Education and work

The Chancellor receives many petitions from parents complaining that not enough kindergarten places are available for children of creche age in larger cities and surrounding rural municipalities. If a family fails to get a kindergarten place, this violates the child’s right to pre-school education and also impedes a parent from going to work.

Exclusion from the labour market, in turn, leads to social problems.

The state should understand that even though the law requires a local authority to ensure a kindergarten place, all in all the shortage of kindergarten places is not just the problem of occasional families or merely local authorities. Under the Constitution, education falls under state supervision. If a local authority is unable to comply with the law and regularly leaves parents in trouble, the state must initiate supervision. For example, a coercive penalty payment can be imposed on non-compliant local authorities.

Under the law, all children at the age of one-and-a-half to seven years must receive a kindergarten place. No distinction is made with regard to children with poorer health or those needing additional support at a kindergarten. Although legislation and sectoral development plans have deemed it important that a child’s special need is noticed at an early stage and the child is quickly offered effective assistance, unfortunately the actual situation is often different. It still happens that a parent must battle to obtain a support service or a place in an adaptation or special group for their child. Sometimes social and educational services even within the same local authority are unable to cooperate in finding the best solution for a child. They fail to see the complete picture or the benefit later arising for society from offering the necessary support to a child as early as at a kindergarten.

Tensions are always caused by closing down or merging schools or places where they operate. If schools are closed down or merged, so that a child will have to start attending another school, this directly affects a family’s everyday living arrangements. The law does not prescribe where a school should be located but it does stipulate that education must be accessible to every child. The school owner is not prohibited from changing the school’s location or even closing down the school, but the rural municipality or city must inform the school family about it in good time and also justify the planned changes. Introducing the plans does not mean that the school owner must take into account every wish expressed by local inhabitants. Nevertheless, reasonable suggestions must be considered and at least an attempt should be made to find the best solution, or often also the least inconvenient of all the possible ones.

Due to reorganisation of the school network as well as other essential circumstances, a situation may sometimes develop where it takes too long for a pupil to reach school. Where a child is unable to reach school by public transport, the local authority must offer another suitable option, for instance arrange a school bus. In various places in Estonia are children whose school route is unreasonably long or whose parents have had to take upon themselves the task of taking children to school and back home, even though under the law school transport must be organised by a local authority.

During the reporting year, schools were of course most affected by the corona pandemic and the restrictions imposed to combat it. Despite the difficult epidemiological situation, most schools still remained open. At the same time, in some schools distance learning was applied unjustifiably often, especially considering that before the beginning of the new academic year all adults could vaccinate themselves against the virus. Without a decision (by either the Health Board or the Government) restricting on-site instruction at schools nationwide, schools themselves started extensively applying distance learning with the justification of health protection. Therefore, on several occasions the Chancellor had to explain to schools and school owners as to who may restrict on-site instruction at schools and when due to considerations of health protection.

The Constitution allows restricting access to higher education, for example, for the purpose of ensuring quality of instruction. Accordingly, higher educational institutions may select students. Yet, applicants for higher education may not be treated unequally without a valid justification, and admission conditions must be clear and selection criteria transparent. It is not enough if selection criteria are only known to the university; people applying to the university must also be informed of them.

With regard to labour issues, the Chancellor’s assessment was most often sought in connection with problems related to certificates of professional qualifications. Teachers in general education schools have been required to hold a teacher’s professional qualifications since as early as September 2013; yet to date questions still arise as to whether it is necessary and who is entitled to award teacher’s professional qualifications.

First and foremost, this concerns teachers who graduated from a higher educational institution before 2013 or a few years later.

Preschool education

Several parents have contacted the Chancellor with the concern that a local authority has not ensured a kindergarten place although under the law this is the duty of a local authority. Under the Preschool Childcare Institutions Act, a rural municipality or city must provide a kindergarten place to every child at least one-and-a-half years old. A rural municipality or city has complied with its duty if it gives a child a kindergarten place within a reasonable time. In line with the case-law, in general a reasonable time is two months from the moment when the family applied for a kindergarten place.

