Children and young people

Estonia ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on 26 September 1991. Under Article 4 of the Convention, States Parties must undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for protection of the rights of children laid down in the Convention.

In Estonia, the function of the independent ombudsman for children is carried out by the Chancellor of Justice. The task of the Ombudsman for Children and her officials is to ensure that all the authorities, institutions and persons whose decisions affect the life and well-being of children respect the rights of children and proceed from the best interests of the child.

Parental care

During the previous reporting period, the Chancellor was contacted by several parents seeking an explanation of the rights of parents in relation to each other as well as to their children. The parents complained that documents transmitted in enforcement proceedings and in the expedited procedure in matters of payment order are too complicated. This demonstrates that in family law matters people need information that is clearly presented and to the point as well as procedural documents in plain language. Child protection officials in cities and rural municipalities must also provide explanations to parents.

Equal rights and responsibility of parents

Parents living separately from their child are mostly concerned that they do not see the child often enough and that they do not share equal rights with the other parent in respect of the child. Under the Family Law Act, parents have equal rights and duties in respect of their children. Parents must exercise the joint right to custody in respect of the child, perform the custodial obligation on their own responsibility and by consensus with a view to the well-being of the child.

These principles also apply in the event of the parents’ separation. In that case the parents must agree on the right of access to the child for the parent living separately. This is the duty of the parents, not of the state. The child is entitled to maintain relations with both parents and the separated parent has the right and duty to communicate with the child. If parents are unable to agree on custody of the child or access to the child, the dispute is resolved by a court under the procedure laid down by law. The court must take into account the specific circumstances and make a decision that is in the best interests of the child. The interests of the child may require a decision that does not ensure equal rights for both parents in respect of the child.

When resolving disputes between parents, the focus should be on prevention as well as intermediation of agreements concerning the child. This is also affirmed by the experience of other countries that have tried to reform the procedure for resolving family law disputes. In the Nordic countries, including Sweden, which is often cited as an example, the main attention is indeed paid to achieving mutual agreement between the parents. A feasible solution cannot rely on state coercion but, first and foremost, on the free will of the parents and their mutual agreement.

Delegating parental rights

The Chancellor of Justice explained to one parent that a parent cannot waive the right to custody or delegate it to a third party. Only the court may restrict a parent’s right of custody or deprive them of it. Although the law accepts a situation where a third party temporarily raises and takes care of a child, this does not mean that the parent has in that case transferred the right of custody to the third party. In that situation, the responsibility arising from the custodial obligation still rests on the parents. An inseparable part of the right of custody is the right to decide. Parents must decide matters relating to their child on their own responsibility and by consensus. The right to decide can only be modified by the court and mostly with regard to relations between the parents – the court may grant one parent the right to decide on a specific issue.

If parents enjoying a joint right to custody live apart, the parent living with the child may single-handedly decide issues concerning the child’s daily life (care and control). Daily care and control includes, for example, issues such as what clothes the child will wear, what they eat, whether they may go to the cinema with friends in the evening, whether they go to grandparents for the weekend, and the like. However, decisions such as what kindergarten or school the child will attend, whether the child should undergo a required medical operation, whether the child may travel abroad with a friend’s family, and so on, do not qualify as decisions on daily care and control. The parent living with the child may also let a third party take care of daily activities in connection with the child. For example, the parent may ask the child’s grandparent, aunt, uncle or their new cohabitant to take the child to school or kindergarten and pick up the child in the evening. However, the parent living with the child cannot authorise a third party to carry out actions which only both parents together may decide.

Deciding on use of a child’s pocket money

The Chancellor of Justice was asked whether a parent may decide on use of money earned by the child. Under the Family Law Act, parents are entitled to take care of the child’s property. Thus, as a rule, parents administer their child’s property and also represent the child in transactions and steps in connection with the child’s property.

Although the law also enables a parent to use money belonging to their child for providing maintenance to the child, this should not be understood as relieving a parent of the maintenance obligation and allowing them to rely only on the child’s income for providing the family’s maintenance. Even if the child goes to work and earns income, a parent is obliged to provide maintenance for their minor child. Clearly, situations may occur where it is reasonable and necessary for a child with an income to contribute to the expenses necessary to satisfy their needs. The law does not provide a definite answer as to reasonable maintenance expenses and performance of the parental maintenance obligation. This depends on the specific situation and the family’s living standard.

