The Supreme Court found that there was sufficient data regarding Pihlakodu's activities to initiate criminal proceedings. However, the law does not allow forcing the prosecutor's office to start a criminal case.
On June 16 last year, 11 people submitted a complaint to the prosecutor's office. The complaint stated that a Pihlakodu employee had raped wards in the Tabasalu care home, including the complainants' mothers. The complainants believed that Pihlakodu may have contributed to this crime.
The prosecutor's office did not initiate a criminal case. They stated that there was no evidence that Pihlakodu's management was aware of the rapes. The complainants contested this decision.
The Supreme Court clarified that only the victim can challenge the decision not to initiate a criminal case. A victim is someone who directly suffered harm from the crime. In the alleged rapes, only the complainants' mothers could have been victims.
The Supreme Court found that the prosecutor's office made significant errors. The court stated that the threshold for initiating criminal proceedings is low. Although the complaint contained sufficient data, the prosecutor's office did not start the proceedings.
The complainants provided the prosecutor's office with a lot of information that could have been investigated. For example, it was stated that the care home's management knew about the employee's misconduct.
The Supreme Court noted that final conclusions cannot be drawn based solely on the complaint. However, there was sufficient data to initiate proceedings.
The Supreme Court reminded that when the decision not to initiate a criminal case is contested, the prosecutor must assess the legality of that decision.