Parents may not be placed in a forced situation where they have to find a place for their child in childcare because the local authority failed to offer them a kindergarten place. Under the law, a rural municipality or city may replace a kindergarten place for a child aged one-and-a-half to three years old with a place in childcare only when a parent agrees to it. If a local authority has failed to provide a kindergarten place on time and for this reason the family has incurred additional expenses (e.g. paid a higher childcare fee in comparison to the fee for the municipal kindergarten) then the local authority must compensate these expenses to the family.

The Chancellor explained the parents their rights and how to protect them in court.

Sometimes disputes arise from the fact that a family is offered a place at a kindergarten located too far from the child’s home. The law does not definitely entitle a family to a place in a kindergarten of their choice, for example one located closest to their residence. However, a local authority must ensure a place in a kindergarten of its service district, i.e. a place should be offered in a kindergarten within the particular local authority’s boundaries. Nevertheless, the local authority must bear in mind that the kindergarten service should be accessible to the family.

When resolving people’s complaints, on two occasions the Chancellor also noticed problems in local authority legislation. In one case, the Chancellor found that Harku Rural Municipality Government regulation of 30 December 2015 on “The procedure for admission to and exclusion from preschool childcare institutions in Harku rural municipality” contravened the Constitution. The regulation enabled the rural municipality government, with parental consent, to replace a kindergarten place for a child aged one-and-a-half to three years old with a place in childcare if the municipality government could not offer the family a place in a kindergarten. This deprived a parent of the statutory possibility to choose between a kindergarten and childcare. The Chancellor asked the rural municipality to inform her how the municipality intended to comply with the proposal The rural municipality amended the regulation in line with the Chancellor’s proposal.

In another case, the Chancellor found a conflict with the law in Haljala Rural Municipality regulation of 19 July 2018 on “The procedure for admission to and exclusion from preschool childcare institutions in Haljala rural municipality”. The regulation contravened the law by imposing more extensive restrictions on obtaining a kindergarten place than laid down by law. Under the law, a child of kindergarten age is entitled to a place in a kindergarten if their parents so wish.

Ensuring kindergarten places to all children of kindergarten age within a reasonable time may indeed often be complicated but, in the interests of children and parents, a local authority must resolve the problem. After all, a rural municipality in general knows the number of children of kindergarten age. The Chancellor proposed to the rural municipality to bring the regulation into conformity with the law and the Constitution. The rural municipality amended the regulation in line with the Chancellor’s proposal.

Children with special needs at a kindergarten

The Chancellor was asked for assistance by a parent where a kindergarten had refused to admit their children with special needs unless accompanied by a support person. The parent was concerned that the kindergarten had also partially failed to comply with the recommendations given by the Rajaleidja network’s extra-school counselling committee under which the assistance of a special educator and a speech therapist was prescribed for the children.

In the course of resolving the petition, the rural municipality and the kindergarten admitted to the Chancellor that the municipality is of course responsible for enabling a support person for a child and the kindergarten cannot refuse to admit a child without a support person. The Chancellor recommended that the rural municipality should analyse how to resolve the situation where for some reason a support person cannot perform their tasks. The Chancellor also asked the municipality to comply with the Rajaleidja decision and provide the necessary extent of support services to children in the kindergarten adjustment group that the children attend.

The law does not allow refraining from organising support services merely because a kindergarten does not have enough support specialists. The services of a speech therapist and special educator must be offered on-site at a kindergarten but in justified cases this may also be done outside the kindergarten if this is in the child’s best interests and the municipality arranges the child’s transport to the speech therapist and back.

Another family was also concerned about the absence of a support person. The parent explained that for a long time their child had been unable to attend kindergarten because they had no support person. This, however, also interfered with the parents going to work and, moreover, the child failed to obtain preschool education at the kindergarten. Since other families living in Tallinn have also had problems with finding a support person for their child, the Chancellor asked Tallinn city to change the organisation of the support person service so that children in need of assistance actually do receive assistance.