Enforcement proceedings concerning a parent’s right of access to a child

The Chancellor of Justice has asked the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Social Protection to draft legislative amendments to ensure better protection of the interests of children. The Ministry of Justice has promised to submit the intention to prepare a Draft Act on enforcement of court decisions on rights of access by the end of 2018.

The Chancellor recommended that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Social Protection should focus on developing a counselling service and arranging pre-judicial agreements so as to reduce the number of cases brought to court. The prospective Draft Act should set out whether and how enforcement proceedings should be carried out when arrangements for access to a child have been set by a ruling on provisional legal protection.

For example, it is worth considering whether the staff of certain agencies might be more knowledgeable about child welfare issues than bailiffs and whether that agency would be better equipped than bailiffs to enforce rulings on access arrangements. Until no new solution is found, the current practice of enforcing rulings on access arrangements should be improved, for example, by training bailiffs. Local authority child protection workers should also participate in the enforcement process, for example, by assisting bailiffs. The Ministry of Social Affairs should ensure that child protection workers are aware of their duties in enforcement proceedings concerning arrangements for a parent’s access to their child.

Confidentiality of adoption

The Chancellor of Justice had to provide an assessment of potential disclosure of the confidentiality of adoption in an interview on the TV programme “Terevisioon” on Estonian Public Broadcasting where adoptive parents told their story and disclosed the name and photograph of their adopted child. Although the Family Law Act can indeed be interpreted differently in this matter, preference should always be given to constitutionally-compliant interpretation. The Family Law Act does not prohibit adoptive parents themselves from sharing information about the adoption if the best interests of the child are taken into account and the identity of the child’s biological parents is not disclosed against their will. The idea behind the confidentiality of adoption is to protect the adoptive parents, the child and the child’s biological parents. However, parents cannot be forced to preserve the confidentiality of adoption if they do not consider it necessary or if it is factually not even possible.

To inform a child about their adoption, a suitable time and approach should be chosen, allowing for the child’s maturity, and the child should definitely be informed before making the issue public.

Infants in a shelter

An inspection visit by the Chancellor’s advisers to Tallinn Shelter for Infants (Tallinna Väikelaste Turvakodu) revealed that some children under three years of age had been living in the shelter for several months and some for over a year. For example, a ten-month-old girl, separated from the parents at the age of one month, had spent nine months in the shelter. Since most of the infants had been referred to the shelter by North Tallinn City District Government, the Chancellor recommended that the city district head should review all cases of children under three years old staying in the shelter and, if necessary, contact the Social Insurance Board to find suitable foster families. The Chancellor also recommended that in future North Tallinn City District Government should refer children under three years old who are separated from their family to a foster family instead of to a shelter.

In the Chancellor’s opinion, each child should stay in the shelter for as little time as possible. However, infants should not be placed in a shelter at all. Even a child that is in need of substitute care for a brief period should be sent to a foster family rather than a shelter. Exceptions are possible only in the best interests of a specific child.

Social guarantees of parents

The Chancellor received a letter from a parent who was deprived of the second instalment of the childbirth allowance since Järva Rural Municipal Council changed the conditions for paying the allowance by amended regulation. The Chancellor found that the rural municipal council’s regulation contravened the principle of legitimate expectations. On that basis, the Chancellor proposed that the municipal council should amend the regulation on payment of childbirth allowance so that people who had been paid the first instalment of the allowance prior to entry into force of the Järva Rural Municipal Council amended regulation would also receive the second instalment under the previously applicable conditions.

One individual wrote to the Chancellor expressing dissatisfaction with the conditions for receiving the allowance for families with many children regulated under the Family Benefits Act. In the applicant’s family were three children, one of whom was alternately living with the applicant and the child’s mother. The Social Insurance Board refused to pay the allowance for families with many children because the mother of the child who was alternately living in both families was receiving a child allowance for the child and did not agree to transfer entitlement to the allowance to the applicant. The Chancellor explained that even though families with three children are entitled to the allowance for families with many children, the allowance may also be granted to the family where the child partially lives. However, this can only be done if the parents agree on which family the child with alternate residences belongs to. Family benefits are paid on the basis of agreement between the parents. Neither the Social Insurance Board nor any other authority (apart from the court) can decide instead of the parents on the right to custody, family composition or the family’s financial situation and shared responsibility for raising a child. Parents also agree on the child’s residence to be entered in the population register.

