Administrative reform in Estonia

The manifesto of the second Taavi Rõivas cabinet which took office in April 2015 mentioned the government's intention to carry out an administrative reform.[5] With the administrative reform bill approved by the government in March 2016, the government set a criterion according to which the lower limit of the population of municipalities had to be 5,000 inhabitants when adopting the law although aiming to reach municipalities with at least 11,000 inhabitants.[6]

The goal of the administrative reform, which was written into the administrative reform law, was the increase in the capacity of local governments, as their capacity was different in terms of their financial potential, the number of officials and the provision of services. The broader goal of the 2017 administrative reform was to develop and change local governments in a way that would enable them to provide better services to residents, be regionally competitive among local governments, and perform statutory duties independently. The aforementioned included the increase in the management of local government units and the greater ability of the local government to direct the development of its region. The focus of the administrative reform was mainly on the transformation of local governments, but county governments were to also benefit from the reform.[7]

The desired results of the reform were to achieve an increase in the role of municipal governments in the organization of social life, the growth of municipal governments' competence, the strengthening of local representative and participatory democracy and the integrity and logic of the territoriality of self-governing units.[8]

On June 7, 2016, the Riigikogu adopted the Law on Administrative Reform. 56 MPs voted in favor of the law with 38 against.

The Administrative Reform Act and the unconstitutionality of its individual sections were contested in the Supreme Court by several municipal governments with the controversial part being the forced operation of the administrative reform which the municipal governments argued violated the autonomy of the local governments and constitutional guarantees. The court came to the conclusion that administrative organization is not a matter for local governments but rather a matter for the state so the state was to have broad competence to decide what the administrative organization should be in the country with local governments having the right to be heard but not refuse to join another entity should the state decide so.[9]

On 15 February 2017, the national government made merger proposals to local governments that had not merged on their own initiative. If the local government unit did not submit an opinion on the merger proposal of by 15 May 2017, the proposal was considered accepted. If the local government unit objected to the proposal, the national government could, based on the reasons given in the opinion of the local government unit, terminate the procedure for changing the administrative territorial organization or decide to change the administrative territorial organization of the local government units with its own regulation, if the reasons given in the opinion were not sufficient in the opinion of the national government. Compulsory mergers were initiated for those local government units that had less than 5,000 inhabitants as of 1 January 2017 and to which exceptions could not be applied.[7]

The tasks of the local government unit that received the proposal were as follows:

• find out the residents' opinion about the change in the administrative territorial organization
• to submit a reasoned opinion in the form of a decision to the county governor on the proposal of the national government by 15 May 2017 at the latest
• to carry out the election procedures stipulated in the Local Government Council Election Act in cooperation with the relevant councils by 15 June 2017 at the latest
• to agree with the other relevant councils by 15 June 2017 at the latest on the resolution of possible organizational, budgetary and other property obligations and rights related to the change of the name of the municipality, the type and symbols of the administrative unit, the administrative territorial organization or the boundaries, and the preparation of the necessary changes to the statutes of the new municipality and other legislation.[7]

The national government had the obligation to take into account the possible impact on the living conditions of the residents, the quality of public services, administrative capacity, the demographic situation, the organization of transport and communication, the business environment, the state of education and the functioning of the municipality as a single service area. It was also necessary to take into account the historical justification and the sense of belonging of the inhabitants. In the case of local government units that do not meet the minimum size, i.e. less than 5,000 inhabitants, the national government may apply an exception and not require forced merger, should this not have a negative impact on the aforementioned circumstances and one of the following conditions is met in the case of the local government unit:

• merger of at least two local government units forming a logical whole, with a total area of at least 900 km and a population of at least 3,500 as of 1 January 2017
• formation of a local government unit from the territories of at least four historically, culturally and geographically related local government units or their parts, with a population of at least 3,500 as of 1 January 2017
• the municipality is a maritime archipelago including the territory of the island as a whole where independent self-governing management is carried out
• the population of the municipality was more than 5,000 as of 1 January 2016 but due to the decrease in the number of inhabitants, it no longer meets this criterion as of 1 January 2017.[7]

*Plus Võtikvere village from Torma Parish.