One petition concerned kindergarten attendance of a child suffering from diabetes. Although all problems were resolved over time, the Chancellor analysed the kindergarten’s activity during the two previous school years and found that the kindergarten had failed to ensure the child a possibility to use the kindergarten place in line with statutory requirements. For a long period, the child could only attend kindergarten half a day at a time, and on several occasions the kindergarten asked that the child be left at home because the group teachers who were used to dealing with the child were not at work that day.

Since the family had on several occasions contacted the Tallinn Education Department for assistance, the Chancellor also analysed the lawfulness of the Department’s activities. In the Chancellor’s assessment, the activities of the Tallinn Education Department were not sufficiently productive in order to enable the child with a diabetes diagnosis to continue attending the kindergarten without impediments and in a manner appropriate to the child. For instance, the Department failed to assess whether the kindergarten’s activity complied with legislation. Nor did the Department try to resolve the situation when kindergarten teachers needed additional assistance to support the child but the city district administration refused to assign a support person to the child. The Department violated the principle of good administration when it failed to answer the parent’s questions. The Chancellor recommended that Tallinn Education Department should avoid such mistakes in the future.

General education and school healthcare

The Chancellor was asked whether Lääne-Harju Rural Municipality Government complied with the principle of good administration by discontinuing instruction in the Lehola school building of Laulasmaa School. In addition, the petitioner wanted to know whether children and their parents are entitled to have a say in the matter of changing the place of instruction, similarly to having the right to a say in the case of a school reorganisation. The Chancellor found that Lääne-Harju rural municipality did not err against the principle of good administration when preparing to discontinue instruction in the Lehola school building.

The Chancellor was also contacted by parents of pupils at Narva Soldino Upper Secondary School since they were dissatisfied with the plan for reorganising the school. The Chancellor explained to the parents that the draft education development plan drawn up by Narva City Government has been introduced to the public and everyone interested has been able to submit written proposals to it. By the time of replying to the petition, no decision had been adopted on the reorganisation of Narva Soldino Upper Secondary School. Accordingly, no parental or children’s rights had been violated in this connection.

Organisation of school transport

A local authority has the duty to organise a child’s transport to and back from the school assigned to the child based on the child’s residence. Transport must be safe and the child’s age must be taken into account in organising it. The child must be able to reach the school on time while not being forced to hurry too much or spend excessive time on public transport. The child must also be able get back home within a reasonable time after the school day.

When planning a child’s school route, consideration should be given to how long they have to walk, whether the route to a bus stop or school is safe and whether the bus stop has a shelter offering cover from inclement weather.

Where necessary, a local authority must consider using individualised solutions. One option is to propose to a parent that the parent takes the child to school and back home on a contractual basis. That is, the parent enters into a contractual relationship with the rural municipality as a service provider and not as a parent. A local authority has failed to arrange transport if a parent themselves is forced to take the child to school (see the Chancellor’s recommendations to Antsla Rural Municipality Government and Kehtna Rural Municipality Government).

The right to education of a child staying in the country without a legal basis

The Chancellor was described a situation where the Police and Border Guard Board (PBGB) prohibited a child staying in Estonia without a legal basis from attending school and took the child back home after it had reached the school.

The Chancellor found that by doing so the PBGB had violated the law and the child’s rights. The PBGB is not competent to assess whether a child is entitled to attend school.

Every school-aged child in Estonia is entitled to education. The Chancellor also explained to the child’s mother issues related to both her own and the child’s legal status.

Distance learning

The Chancellor was asked to assess whether transfer of all schools in Tallinn to distance learning was lawful.

The Chancellor replied that since the beginning of academic year 2020 she has repeatedly explained to parents, pupils as well as teachers on what legal grounds and who is entitled to apply distance learning in schools (see the annual report for 2020/2021). The problem was that in 2021 the legal framework was the same as in 2020 but the situation to which the rules applied had significantly changed as compared to autumn 2020.

Distance learning as a health protection measure is allowed in principle, but only if its use is justified by the actual (epidemiological) situation. Accordingly, a school can only proceed from its own specific situation when implementing distance learning, including information about the proportion of those vaccinated against Covid-19 and those recovered among pupils and teachers. Neither the school director nor the owner of the school is competent to assess the spread of the virus and the anticipated hospital burden arising from this.

