Justice prevailed again! Küllike Namm was acquitted in a second criminal case
A second years-long criminal case against Küllike Namm also ended in an acquittal. The Supreme Court upheld the decision by which Küllike Namm was acquitted of the charges of fraud and use of a forged document.
Criminal proceedings like this are extremely difficult for a person. Especially when the person knows that they have not committed a criminal offence, a public accusation can be a heavy burden. It affects trust, work, relationships, everyday life and a person’s own sense of security. That is why it was especially painful for us to see Küllike’s name linked for years to unfounded accusations that ultimately were not confirmed in court.
We are sincerely happy about this outcome. Justice does not always come quickly. Sometimes it takes years to arrive. But in this case, it finally did! We also want to thank from the bottom of our hearts all the good people who supported us, trusted us and believed in us on this journey! Your support has been invaluable.
Court victory! Court dismissed the water damage claim against an apartment association
The court dismissed the water damage claim brought against an apartment association in full. In case no. 2-24-14015, Viru County Court found that the damage was not the responsibility of the association, but of the apartment owner who broke the water pipe during renovation works.
NAMM attorneys-at-law Nele Tammemäe and Kristiina Lee represented a Rakvere apartment association against which an insurer had filed a claim of €5,467. The insurer had compensated its policyholder for water damage in one apartment and then sought to recover the money from the association.
The court explained that if a water leak originates from a pipe in common ownership, the association’s liability may be presumed, but the association can rebut that presumption. In this case, the association proved that the pipe broke during renovation works carried out by the owner of the upper apartment, which meant that the apartment owner, not the association, was liable for the damage. The claim against the association was dismissed.
The judgment is important for every apartment association and apartment owner: it shows that an association is not automatically liable for every instance of water damage and that the decisive question is whose actions actually caused the damage. The judgment is available here.
Court annulled the recovery of €68,686 in grant support claimed from a hospital
The Court of Appeal annulled the recovery of €68,686 in grant support claimed back from Rakvere Hospital. In case no. 3-24-2020, Tallinn Court of Appeal found that the grant provider was not allowed to impose a 100% financial correction without substantively assessing the impact of the breach.
NAMM attorney-at-law Nele Tammemäe represented AS Rakvere Haigla, from which the State Shared Service Centre sought repayment of European Union support. As part of the project, the hospital had purchased a generator and carried out a public procurement procedure during which a breach of procurement rules occurred.
The court agreed that the breach gave grounds for a financial correction, but found that the grant provider erred by treating itself as obliged to apply the 100% rate automatically. According to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the seriousness of the breach and its actual impact on the European Union budget must be taken into account. The court ordered the State Shared Service Centre to review the hospital’s payment applications again and awarded the client €12,525 in procedural costs.
The judgment is important for every grant recipient that has made an error in a public procurement procedure: it confirms that full repayment is not inevitable and that the impact of the breach must be assessed case by case. The judgment is available here.
The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Ahtme shooting criminal case
NAMM attorney Simone Eelmaa achieved an important procedural interim success for the victim in the Supreme Court: the Tartu Court of Appeal’s decision was overturned and the criminal case was sent back for a new hearing. The Supreme Court’s decision of 23 February 2026 was made in criminal case no. 1-24-5284, which concerned a fatal shooting in Ahtme. A NAMM attorney represents the victim in this case.
The county court found the accused guilty of intentional killing, but the Court of Appeal held that the act amounted to causing death by negligence. The victim’s representative filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal’s decision, arguing that the accused should have been convicted of intentional killing, not causing death by negligence.
Although the case will now be heard again by the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court gave important guidance, and the Court of Appeal’s previous decision cannot stand in its current form. For the victim, it is important that the new hearing provides clear answers and a legal assessment of how the fatal shooting should be treated under criminal law. Hopefully, the new decision of the Court of Appeal will bring the desired legal closure in this case. Read more about the Supreme Court’s decision.
The criminal proceedings against Martin Repinski ended without a conviction
Martin Repinski’s criminal case ended in Harju County Court under the opportunity principle (oportuniteet), and no entry will be made in his criminal record. The proceedings were closed on 18 February 2026 after the prosecution found that, over time, the public interest in continuing the case had decreased and the alleged fault was not serious.
NAMM attorney-at-law Kristjan Tuul defended Martin Repinski in a criminal case made up of three charges. On 18 November 2025, the Supreme Court made two decisions: it upheld Repinski’s acquittal on the charges concerning a Riigikogu member’s housing allowance and the use of a fuel card. These acquittals became final.
The third charge concerned severance payments made in 2019, when Repinski was the mayor of Jõhvi Municipality. Repinski released three officials from service and paid each of them severance equal to six months’ salary. The county court and the circuit court acquitted Repinski on this charge, but the Supreme Court sent this part of the case back to the county court for a new hearing.
In the new hearing, the proceedings were closed under the opportunity principle (oportuniteet). Repinski agreed to compensate Jõhvi Municipality for the loss caused, and the court approved the request by the prosecution and the defence to close the case. The opportunity principle means that proceedings end without a conviction if the alleged fault is not serious and the harm caused is remedied.
