Semilarski case showed uncertainty in conflict restriction rules

A conflict restriction must be understandable to a public official before their conduct is assessed as a criminal matter. Oliver Nääs and Sander Potisepp wrote in Tartu Postimees, based on the Valvo Semilarski case, that regulation related to conflict restrictions needs the legislator’s attention.

In Semilarski’s criminal case, one of the issues disputed was when an official’s decision may be connected to the interests of the official or of a company related to the official. Tartu Circuit Court annulled part of the conviction and found that directing two immovable properties to auction could not be regarded as decisions made in relation to a company connected to Semilarski.

Why is this important?

Anti-corruption rules must prevent conflicts of interest, but they must also be sufficiently clear. If a person in public service cannot understand before making a decision whether they must withdraw, there is a risk that criminal liability will depend on a later interpretation.

What should be done in practice?

An official should seek advice before making a decision where a possible conflict of interest exists and document why they participate or withdraw. At the same time, it is the legislator’s task to formulate conflict restrictions so that they are understandable outside the courtroom as well.

Question and answer

Is every conflict of interest a crime? No. A conflict of interest may require withdrawal or an administrative solution, but criminal liability requires a clear legal basis and a proven breach.

Read more from Tartu Postimees.