The Chancellor was also asked to assess implementation of distance learning in schools in Pärnu city. The Chancellor found that, formally, Pärnu city as the owner of the schools did not adopt a legislative act requiring schools to apply distance learning. The decision on transfer to distance learning had to be made by each head of school themselves. Yet it should be kept in mind that a head of school may take an instruction given by the owner of the school as obligatory even though formally this is not so. The owner of the school and the Health Board informed heads of schools in a manner that may have inclined them to apply distance learning while at the same time not taking responsibility for this.

Choice of curriculum

The Chancellor was asked to assess whether the extra-school counselling team from the Rajaleidja network had acted lawfully and in the child’s best interests when recommending a simplified curriculum for children. So far the Rajaleidja counselling team has recommended a simplified national curriculum only for children with a diagnosis of intellectual disability ascertained by a specialist doctor. In other cases, the recommendation has been to reduce learning results where necessary.

The Chancellor found that such practice is lawful and compatible with the child’s best interests. Based on information available to the Chancellor, however, the Ministry of Education and Research intends to expand the possibilities for applying a simplified national curriculum.

Organisation of tests

The Chancellor was asked about rules on organising tests at school.

It is clear that a pupils’ study load must correspond to their age and capabilities, and testing may occur up to three times a week. Rules on organising tests have been established with a view to leaving pupils sufficient time for rest and hobbies. Pupils must also be enabled to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills in the best possible way. If the study load exceeds the admissible threshold, then a child may start lagging behind and it may also have a negative effect on their mental health.

The Chancellor explained that in planning tests teachers must also keep in mind the statutory requirements. A test is defined as a written paper to check study results at the end of a quarter of a school year or upon completion of a course. It is inadmissible to have pupils take more than three papers a week which in substance correspond to a test.

Home schooling at parental request

Parents contacting the Chancellor expressed dissatisfaction with the organisation of their child’s home schooling.

It is clear that home schooling is implemented in accordance with an individual curriculum, and responsibility for home schooling lies with the parent. An individual curriculum must set out the necessary learning outcomes and agreements as well as when and how the school checks them (see the Chancellor’s opinion).

Implementing home schooling may not endanger a child’s right to education and when considering a parent’s application for home schooling the teachers’ council must primarily assess whether the parent is capable of properly organising provision of education. If according to the school’s assessment a pupil might not acquire the necessary knowledge and skills through home schooling, then no home schooling may be applied.

Basic school graduation conditions

The Association of Estonian Language Teachers asked the Chancellor to assess a proposal by the Ministry of Education and Research under which graduating from the basic school would no longer depend on the results achieved at the final examination.

The Chancellor explained that a pupil’s development and academic progress can be assessed on the basis of various assessment systems. Under the Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act, the conditions for graduating from the basic school are established by the Government in the national curriculum. The Riigikogu has not laid down a threshold for passing basic school final examinations. Laying down that threshold is an education policy choice (see the Chancellor’s opinion).

For a child at the age of compulsory school attendance, acquiring basic education is both a right and duty. Good education is supported by good teachers, and schools must be able to use appropriate teaching aids and methods and the school environment must be safe for pupils. Under these conditions, it is possible to offer young people knowledge and skills with the help of which they can continue acquiring general or vocational education as well as otherwise participate in society in line with their age and capabilities.

The right of a parent to participate in school events

Several parents expressed dissatisfaction that schools prohibited them from participating in events intended for parents, justifying this by the need to combat the spread of the coronavirus.

Measures for combating the epidemic spread of infectious diseases are established either by the Government of the Republic or the Health Board. Despite the spread of the coronavirus, in the academic year 2021/2022 the state did not consider it necessary to restrict parents’ participation in events intended for them.

The Chancellor reminded the schools that measures for protecting the health of pupils and staff must be established by internal school rules, and when establishing the requirements the school must also bear in mind the rights of parents. A parent is not a third party in relation to a school since it is in the child’s interests that the school and parent cooperate. Thus, a parent cannot be sidelined from school activities.

