Convention. The Republic of Estonia as a Contracting State must also take that judgment into account.
About his right to appeal T. Raatsin noted that since in the Republic of Estonia persons lack the option to
acquaint themselves with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights because they have not been
translated into the official language and therefore cannot, without help, be understood the same way as
national legislation or case-law, he requests that the Supreme Court would not base its judgment on the
requirement provided in the election act stating that the violation has to be clearly and directly related to the
complainant. His subjective rights have been violated thereby that in elections, the possibility of a certain
part of society to participate in free elections and to express political beliefs through voting has been
restricted. Based on that, the Riigikogu elections as a whole cannot be legitimate.
Further, T. Raatsin emphasised that the e-voting software solution of the Riigikogu elections 2011 does not
meet the security requirements provided in the Riigikogu Election Act and does not comply with the
principle of legal clarity. T. Raatsin wished to support the opinions presented in the complaint of P. Pihelgas
and added that e-voting violates the secrecy of elections.
2. The National Electoral Committee responded to the complaint of T. Raatsin with a letter of 14 March
2011 stating that the National Electoral Committee is not competent to verify the conformity of legislation of
general application to the Constitution. The National Electoral Committee recommended to T. Raatsin to
have recourse to the Chancellor of Justice based on § 15 of the Chancellor of Justice Act. Regarding support
and supplements to the complaint of P. Pihelgas, the Riigikogu Election Act or the Constitutional Review
Court Procedure Act do not prescribe an option for a third person to supplement a complaint filed by a
complainant.
3. T. Raatsin filed on 17 March 2011 with the Supreme Court through the National Electoral Committee a
complaint with an accompanying letter requesting to verify whether § 4(3) and § 22(3) of the REA and § 58
of the Constitution are in compliance with Article 3 of the Protocol No. 1 of the Convention and with its
supplementing judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, with Article 25 of the UN International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and with the provisions of the Code of Good Practice in Electoral
Matters adopted by the Council of Europe Venice Commission. In case of a contradiction he requests the
voting results of the Riigikogu elections 2011 to be declared invalid and based on that, the Riigikogu
elections null and void.
Further, T. Raatsin emphasised that the e-voting software solution of the Riigikogu elections 2011 does not
meet the security requirements provided in the Riigikogu Election Act and does not comply with the
principle of legal clarity. E-voting violates the secrecy of elections (§ 1(2) of the REA). In a situation where
a person wishes to vote by means of e-voting, the IP address of the person's computer will be tied to the
person’s candidate selection. This means that the way the person voted can be visible to certain authorities
upon necessity. It cannot be ruled out that during the election process, such a receipt of e-votes can be
monitored, changed or affected in any other way. By e-voting a person lacks the opportunity to receive
objective and official confirmation about whether the electronic vote cast by him or her has been delivered to
the specified destination and whether it has been received. A person cannot verify nor contest that.
Finally, T. Raatsin noted that since the National Electoral Committee has regarded his complaint as a letter,
his complaint has not been reviewed altogether because based on the Riigikogu Election Act, the National
Electoral Committee can either satisfy the complaint, dismiss the complaint or satisfy the complaint
partially. Since the National Electoral Committee has not adopted any of these resolutions regarding the
complaint of T. Raatsin, his complaint has not been adjudicated to this date. The latter is an independent
violation committed by the National Electoral Committee.
4. The National Electoral Committee forwarded T. Raatsin's complaint of 17 March 2011 to the Supreme
Court on 18 March 2011. The National Electoral Committee requested not to review the complaint and
explained additionally that it is not a complaint for the purposes of § 68 of the REA. The complainant has
not contested a resolution or an act of electoral committee, but has requested verification of compliance of
the provisions of the Riigikogu Election Act and the Constitution with the Constitution, the Convention and
judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.