Eesti Ekspress on 2025.a juunikuus avaldanud mitmeid šokeerivaid lugusid seoses täiskasvanud inimestele eestkoste seadmisega (Kirsti Vainküla sulest 04.06 ja 05.06 lood). Selle taustal tuli mulle meelde, et kirjutasin paar aastat tagasi Eesti kohta peatüki ühes raamatus, mis täiskasvanute eestkoste teemat käsitleb. Raamatu keskne teema oli puuetega inimeste õiguste konventsiooni artikkel 12 ning küsimus sellest, kas ja kuidas konventsiooniga liitunud riigid seda järgivad.
Jõudsin järeldusele, et Eesti õigus, mis puudutab täiskasvanud inimestele eestkoste seadmist, on vastuolus puuetega inimeste õiguste konventsiooniga.
Raamat oli ingliskeelne ning on vähemalt hetkel kõigile vabalt kättesaadav, kui klikid siia (saad sealt otsida Eesti peatüki ning soovi korral selle tasuta alla laadida).
Mul pole hetkel mahti, et enda peatükki eesti keelde tõlkida, kuid väga oluline on märkida, et eestkoste seadmine täiskasvanud inimese suhtes peaks olema kõige viimane meede.
Võimalusel tuleks alati lahendada olukorda hoopis nii, et inimene volitab mõnd usaldatud inimest enda eest teatud tehinguid tegema, mis inimesele endale üle jõu käivad. Näiteks EE poolt kajastatud Linda loos oli eestkoste seadmine täiesti põhjendamatu. Nii samuti oli see täiesti alusetu Marko loos.
Lisaks KOV ametnikele on nendes lugudes rängalt eksinud ka kohtunikud ning see teema vajab laiemat tähelepanu.
Lisan siia enda kirjatüki ingliskeelse kokkuvõtte:
“As is evidenced by the specific declaration made by Estonia upon the ratification of the Convention, it was the intent and purpose of the Estonian government for Article 12 of the Convention not to have any impact on national law concerning rules on restricted active legal capacity. Expressed in this declaration is a twisted interpretation of Article 12 of the Convention that it allows active legal capacity to be restricted ‘when such need arises from the person’s ability to understand and direct his or her actions’, whereas Article 12 literally reads that ‘persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life’. Based on the Explanatory Note accompanying the Estonian Act on Ratification of the Convention, the requirement of an ‘equal basis’ established in Article 12 was seen by the Estonian government as being met via the fact that the determination of active legal capacity being restricted rests upon whether a person can understand and direct his or her actions.
Although pertaining to guardianships of adults, Estonian law requires for the guardian’s rights and duties in representing the ward to be specified and limited to the extent that the active legal capacity of the ward is truly restricted (as a factual matter), this appears to be an ideal rather than actual reality. Legal scholars, practitioners and the Estonian Chamber of Disabled People have all pointed to the fact that this requirement is oftentimes not met in practice. The reality is that courts struggle with determining the exact extent of the restriction of active legal capacity. However, even in an ideal scenario, where courts could always manage to pinpoint and establish exactly to which extent a person is unable to understand or direct his or her actions, and thereby limit the guardian’s range of rights and duties accordingly, this would still be a system of substituted decision-making where a guardian makes the decisions on the ward’s behalf (even if only to a limited extent). This is not in line with Article 12 of the Convention.
The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities made it clear already in
2014 that Article 12 of the Convention allows for no restrictions of legal capacity for people with disabilities. Based on the Committee’s explanations, the aim of Article 12 is that substituted decision-making systems be abolished, and instead supported decision-making systems should be adopted. Yet still, in its 2015 Report, Estonia persisted that its national law complies with the Convention per the declaration made upon ratification. However, legal scholars, practitioners and the Estonian Chamber of Disabled People seem to agree that Estonian law does currently not align with the aims of Article 12 of the Convention and needs revisions.
Lisa kommentaar