The Chancellor was contacted by a parent with a concern that, after returning to work from parental leave, they received a significantly smaller amount of temporary incapacity for work benefit during the child’s illness than they had expected because they did not work during their parental leave. This placed the family in an unexpectedly difficult situation. The Chancellor acknowledged that because of the rules for calculating care allowance many families are faced with difficult choices. However, the Riigikogu enjoys a wide margin of appreciation as to how much care allowance to pay to parents. It cannot be considered as clearly degrading human dignity that the allowance is paid on the basis of the minimum monthly wage established by the Estonian Government. Therefore, the Chancellor has no basis for misgivings about the constitutionality of the allowance.

The Chancellor was also asked about granting incapacity for work benefit based on a certificate for care leave. A doctor closed the petitioner’s certificate for care leave on Friday, and not on Sunday, so that the incapacity for work benefit received was smaller than expected. The Chancellor replied that under the Health Insurance Act a certificate of incapacity for work may be issued by a doctor. The doctor is responsible that the temporary incapacity for work should be justified and that the insured event is correctly determined. Although the Chancellor could not assess whether the general practitioner closed the petitioner’s certificate for care leave on the right day, the Chancellor acknowledged in her opinion that if the general practitioner believed the petitioner had to care for a close family member also at the weekend then the certificate for care leave should have been closed as of the day when the need for care ceased to exist. The Estonian Health Insurance Fund and the Ministry of Social Affairs explained to the Chancellor that in order to close a certificate for care leave a patient needs to be examined and this can only be done on working days. The Chancellor did not agree with this interpretation. Therefore, the Chancellor sent to the Ministry of Social Affairs and the Estonian Health Insurance Fund as well as the Estonian Association of General Practitioners an explanation that under the current procedure a treating doctor may also close a certificate for care leave at the weekend without seeing a patient if the treating doctor finds it justified.

The Chancellor was asked to check whether the Social Insurance Board had correctly interpreted the rules for using parental leave. The petitioner wanted to know whether only one parent at a time may go on parental leave even if several children under three years old are in the family. The Chancellor found that the interpretation by the Social Insurance Board conformed to the Employment Contracts Act. Under the Act, either mother or father are entitled to parental leave until the child reaches three years of age, and parental leave may be used by one person at a time. This provision has to be interpreted in combination with another provision of the Employment Contracts Act, under which an employee on parental leave is entitled to parental benefit and child care allowance as prescribed under the Family Benefits Act. The state pays parental benefit during a parent’s parental leave in order to compensate the family for the absence or reduction of the income of one parent. Thus, if both parents in a family were entitled to parental leave, they could both receive parental benefit but that situation would be contrary to the Family Benefits Act. Child care allowance is not paid simultaneously with parental benefit. Only a parent who is on parental leave may receive child care allowance (for all the children). Thus, in the case of child care allowance, the possibility for both parents to be on parental leave is also ruled out since only one parent may receive child care allowance.

School life

A pupil enquired whether a school requirement that justification for an adult pupil’s absence from school can only be given by their guardian was legitimate. In the opinion of the Chancellor of Justice, this requirement is not correct because a young person who is 18 years of age is considered to enjoy full legal capacity. An adult person only has a guardian if the court has restricted their legal capacity and appointed a guardian − for example, because due to intellectual disability an individual is permanently unable to understand or direct their actions. Full legal capacity means that an individual decides and bears responsibility for their actions. Thus, if an adult pupil with full legal capacity is absent from school, the school must rely on explanations given by the pupil in order to assess justification for their absence.

The Chancellor was also asked whether a ten-day time limit for retaking tests laid down in school internal rules was compatible with legislation or whether tests could be retaken during half a year. Under the national curriculum for basic schools, pupils must be given an opportunity to retake an oral or written test. A more precise procedure is to be laid down by each school in its curriculum; no national-level legislation regulates this issue. Thus, a school is also entitled to set a ten-day time limit for retaking tests, though allowing for some flexibility. For example, a pupil might be ill for an extended period and unable to retake a test by the deadline set by the school. In that case, the pupil should be allowed to retake a test at a later time. It may also prove necessary to allocate sufficient study time for a pupil who has been absent for an extended period.

