Riigikohus selgitas valimisagitatsiooni tegemist kaubanduskeskuses

Mikk Saar, who ran in Tartu on the EKRE list, filed a complaint. He claimed that on October 19, a security guard at Lõunakeskus prevented his party member from distributing party flyers in front of one door. The guard said it was private property. However, at another door, the Reform Party was allowed to campaign. Saar believed this was unequal treatment and violated the principle of equal opportunity in elections. He wanted the National Electoral Committee (VVK) to provide a legal assessment of the incident. However, the VVK did not review the complaint. According to the law, campaigning is only prohibited inside the polling station. Outside of it, the electoral committee has no right to impose such a ban. Saar was dissatisfied and filed a complaint with the Supreme Court. He wanted the VVK’s decision to be overturned. He stated that the election organizer must ensure compliance with election principles even on private property. According to the complainant, EKRE was not informed of Lõunakeskus’ special rules. However, the Reform Party was aware of these rules. The VVK maintained its position and asked the Supreme Court to reject the complaint. The Supreme Court agreed with the VVK and left the complaint unsatisfied. The court explained that the location of polling stations is determined by the city government. If a property owner restricts campaigning, it is not the fault of the electoral committee. The court stated that a property owner may decide whether to allow campaigning on their land. However, if they allow voting on their property, they must ensure the fairness of the elections. If a party is banned from campaigning, the freedom of elections is violated. This prevents the party’s candidates from introducing themselves. The Supreme Court added that the complainant may have the right to claim compensation. If a property owner restricts campaigning unlawfully, the party may file a private law claim.