A Landmark Ruling Protecting the Rights of Political Party Members

On 19 November 2025, Tallinn Circuit Court issued its final judgment in civil case no. 2-19-13086, establishing a landmark precedent in Estonian case law: the decisions of the highest organ of a parliamentary party — its congress — were definitively annulled.

After more than six years of proceedings, the claimant Indrek Särg prevailed in full: all three contested groups of decisions — the expulsion decision, the decision declaring the district general meeting void, and the decisions on the election of governing bodies at EKRE's 2019 congress — have been found either invalid or voidable under final judgments. 

The case raises several points of legal interest: the extent to which a party's board is bound by procedural requirements in its own statutes; whether the central board has competence to intervene in the internal affairs of a district organisation; and how to distinguish between the nullity of a legal person's organ decision and its voidability.

Facts and Procedural History 

The case originated on 11 May 2019, when the general meeting of EKRE's Tartu city district elected Indrek Särg as district chairman with 59 votes (the next candidate received 15 votes). He was also elected as a delegate and candidate to the party congress scheduled for 9 June 2019, at which he was standing for election to the EKRE board.

On 28 May 2019, the EKRE board adopted two related decisions: it expelled Indrek Särg from the party under points 6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.4.4 and 6.4.5 of the statutes, and declared the Tartu district general meeting of 11 May 2019 "void". This eliminated the claimant's prospect of joining the party board. Both decisions were made without the claimant's knowledge — he was not heard at the board meeting, and neither the party's court of honour nor the Tartu district board was asked for its opinion on the expulsion.

On 6 June 2019, the party board sent a revised delegate list for the Tartu district from which eight duly elected delegates (including the claimant) had been removed and replaced by persons the general meeting had not elected as delegates — some of whom had not even attended the general meeting. At the congress held on 9 June 2019 with this altered composition, Mart Helme was elected party chairman, Martin Helme, Henn Põlluaas and Jaak Madison as deputy chairmen, and the board, council and audit committee were confirmed.

Harju County Court granted the claim in full by judgment of 18 December 2024, finding all three contested groups of decisions null and void. Tallinn Circuit Court partially allowed EKRE's appeal by judgment of 19 November 2025: the finding of nullity of the board's decisions of 28 May 2019 was replaced with a declaration of voidability, while the nullity of the congress decisions was upheld. Costs were awarded against EKRE. No appeal was filed to the Supreme Court and the judgment has entered into force.

Mandatory Nature of the Court of Honour and District Board Opinions 

Point 6.3, second sentence of the EKRE statutes provides that punishment of a member is decided by the board, taking into account, where possible, proposals from the court of honour and the district board; point 12.7.7 adds that the board decides on expulsion having first, where available, heard the opinion of the court of honour and/or the district board. The respondent interpreted these provisions as imposing an obligation to take into account only opinions that had been submitted to the board independently, with no obligation to actively solicit them. Since neither the court of honour nor the Tartu district board had expressed a view, there was, in the respondent's submission, nothing to take into account.

Both courts rejected this interpretation. The county court held: “Under the contrary interpretation, the existence and consideration of the court of honour's and district board's opinion would depend entirely on the board's discretion, rendering points 6.3 and 12.7.7 of the statutes devoid of content.”

The circuit court clarified: “The phrase 'where possible' in point 6.3 and 'where available' in point 12.7.7 do not, in the circuit court's assessment, mean that where a court of honour and a district board exist, they may simply be left unheard. /…/

Expulsion from a party is an exceptionally intensive interference with a member's rights and must not be taken lightly.” This interpretation is supported by the subsidiarity principle in point 2.5 of the statutes and by the fact that a central board of a party with over 10,000 members cannot alone be competent to assess the substantive justification for every expulsion.

This interpretation is supported by the subsidiarity principle set out in point 2.5 of the statutes and by the fact that a central board of a party with over 10,000 members cannot alone be competent to assess the substantive justification for every expulsion.

The case has practical significance for anyone drafting statutes of non-profit associations and political parties. Formulations such as “where possible” and “where available” do not render a procedural requirement discretionary, nor do they authorise the board to disregard procedural requirements at its own discretion.

The Right to Be Heard as Good Practice in Association Law 

The county court addressed separately whether the failure to hear the claimant constitutes an independent ground for nullity. It relied on the Chancellor of Justice's analysis of 16 June 2017, according to which the right of a person to be heard before a decision affecting them is taken forms part of the good practices of association law. Under § 2(1) of the General Part of the Civil Code Act, custom is itself a source of civil law. “In the court's assessment, expulsion from a party constitutes the most intensively rights-infringing decision that can be taken against a member,” the county court observed.