A pupil enquired whether a teacher may include in a mini-test material covering more than one or two lessons which a pupil must study independently. The Chancellor explained that the concept of a mini-test does not exist in legislation. According to established practice and in view of the meaning of the word, it is customary that a mini-test is considered to mean a test used to check the knowledge acquired in the last lesson or the lesson before that. Schools themselves often lay down how a mini-test is defined and how the results of study are checked. So it is worth looking up in the school internal rules, the curriculum or other internal school documents (e.g. a school website) whether the concept of a mini-test has been clarified there. Nor has any law or regulation laid down how many and what tasks may be assigned as homework. Studying at basic school is full-time, i.e. activities under the guidance of the school account for a relatively larger proportion than independent study. At the same time, independent homework is common for all pupils and is a necessary part of studying. Its amount and content are determined by the school and teachers. However, the planning of teaching and learning, including homework, should take into account that the study load of pupils should correspond to their age and capabilities and would also leave them time for rest and hobbies.

The Riigikogu debated the Draft Act on amending tshe Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act with the main focus on the organisation of study for children with special educational needs. In a letter to the parliamentary Cultural Affairs Committee, the Chancellor conceded that even though the Draft Act addresses several shortcomings, it also raises some issues. First, supervision of individual cases and relevant supervision by the ministry are insufficiently regulated. Second, the prospective amendments fail to take into account the size of special schools or classrooms and their specificities, or the related need for additional funding. Third, the Chancellor raised the issue that, as a result of administrative reform, the way to school is becoming different and/or longer than previously for some children with special needs. For example, a child with special educational needs might not be able to take public transport to school, while local authority social transport might not be of assistance either. In that case, the Draft Act would leave the additional costs for parents to cover.

Saaremaa Rural Municipal Government sought the Chancellor’s opinion on whether the rural municipality had acted in line with the Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act and the Saaremaa Rural Municipal Government regulation when assigning a school based on residence for a child and relying, first and foremost, on the proximity of the child’s residence to the school (length of walking distance). If vacant places at a school exist, when assigning a school for a child the local authority also takes into account whether the family’s other children attend the same school. In her letter, the Chancellor emphasised that under the Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act a rural municipality or city government must definitely keep in mind two conditions when assigning a residence-based school for a child: the proximity of a child’s residence to the school and whether other children of the family attend the same school. If possible, a school may also take into account the wishes of the parents. The law does not prescribe which of those two criteria carries more weight, meaning that both are equally important. Therefore, in the Chancellor’s opinion a rural municipality should not always prefer one criterion when assigning a school for a child. Each case should be dealt with individually, taking into account all the circumstances in aggregate.

The Chancellor of Justice also dealt with the case of Tartu Tamme School. The parents at that school were dissatisfied with Tartu City Government’s decision that primary school pupils had to go to school for the second shift, i.e. in the afternoon. The Chancellor replied to the parents that a local authority must enable children required by law to attend school and residing within its administrative boundaries to receive a basic education in a school operating under public law. How a local authority complies with this task depends on education policy choices. Organising study in several shifts is also allowed if a school lacks enough places for all pupils to study in one shift. Similarly, policy choices include an option to procure modular classrooms, which parents cannot directly demand. Thus, in legal terms the decision by Tartu City is not wrong. Although organising study in two shifts is allowed, the city should also take into account the effects on families and children resulting from attending school in the second shift. It should be ensured that children are treated equally and their interests are taken into account. For example, the school must ensure that children attending the second shift can also participate in hobby groups.

The Chancellor was asked at what time the school day should start. The Chancellor explained that the best interests of children should be the basis in setting the beginning of the school day. Lessons should not start before 8 o’clock in the morning but schools are free to set later starting times. Many schools also make use of this opportunity. The best result is achieved if the starting time of the school day is mutually agreed among parents, the school and the school’s board of trustees, while also hearing the opinion of the student council.

The Chancellor also received a question about the school meal break. Under the Minister of Social Affairs Regulation, the meal break must be at least 15 minutes long. Since the regulation only contains the minimum length of the meal time, each school must itself decide on the length of the meal break by weighing the practical feasibility and the needs of the children. It is important that children have enough time for eating. For that, the school should pay more attention to organising meals for children.