Victory! Court dismissed a €110,000 loan claim
The court dismissed a €110,005 loan claim filed by one company against another. In case no. 2-19-13673, the courts found that the claimant had not proven that a loan agreement had been concluded, meaning the money could not be claimed back.
NAMM attorney-at-law Nele Tammemäe and counsel Küllike Namm represented a financial company in liquidation from which the claimant sought repayment of money allegedly transferred as a loan, together with interest and default interest. The client argued that the parties had not concluded a loan agreement.
The dispute centred on whether a mere money transfer and a later acknowledgement of debt prove the existence of a loan agreement. The courts found that they do not: to conclude a loan agreement, the parties must have reached an agreement on the repayment of money, and the claimant had not shown this. The acknowledgement of debt had been signed by a person who no longer had authority to represent the company at the time. The client also won before the Supreme Court of Estonia, which sent the matter for a new hearing; after that, the opposing party’s claim was finally dismissed.
The judgment is important for every entrepreneur who transfers money without putting a clear agreement in place: a repayment claim requires a proven agreement, not only a payment order. The Supreme Court judgment is available here and the Court of Appeal judgment here.
Victory! Court annulled a three-year Schengen entry ban
The court annulled a three-year Schengen entry ban that the Police and Border Guard Board had imposed on a foreign national. In case no. 3-23-905, Tartu Court of Appeal found that there was no legal basis for imposing the ban.
NAMM attorney-at-law Nele Tammemäe represented a Belarusian citizen who had a valid Polish residence permit. The man worked at a construction site in Estonia without registering short-term employment, as a result of which the Police and Border Guard Board terminated his period of stay and imposed a three-year Schengen entry ban.
The court explained that because the person held a residence permit issued by another European Union country and voluntarily left Estonia for Poland, he could not be made subject to an entry ban covering the entire Schengen area. Such a ban would be contrary to both Estonian law and the Schengen Convention. The court annulled the ban and ordered the state to pay the client €3,745 in procedural costs.
The judgment is important for foreign nationals who hold a residence permit in another EU country: a violation committed in Estonia does not automatically mean losing access to the entire Schengen area. The judgment is available here.
The Supreme Court acquitted Martin Repinski
The Supreme Court upheld Martin Repinski’s acquittal on two charges and confirmed that a conviction in a criminal case must be based on directly and properly assessed evidence. NAMM attorney-at-law Kristjan Tuul defended Martin Repinski in criminal case no. 1-23-7274/138.
The dispute concerned, among other things, the use of a member of the Riigikogu’s housing allowance and fuel card. In the charge concerning the housing allowance, the circuit court had changed its assessment of testimony without rehearing the accused or the witnesses. The Supreme Court considered this a significant error and upheld the county court’s acquittal in that part.
The earlier acquittals also remained in force in relation to the allegation concerning the use of the fuel card. According to the Supreme Court, the evidence did not establish a criminally punishable act to the required extent.
The judgment is important because it emphasises the significance of the right of defence and the direct assessment of evidence. A conviction cannot be based on assumptions or on changing the assessment of evidence in a way that deprives the defence of the opportunity to respond directly. Read more in ERR.
Does bad weather release an airline from paying compensation?
To avoid paying flight compensation, an airline must show that it made all reasonable efforts to prevent the delay. The Supreme Court explained that bad weather does not automatically release an air carrier from paying compensation under EU Regulation No 261/2004.
NAMM attorney-at-law Kristjan Tuul represented Flagito OÜ, to whom a passenger had assigned a compensation claim for a delayed Tallinn-Antalya flight. The flight was due to leave Tallinn at 5 a.m. but departed only at 17:50. Compensation of 400 euros was therefore claimed on behalf of the passenger. Turkish Airlines argued that the delay was caused by bad weather and flight crew working time limits.
The courts found that the air carrier should have foreseen the situation and planned its work better. The Supreme Court stressed that a reasonably acting airline must take possible delays into account and, where needed, plan a reserve crew so that exceeding crew working time does not stop the flight for hours. The county court, the circuit court and the Supreme Court all granted the compensation claim.
The decision is important for passengers and airlines: an extraordinary circumstance does not automatically end the airline’s responsibility. The airline must prove that it used all reasonable options to get the passenger to the destination on time.
Client confidentiality needs stronger protection during interception
Client confidentiality is protected even when a lawyer and client call is incidentally intercepted by the police. In its order of 10 October 2025 in case No. 1-24-7248/21, the Supreme Court of Estonia explained that lawyer and client communication has special protection in the administration of justice.
The case concerned a complaint by attorneys-at-law Sander Potisepp, Küllike Namm and Kristiina Urb-Semjonov. During a criminal investigation, the police intercepted the telephone calls of one person, and the recordings also captured conversations with lawyers. The lawyers argued that this violated their privacy and the protection of client confidentiality.
The Supreme Court found that if it is clear from an intercepted call that legal services are being provided, the lawyer must be notified of the surveillance measure. The Court also emphasised that confidentiality does not cover only the content of the call. The mere fact that a person contacted a lawyer is already protected.
The judgment is important for everyone who uses legal assistance in criminal proceedings. If a person cannot be certain that what they discuss with their lawyer remains protected, this harms trust between lawyer and client and, more broadly, fair trial rights.
Read more from ERR or Postimees.