General legal framework

• Author: Poleshchuk, Vadim
• Pages: 12-12

12

1 GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Constitutional provisions on protection against discrimination and the promotion

of equality

The Estonian Constitution includes the following article dealing with non-discrimination:

‘Article 12.

Everyone is equal before the law. No one shall be discriminated against on the basis

of ethnic origin, race, colour, sex, language, origin, religion, political or other opinion,

property or social status, or on other grounds.

The incitement of ethnic, racial, religious or political hatred, violence or discrimination

shall, by law, be prohibited and punishable. The incitement of hatred, violence or

discrimination between social strata shall, by law, also be prohibited and punishable.’

These provisions apply to all areas covered by the directives. The Constitution provides an

open-ended list of grounds of discrimination. Therefore, Estonian courts have repeatedly

addressed the issue of discrimination on the grounds of age,19 disability,20 sexual

orientation,21 etc. in the context of Article 12 of the Constitution.

The material scope of the constitutional provisions is broader than those of the directives.

In one of its judgments, the Constitutional Review Chamber of the Supreme Court claimed

that the general principle of equality is applicable to ‘all spheres of life’.22 An Estonian

academic who studied the application of this provision by the Supreme Court made the

following summary:

‘Article 12 of the Constitution does ban unequal treatment in all spheres of activities

which are regulated and protected by the State. Legislative, executive and judicial

powers should observe the principle of equal treatment. (…) The principle of equal

treatment is valid for all laws regardless of their scope of application.’23

The constitutional anti-discrimination provisions are directly applicable.

The constitutional equality clauses can be enforced against private actors (as well as

against the state).

19 E.g. Constitutional Review Chamber of the Supreme Court, Judgment of 1 October 2007, case 3-4-1-14-07.

20 E.g. Supreme Court en banc, Judgment of 10 December 2003, case 3-3-1-47-03.

21 E.g. Constitutional Review Chamber of the Supreme Court, Judgement of 18 December 2019, case 5-19-42.

22 Constitutional Review Chamber of the Supreme Court, decision of 6 March 2002, Case No. 3-4-1-1-02, point

13; published in RT III 2002, 8, 74.

23 Lõhmus, K. (2003) ‘Võrdsusõiguse kontroll Riigikohtus ja Euroopa Inimõiguste Kohtus’ (Control over

Equality in the Supreme Court and in the European Court of Human Rights), Juridica, No. 2, Vol. 11, p. 109.