On a request by Kernu Basic School, the Chancellor explained the qualification requirements established for teachers and support specialists. Under the Minister of Education and Research regulation, a teacher who holds a Master’s degree and has undergone teacher training at university but who was not working as a teacher at a school on 1 September 2013 must apply for the teaching profession so as to have their qualification meet the requirements laid down in legislation. A social pedagogue is a support specialist in an educational institution who must have either professional higher education or hold the professional title of social pedagogue. The Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act also allows a temporary employment contract for the post of a teacher to be concluded with a person who does not hold the required qualification. At the same time, the law does not offer an option to hire a social pedagogue who does not meet the qualification requirements. The interpretation that hiring a social pedagogue who does not meet the qualification requirements is allowed, because it is not directly forbidden, would render qualification requirements for support specialists devoid of meaning.

The Chancellor was also asked about fees for school hobby groups. Under the Constitution and the Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act, fees for hobby groups operating in municipal schools may differ. Thus, the owner of a hobby school is not required to set the same fee for its hobby groups in every school. There may be differences in terms of the content of hobby activities, instructor remuneration as well as other expenses. Therefore, hobby group fees cannot be required to be the same in all schools owned by Tallinn City. Differences in fees also cannot be considered arbitrary.

The Chancellor was asked to express an opinion on whether it was lawful for Tallinn to give financial support to provision of meals for children attending its municipal kindergartens while children in private kindergartens do not receive the same support. The Chancellor found that Tallinn was entitled to give financial support to provision of meals to children in Tallinn attending municipal kindergartens. This is not a support paid based on the child’s residence or so-called head money but a wish by a local authority to offer a more favourable service to those attending a municipal kindergarten. Under the Preschool Childcare Institutions Act, a child’s meal expenses in a child care institution are covered by a parent. If Tallinn has decided to support meals for Tallinn children attending the city’s kindergartens, this may be interpreted as a voluntary commitment assumed by the city.

The Chancellor was asked to assess whether it was lawful for Rakvere town to provide a childcare service funded from the town’s budget to those creche-aged children whose parents do not receive parental benefit. The Chancellor concluded that the provisions in the Rakvere Town Council regulation that set the parents’ employment or activity equivalent to employment as a precondition for receiving the childcare service were unlawful. The Preschool Childcare Institutions Act lays down that a kindergarten place is given to a child between one-and-a-half to seven years old at least one of whose parents resides in the respective local authority. With a parent’s consent, a rural municipality or city government may replace the kindergarten place of a child between one-and-a-half to three years old with childcare service. However, in that case the parent must receive the childcare service under the same conditions as their child would receive a place in a kindergarten. Rakvere town assured the Chancellor’s adviser that it plans to change the conditions for receiving the childcare service.

Children and the internet

Many children and parents are still not completely aware of the effects that smart devices may have on the health and well-being of a child. According to the Study on internet dependency among children, excessive internet use among children is linked to poorer academic performance by children, poorer health as well as problematic family relationships. An indication as to a child’s internet dependency occurs when a child’s other needs and interests begin to decline, or when a child becomes forgetful and irritated when their internet time is cut. These signs occasionally appeared in 6 per cent of children in the second school-year, and 22 per cent of children in the eighth school year. Some 22 per cent of parents with children in the eighth school year believe that no such thing as excessive internet use exists (project „Digilaps“ survey). At the same time, 20 per cent of 15-year-old young people in Estonia use the internet for 4−6 hours at home after the school day, and 18 per cent of young people for over six hours (PISA 2015 Report on Estonia). Cyberbullying and sexual abuse of children over the internet is also common. According to the EU Kids Online survey, children are most bothered by pornographic material on the internet.

Estonia has web-constables who provide advice about internet safety and whom children can contact on Facebook. Since 2010, the non-profit association Estonian Union for Child Welfare has been coordinating the project „Targalt internetis“ (Smartly on the Web). In cooperation with the police and with the help of the child helpline service, an attempt is also being made to combat the spread of sexual abuse materials. The website tarkvanem.ee offers practical advice and enables asking for advice from specialists. Information on digital dependency is also available on the health information website.