A parent is entitled to receive information and explanations about organisation of school life and the rights and duties of pupils. A parent is also entitled to attend a parents’ meeting. Direct participation is not replaceable by subsequent publication of the minutes or an e-mail sent by a teacher. When organising the first year’s school ceremony, the school must also keep in mind that allowing a parent to a festive event is mostly in the child’s interests. When planning a school ceremony or a parents’ meeting, the school may consider applying precautionary measures which are less restrictive on parents.

School bullying

The Chancellor was informed that Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine has caused such considerable tensions at school that they have even led to bullying based on children’s ethnicity and views.

In her reply, the Chancellor had to note that unfortunately this was not the only signal to this effect. She explained to the petitioner that, in cooperation with the Ministry of Education and Research, schools and teachers an attempt is being made to resolve such cases as swiftly as possible and prevent them in the future. The Chancellor also explained in more detail how to behave in these situations and where to find help.

Another petition also concerned school bullying. A parent asked whether activities in the classroom may be recorded, for example, by a camera or other device with the aim of proving or preventing inappropriate conduct by a teacher. The Chancellor explained that even though parents have a relatively free hand in raising and guiding their child, parents in their activities must always respect the child’s rights. Monitoring and recording a child’s every word would violate their right to privacy and amount to misuse of power. Moreover, this may also amount to private surveillance of a teacher, which is prohibited and punishable.

In order to prevent situations endangering the safety of pupils and school staff, or to respond to such situations, surveillance devices may only be used by the school itself. At the same time, the school is not allowed to monitor lessons in the classroom and parents cannot request this from the school nor can they consent to this (see the guidelines from the Data Protection Inspectorate on the use of cameras, paras 11 and 13).

Vaccination of schoolchildren against the coronavirus

During the reporting year, the Chancellor was asked on several occasions whether parental consent is required to vaccinate a child at school. People also asked whether schools may exert pressure on children to consent to be vaccinated against Covid-19.

The Chancellor explained that the same rules apply to vaccination against Covid-19 as to other vaccinations. Vaccination is voluntary both for adults and children.

A patient may be examined and healthcare procedures administered to them (including vaccination) only with their consent. This means that a patient must be informed about the purpose of medical procedures as well as possible risks and consequences. Then the patient themselves can decide whether to provide consent or refuse.

Parental consent must be sought to vaccinate a minor patient, but the child themselves must also approve the vaccination (see paras 17 and 18 of the guidelines on child patients). However, a doctor who deems that a young person has sufficient capacity to reason must proceed from the young person’s own decision. In that case, a parent may not decide on the child’s vaccination.

The Chancellor has been asked how a young person’s capacity to reason is assessed. A child’s capacity to reason must be assessed similarly to an adult’s capacity to reason. A patient with the right to decide and having the capacity to reason understands the nature of their illness and the choices they are faced with. They understand the information provided to them and are capable of drawing conclusions from this. A patient must also be able to come to a decision based on the information received and their own value judgements, and notify the healthcare professional about it. The greater the risks entailed in a decision, the greater the capacity to reason presumed for making the decision.

Age may be one criterion for assessing a child’s capacity to reason, but it cannot be the only criterion. A child’s capacity to reason must be assessed on the basis of the specific situation and the specific child, because children reach maturity and independence at different ages. If a child comes to a doctor’s appointment together with a parent or with parental approval, and both child and parent are unanimous about the issue needing to be decided, then the doctor has no reason to assess the child’s ability to reason (see in more detail the guidelines).

A school nurse vaccinates children at school in line with the Minister of Social Affairs regulation, under which the consent of a parent or other legal representative is asked for vaccination.

Under the Minister of Social Affairs regulation, the school informs a parent about planned vaccination at least one week in advance and also asks for their consent. Consent or refusal is recorded in writing and is maintained among the pupil’s health documents. If a pupil’s vaccination is held off for some reason, the school healthcare provider proceeds from a parent’s previous consent and informs them about the new time for vaccination at least one week before it takes place.

If one of the parents consents, a school nurse may also presume consent from the other parent. If the other parent refuses, the child cannot be vaccinated on the basis of consent by one parent.