The respondent argued that the claimant had been given the floor at the district general meeting on 11 May 2019, where Martin Helme had raised objections against him. The county court did not accept this, since the hearing was not an agenda item, the general meeting had no competence to decide on expulsion, and it was not apparent to the claimant that this amounted to a hearing in the context of expulsion proceedings.

A discussion or debate in which the expelled member has participated at some earlier meeting of a party organ on entirely different matters cannot qualify as the exercise of the right to be heard. The hearing of a member must take place in relation to the specific grounds for expulsion, giving the member advance notice to prepare and a clear understanding that it constitutes a formal hearing.

The circuit court did not analyse this ground independently, since a single established breach — the failure to seek the opinions of the court of honour and district board — was sufficient for a finding of voidability. Nonetheless, the county court's position on the right to be heard remains an important reference point in legal discourse.

Limits of the Board's Competence 

The legally more complex aspect of the case concerns the board's competence to declare the Tartu district general meeting "void". The respondent relied on § 26(1) of the Non-profit Associations Act and point 12.1 of the statutes, arguing that as the organ responsible for the functioning of the party, the board was obliged to intervene where it identified significant irregularities in the running of a district.

Both courts rejected the competence argument categorically. Under point 9.13 of the statutes, the district general meeting has competence to decide all questions of party activity within the district; under points 9.8 and 10.3, delegates to the congress are elected by districts, not by the party board. The board's competence is defined in point 12.7 of the statutes and does not include the power to rule on the validity of decisions of other party organs. Moreover, the second sentence of § 38(2) of the General Part of the Civil Code Act provides that only a court may determine the nullity of an organ's decision.

The circuit court paid particular attention to the subsidiarity principle in point 2.5 of the statutes: “The subsidiarity principle means that decisions are taken at the lowest possible administrative and political level. /…/ The respondent is accordingly structured to operate on the principle that decisions concerning each region are taken at regional level and central leadership intervention is kept to a minimum.” The general competence to ensure the day-to-day functioning of the party does not create special powers to intervene in the internal democracy of a district organisation.

The Boundary Between Nullity and Voidability 

The most instructive part of the circuit court's judgment is its clarification of the boundary between nullity and voidability. The court divided the contested decisions into two groups depending on the nature of the claimant's legal relationship to the decision in question.

The circuit court found that the board's two decisions of 28 May 2019 breached the statutes: the expulsion decision violated points 6.3 and 12.7.7, and the decision declaring the Tartu district general meeting "void" violated points 9.8, 9.13 and 10.3. Section 24¹(1) of the Non-profit Associations Act does not provide for nullity where the statutes are breached. The claimant's right to participate in the board meeting was not infringed, since only board members may participate and the claimant was not among them.

The court also found no conflict with good morals. Citing Supreme Court Civil Chamber judgments no. 3-2-1-92-08 and no. 2-16-19017, it held that the desire to expel a member from an association is not in itself contrary to good morals. Accordingly, breach of the statutes falls under the voidability regime under §§ 24(1) and (7) of the Non-profit Associations Act read together with § 38(1) of the General Part of the Civil Code Act.

The position regarding the congress decisions of 9 June 2019 was fundamentally different. The claimant had been duly elected as a congress delegate and his right to participate had been violated. “Breach of a member's right to participate constitutes a breach of the procedure for convening the organ,” the circuit court stated. “As a result of the void-declaration decision, the claimant was not summoned to the congress, which constituted a breach of the convening procedure in relation to him.”

This is an independent ground of nullity under § 24¹(1) of the Non-profit Associations Act. Relying on Supreme Court Civil Chamber judgment no. 3-2-1-76-14, both courts found that the violation of the right to participate renders the congress decisions null and void.

Judicial Review of Party Internal Affairs

Civil case no. 2-19-13086 is a landmark judgment on the scope of judicial review of the internal life of Estonian political parties. First, it confirms that a party's statutes constitute a judicially enforceable instrument vis-à-vis its members and that internal procedural requirements — such as seeking the opinion of the court of honour or the district board — are binding in relation to members.

Second, the judgment establishes a clear principle that a party's central board cannot arbitrarily intervene in a district's decision-making process or replace delegates in order to consolidate its own power. Third, the finding of nullity of the congress decisions demonstrates that Estonian association law recognises a domino effect of procedural irregularities: a single decision taken in breach of the statutes may render unlawful the organ decisions that followed from it.

This article was published on 29 May 2026 in the financial and legal journal RUP