Several individuals contacted the Chancellor with the concern that a parent had disclosed on social media or shared with journalists sensitive information about the private life of their child. Children themselves cannot effectively stand up for their rights in such a situation. Therefore, the Chancellor had to draw the attention of media publications to the fact that besides the parents all other persons, including journalists, must keep the best interests of the child in mind. Journalists should not exploit persons who are less experienced in media communication. Disclosure of information about a child’s private life must be based on consideration of the effect that this has on the child at the moment of disclosure as well as in the future.

E-sports (i.e. computer games) activists enquired from the Chancellor how to organise public computer games competitions so as to comply with the requirements of the Child Protection Act. Many computer games depict fighting and other violent activities. The Child Protection Act prohibits manufacturing, showing and disseminating to children works that incite violence or cruelty or include pornographic content. The prohibition also applies to computer and video games. Under the Penal Code, showing or making available to someone under 14 years of age of works promoting cruelty, or knowingly displaying cruelty to them, is punishable. Everyone under 18 years of age is a child in terms of the law and no exceptions can be made even with permission from a parent. The purpose of the prohibition is to avoid negative effects on children’s development, so that the game experience does not grow into violent and anti-social behaviour. The Chancellor drew attention to the fact that the law does not prohibit displaying or distributing all games containing violence or cruelty. The prohibition applies to games that incite and promote cruelty and violence. It is not possible to give universal guidelines on conduct for organisers of public events. Every specific game must be assessed in terms of substance. The PEGI rating system recognised by European Union member states and the European Commission definitely offers a good reference point for competition organisers and parents. The law imposes responsibility on businesses, i.e. in this case the organisers.

Prevention and promotion

The Chancellor’s task is also to raise awareness of the rights of children and ensure that children are active participants in the life of society. As Ombudsman for Children, the Chancellor initiates analytical studies and surveys, on the basis of which she makes recommendations for improving the situation of children. The Ombudsman for Children represents the rights of children in the law-making process and organises a variety of training events and seminars on the rights of the child.

In order to encourage children to understand the substance of their rights and duties, an advisory body to the Ombudsman for Children has been established at the Chancellor’s Office, comprising representatives of children’s and youth organisations. During the reporting period, the advisory body to the Ombudsman for Children discussed the rights of children in healthcare.

During the reporting year, the Chancellor’s advisers carried out several training events on the rights of the child and delivered lectures in kindergartens and schools. For child protection and social welfare workers, the advisers explained rights of custody and access, as well as rules and international recommendations regulating separation of children from their family.

Also this year the children’s and youth film festival ‘Just Film’, held as part of the PÖFF Film Festival, included a programme on the rights of the child, prepared in cooperation between Just Film, the Chancellor of Justice, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Police and Border Guard Board, and the Estonian Union for Child Welfare. A film programme on the rights of the child has become a tradition and this year featured for the seventh time. Screening of selected films was followed by debates with experts and well-known personalities analysing the films together with viewers. Organisers of the children’s rights programme joined the campaign „Aga mina“ (But I ...), emphasising the importance of listening skills among children and young people. This time 1499 cinema-goers visited the programme on the rights of the child.

The Ombudsman for Children can further contribute to making society more child-friendly by recognising good people who have done something remarkable either together with children or for children. The merit awards event „Lastega ja lastele“ (With and For Children), which was brought to life by organisations championing the interests of children, was held for the fifth time in 2018. On the International Day for the Protection of Children, the President of the Republic, the Chancellor of Justice and the Minister of Social Protection recognised those who have significantly contributed to the well-being of children through their new initiatives or long-term activities.

Young people in elections

Perhaps the most important promotion project undertaken by the Ombudsman for Children during the reporting period was linked to the 2017 local elections where 16 to 17 year-old young people were able to vote for the first time. The aim of the young election monitors project initiated by the Chancellor was to educate young people politically, offer them a participatory experience, and contribute to ensuring neutrality in dealing with political issues in schools. In the course of the project, several hundred young people received an overview of organising elections, with explanations given concerning election campaigning.

In pre-election weeks, young election monitors who had received the training checked that schools complied with the principle of neutrality and, if necessary, notified violations to local authorities, the Ministry of Education and Research, the National Electoral Committee, and the Chancellor of Justice. Young people also participated in organising elections as observers and as members of polling division committees. In their monitoring activities, they relied on the good election practice guidelines drawn up by the ministry. A total of 134 young election monitors participated in the Project.

(See also the Chapter “Inspection visits. Childcare institutions”.)