks to turn to artificial intelligence for help, there is no guarantee that it will correctly understand their circumstances and wishes. Government agencies are already overwhelmed by complaints and petitions drafted using AI. Faced with such masses of machine-generated text, officials are likely to lose whatever little motivation they have left.

Now even the courts have warned the public that AI chatbots can cite academic papers, legal provisions and Supreme Court rulings that do not actually exist. Submitting a complaint containing such errors to a court can be regarded as an attempt to mislead the court and may result in a fine for the complainant. And so the person ends up getting punished yet again, even though all they wanted was a reasonable solution.

Stupidity comes at a price

Consider a case reported by Eesti Ekspress, in which a mother went to court to seek child support from the father, while the Social Insurance Board paid her child support assistance during the proceedings. It would seem logical that once the court ruled on the case and ordered the father to pay child support, he would be the one required to reimburse the state for the assistance paid in the meantime. But no. Two years later, the government agency demanded that the mother repay the assistance instead. The reason was a legal technicality: The parties had reached a settlement in court and the father had not been required to pay child support retroactively.

The case is a glaring example of injustice, even though the government agency relied on existing law in demanding repayment from the mother and the court of first instance also ruled in the state's favor. It was as though the message was that she had only herself to blame for agreeing to a settlement in court. What makes this particularly appalling is that the mother, whom the state has now declared a debtor, agreed to the settlement at the encouragement of the very court handling the child support dispute.

If the Social Insurance Board's claim against the mother is now challenged in court and every level of the judiciary upholds its legality, the mother will have to pay for her own "personal stupidity." The price of that stupidity is at least €1,960. Fair? Certainly not. Legal? Debatable.

Fortunately, the Ministry of Social Affairs has moved to address this injustice through a legislative amendment, but rewriting laws is not always the most practical way to resolve such situations. Rather, the law could provide a way to abandon such unjust decisions before they are potentially challenged in court. Administrative authorities should have that option when a decision not only appears unfair to the person affected but is genuinely unjust.

The art of what is fair and good

I have often thought about a brilliant exchange in the Estonian film "Vanad ja kobedad saavad jalad alla," in which Väino comes home to discover that his house has been demolished without any warning. The notice informing him of the demolition never reached him because he has no mailbox. Through the government official played by Peeter Oja, Väino, who has just lost his home, is confronted with a harsh truth: "As a human being, I might even feel sorry for you, but as a government official, I say: God help you!"

Estonia is, after all, small enough that it should not become the kind of distant bureaucracy where officials lose sight of the people behind the paperwork and procedures. If a violation is minor and unintentional or its consequences cause little harm, the proceedings should be allowed to end without any direct administrative consequences. Administrative authorities should not merely be permitted to exercise such discretion but should actually be required to do so.

Otherwise, we will continue to see media reports in which the state's actions appear ridiculous, people are overwhelmed with copied-and-pasted legal provisions and legislative texts and their names are added to some hypothetical government list of fools. Perhaps it is time to move beyond the "you have only yourself to blame for being stupid" mentality.

--

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