The court would handle criminal, civil and administrative cases tied to national defense or security in crises or war, but critics say existing courts can already carry out those tasks.

MP Peeter Tali (Eesti 200) chair of the Riigikogu's National Defense Committee and one of the framers of the bill, said the court would be a permanent specialized court operating under the Constitution. "They do not necessarily have to be people who already have military training," Tali told "Aktuaalne kaamera", noting judges with the relevant training could form it, while some who have voluntarily joined the Estonian Defense Forces and serve as reserve officers already advise unit commanders during exercises, he said.

Tali said the court could hear courts martial cases involving compulsory requisitions or the treatment of prisoners of war, matters that need to be dealt with quickly under time pressure. How it will work is to be developed at second reading with the judiciary, the Ministry of Justice and University of Tartu legal scholars.

Kalle Laanet, a Reform MP and both a former justice minister and a former defense minister, said the party has no unified position. "There are differences of opinion within our party," Laanet said, noting party-mate Hanno Pevkur, defense minister until September this year and now an MP, did not support concluding the first reading at the Constitutional Committee. Pevkur has reservations too, Laanet claimed: how many judges are reserve officers, where the court would sit, and how cases would be allocated.

Meanwhile, Villu Kõve, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, disagrees with the proposal. "In my view, creating a separate court system is expensive and unreasonable" at a time of cuts in the judiciary," Kõve said.

Justice Minister Liisa Pakosta (Eesti 200) said she sees no need for the court, echoing a line she took when the proposal was first unveiled in the summer. Changes to court organization taking effect next year already provide for extensive specialization and readiness for emergencies and wartime, Pakosta said. "So this issue has actually already been resolved," the minister went on.

The Justice Ministry and the Defence Ministry both opposed the bill when it was submitted in July, with Pakosta taking the same line then as she does now, that a court reform adopted before the summer recess already requires judges specializing in national defense matters. The Defense Ministry, at a time when Pevkur was still minister, said a new court would be doing little more than playing musical chairs with judges across the various courts.

The bill was initiated by eight MPs with military backgrounds from both coalition and opposition parties, including retired generals Meelis Kiili (then of Reform, now an independent) and Alar Laneman (EKRE) retired colonel Peeter Tali (Eesti 200) and retired lieutenant colonel Leo Kunnas (formerly of EKRE, now an independent MP). Its supporters — among them former Supreme Court Chief Justice Rait Maruste and Judge Daimar Liiv — argue that military cases require specialist expertise which "ordinary" judges lack. The planned court would cover military crimes subject to courts martial, such as insubordination, desertion and revealing military secrets, as well as looting.

The bill would need to pass two more Riigikogu readings and receive presidential assent before passing into law.

NATO countries which do have existing military courts include Poland and the U.K., the latter set up a permanent, standing Court Martial by a 2006 act, replacing the former case-by-case basis on which courts martial were heard.

--

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