Under current legislation, a school cannot oblige children to be vaccinated but it may provide information about organisation of vaccination and study at the school. For instance, the rules on quarantine for a pupil who was a close contact depended on whether the pupil was vaccinated or not and whether they allowed themselves to be tested for the coronavirus. When offering explanations, school staff must remain as neutral as possible. The school may not actively promote vaccination. Nor may the school allow unvaccinated pupils to be bullied at school.

Higher education

The Chancellor was contacted by an upper secondary school pupil who was dissatisfied that during their upper secondary school studies the University of Tartu changed the conditions for admission to the medical faculty. When the young person started studying at Tallinn English College according to the International Baccalaureate (IB) curriculum, no requirement of a combined chemistry and physics examination existed for admission to the medical faculty. In the pupil’s opinion, applying the new admission conditions to them was not justified and they asked for an assessment of the university’s actions.

The Chancellor found that, unfortunately, no one is entitled to request any derogations in admission conditions from a university. A pupil cannot reasonably assume that during their upper secondary school studies a university’s admission conditions always remain the same. The university has not made any such commitment. Understandably, pupils make plans concerning their future career choices but these plans cannot impose restrictions on a university.

Admission conditions to Tallinn University

Based on information sent to her, the Chancellor on her own initiative checked the lawfulness of the conditions for admission to the speciality of English Language and Culture at Tallinn University.

The Chancellor found that the university was treating applicants unequally without justification. Unjustified different treatment arose from the fact that the university required that those having passed an international language proficiency test should have a score corresponding to level B2 for each skill whereas no such requirement was imposed on applicants having passed the national examination.

The Chancellor asked the university to establish the conditions and procedure for proving foreign language proficiency so that applicants would not be treated unjustifiably differently on that basis. The Chancellor asked the university to review decisions on admitting applicants to the entrance examination which had been made under the currently applicable procedure. Tallinn University agreed to review the admission conditions.

Another petition also concerned Tallinn University’s admission conditions. In her reply, the Chancellor found that a university may establish admission conditions to ensure the quality of higher education, but in doing so the admission rules must also keep in mind protection of applicants’ fundamental rights.

Tallinn University admission conditions for formal full-time study stipulate that the university need not allow an applicant to undertake group work or an interview if the applicant receives a negative result in the academic aptitude test for the psychology curriculum. However, the principles on the basis of which different parts of the entrance examination are assessed are not apparent from the university admission procedure or the website. Although explanations concerning assessment of the test were given to applicants during the consultation, oral clarifications cannot replace generally accessible and clear information on the university website.

Even if the university cannot disclose all information related to assessment, the assessment system can still be made more transparent by disclosing the principles under which the test is considered as passed and how the weighting of results for different parts of the examination is distributed. Assessment of the examination can also be made more transparent by disclosing – after the test is taken – the smallest test score which is still considered a pass (recommendation to Tallinn University).

The conditions for a teacher training speciality scholarship

A student from Tallinn University asked to verify whether it was lawful that in granting teacher training speciality scholarships the university preferred master’s students enrolled in the natural and exact sciences curricula as compared to other teacher training students.

The Chancellor found that the delegation norm laid down by the Higher Education Act does not empower the Minister of Education and Research to sub-delegate establishment of additional conditions for awarding scholarships to an educational institution or the Education and Youth Board. Teacher training curricula of national priority, whose students receive a teacher training speciality scholarship in the interests of the state, can only be determined by law or – on the basis of a proper delegation norm – by a regulation, or alternatively these decisions can also be made by an administrative contract.

The Chancellor asked the Minister of Education and Research to bring the regulation into conformity with the Higher Education Act. The Minister promised that the Ministry would draw up an amendment to the regulation no later than by the beginning of the academic year 2022/2023.

The student’s right to choose a minor speciality

The admission conditions for minor specialities (i.e. second specialities) as well as for universities may differ but reasonable justifications must exist to establish the conditions. What is important is that applicants are treated equally.

