Chancellor of Justice’s Annual Report: People’s Concerns Reflect Growing Anxiety and Bureaucracy

On 14 September, Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise submitted her Annual Report to the Riigikogu. It covers the period from 1 September 2025 to 31 August 2026.

Over the year, a total of 6,313 written submissions were sent to the Chancellor of Justice. These included submissions that the Chancellor of Justice does not have the authority to resolve. In such cases, the person is generally given a written reply and, where possible, it is explained where or how they can turn next to protect their rights.

The Chancellor of Justice initiated substantive proceedings in 2,901 cases. Compared with the previous year, the number of such proceedings increased by 15 percent. 

The workload of the Chancellor of Justice has been growing since 2022 and has doubled over the past ten years.

The concerns of people who turn to the Chancellor of Justice provide a picture of what is happening in Estonian society. Help is sought by parents, entrepreneurs, residents of care homes, conscripts, prisoners and people with disabilities, as well as Ukrainians who have received protection in Estonia. The submissions concern, for example, school and kindergarten places, the activities of local authorities, medical care, social benefits, taxes, planning and construction, residence permits, and the protection of personal data and privacy.

The Chancellor of Justice highlights two major trends from the past year. First, anxiety in society has increased, and this is also being felt in schools, hospitals, and state and local government authorities. According to Madise, people’s communication has become sharper, and people are less willing to calmly look for practical solutions to problems. In her view, greater humanity and care would help both officials and people seeking assistance.

Second, the Chancellor of Justice points to the growing expectation that life should be as safe and convenient as possible. Madise links this, among other things, to the growth of bureaucracy and to ever-increasing data collection and surveillance. According to her, the requirements imposed on people and entrepreneurs must have a clear purpose and be justified. Unnecessary permits, approvals, reports and inspections consume the time and money of people, businesses and the state.

The annual review also addresses the balance between security and fundamental rights. In the Chancellor of Justice’s view, surveillance activities are necessary for preventing and detecting crimes, but restrictions on people’s rights must be subject to clear rules and oversight. On the one hand, during the year there were proposals to give law enforcement and security authorities new powers; on the other hand, there were fears that existing powers could be abused.

The review also pays considerable attention to the use of technology and artificial intelligence in the public sector. Madise emphasises that technology must be guided by human beings, not the other way round. State authorities may use artificial intelligence if this is justified and people’s fundamental rights are protected. Responsibility for the decisions made nevertheless remains with the state. A person must be able to challenge an automatically made decision, and the authority must be able to review that decision and, where necessary, correct it.

The Chancellor of Justice sees the use of artificial intelligence as an opportunity to speed up work, but it also brings new problems. The Office of the Chancellor of Justice has already received submissions in which the problem lies in long and inaccurate letters drafted with the help of artificial intelligence. Madise recommends that people set out their concern as simply as possible and in their own words. This makes it easier to understand the person’s concern and assess the case on its merits.

The Chancellor of Justice also draws attention to the fact that laws must be clear and understandable. In her view, situations are becoming increasingly frequent where the text of a law does not make sufficiently clear what a person’s rights and obligations are, or what the person must do. People’s fundamental rights may be restricted only on the basis of law. Important information concerning rights and obligations must be set out in law, not only in explanatory memoranda, development plans or guidelines.

The task of the state is to find solutions to people’s problems that are as clear and lawful as possible, while at the same time avoiding unjustified bureaucracy and restrictions on fundamental rights. It is not possible to eliminate all risks in society completely. However, excessively strict or numerous restrictions may reduce people’s initiative, sense of responsibility and courage to act.