Freedom of association and assembly

Participants considered that there were no unjust restrictions that would limit the freedom of assembly or activity of CSOs in Estonia. Participants explained that the Estonian CSO community was diverse and that functioning strategic partnerships were in place between the ministries and umbrella CSOs. These partnerships allowed for selected CSOs to receive funding and to work together with ministries on policy development and implementation. However, a downside of the overall good availability of public funding was that some CSOs were too dependent on government funds. In these cases, the freedom of the CSO to publicly criticise could depend on the minister and their team. Participants also noticed that 2022 had seen a big increase in private donations to CSOs due to the war in Ukraine. As far as participation of CSOs in public affairs was concerned, participants said that bills being discussed in parliament had to indicate the way in which CSOs had been involved in the process of drafting of the bill. Participants appreciated this cooperation between CSOs and public authorities, which they believed was not questioned in Estonia. Participants, however, explained that there was a conflict of approach and organisational structures concerning the consultations: While CSOs would like to be consulted in a flexible manner, the ministries preferred structured consultations, which was criticised for sometimes overly limiting the ability to express ideas fully. Generally speaking, participants considered that the time given by the ministries for consultation on draft policies needed to be extended. Participants explained that the fabric of CSOs was less dense in the Russian-speaking groups than in the rest of the population.