Tallinn University wishes to identify students choosing a minor immediately at the beginning of studies. At the same time, with its entrance test the university prepares a ranking of students having at least B2-level language proficiency. By doing so, the university aims to ensure comparable language proficiency of students participating in study and thereby create the precondition for students to successfully complete the minor. This aim can be considered admissible. The maximum number of students to be admitted is set because language learning cannot be organised in a group which is too large since in a large group the risk exists that the students fail to acquire the knowledge. Despite a student not being able to be enrolled in a minor of their choice, they can still acquire higher education by choosing another minor.

What is important is that even before choosing a curriculum applicants know under what conditions the instruction there takes place. A student applicant must also know in advance that despite having the required language proficiency they might not have the possibility to choose the desired minor (see the Chancellor’s opinion).

The right to work

A teacher contacting the Chancellor disagreed with an assessment by the Ministry of Education and Research that their qualifications did not conform to requirements because they did not hold a teacher’s professional qualifications.

The Chancellor explained that the regulation laying down qualification requirements for teachers entered into force as early as 2013. Thus, the Estonian Academy of Arts (where the petitioner studied) should have clearly explained to students on enrolment at the academy that completion of the teacher training curriculum without acquiring a teacher’s professional qualifications does not provide the qualifications required to work as a teacher. A teacher’s qualifications can only be awarded by a school entitled to award the particular professional qualifications. The Estonian Academy of Arts has never been entitled to award a teacher’s professional qualifications. The Chancellor recommended that the petitioner should apply for a teacher’s professional qualifications from the body awarding those qualifications.

An upper secondary school teacher contacted the Chancellor with a similar concern. According to an assessment by the Ministry of Education and Research, the petitioner lacked proper qualifications to work as a basic school or upper secondary school teacher, and in order to comply with the requirement they were recommended to acquire a teacher’s professional qualifications. According to the petitioner’s explanation, they graduated from the speciality of the class teacher at Tallinn University before the regulation on qualification requirements was established but started working as a teacher only after the regulation had entered into force.

In her reply, the Chancellor had to note that, at the time when the petitioner graduated from the university, Tallinn University did not yet have the right to award a teacher’s professional qualifications and the derogations set out in the regulation do not apply to them. The Chancellor explained that if the petitioner wishes they may apply for a teacher’s professional qualifications from the body awarding those qualifications.

Professional standard for a fire safety expert

Questions arose about conformity of the professional standard for a fire safety expert (Level 6) with the Fire Safety Act. The person contacting the Chancellor found that the professional standard did not conform to the law and was also not reasonable. They noted that the professional standard failed to take into account the specialisation of fire safety experts.

The Chancellor explained that by assessing the professional standard in abstract terms no basis exists to assert that the mandatory skills and knowledge under the professional standard for a fire safety expert are clearly unjustified. However, several mandatory skills in the professional standard are worded so narrowly that this may unjustifiably restrict the freedom of profession and enterprise.

Although preparing a new professional standard for a fire safety expert is already under way, the Chancellor asked the Estonian Qualifications Authority to consider initiating administrative supervision over the activities of the Professional Qualifications Council for the Protection of Property and Persons. According to the Chancellor’s assessment, it is necessary to ascertain whether the current or new professional standard enables unjustified restriction of the freedom of profession and enterprise.

Collective labour relations

In a case initiated by Tartu Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court asked for the Chancellor’s opinion as to the compatibility of § 4(4) of the Collective Agreements Act with the Constitution. Under that provision, wages as well as working and rest time conditions set out in a collective agreement between an association of employers and an association of employees or in a collective agreement between a confederation of employers and a confederation of employees could also be extended to those employees and employers who were not parties to the agreement. The scope of extension was to be determined in a collective agreement.

The Chancellor found that the provision contravened the freedom of enterprise established under § 31 of the Constitution. The provision enabled organisations representing a small number of employees and employers to agree that the conditions of a collective agreement (wage conditions and working and rest time conditions) entered into between them also extend to those employees and employers who are not parties to the agreement. At the same time, it was not ruled out that the conditions set out in the collective agreement are unreasonable and harmful to businesses that are not parties to the collective agreement.

The Supreme Court decided to decline to examine the application by Tartu Court of Appeal.