CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN PART III PART II PART I II. PROCEEDINGS In 2012, the Chancellor opened 164 cases concerning the rights of children. Of these, 71 were substantive proceedings and 93 cases were outside the competence of the Chancellor. In those cases, the Chancellor explained to the petitioners the Chancellor’s competence and advised them how to best protect their rights. Children themselves contacted the Chancellor for the protection of their rights on three occasions during the reporting year. In the remaining cases the Chancellor was contacted by parents or other legal representatives of a child. During the reporting year, the Chancellor opened 16 cases to verify the constitutionality of legislation concerning children. Of these, three cases were opened on the Chancellor’s own initiative and 13 on the basis of a petition. For example, the Chancellor analysed the legislation of several rural municipalities regulating admission to pre-school child care establishments and dismissal from them, and in several of the regulations found provisions which were contrary to the Constitution. To verify the lawfulness of activities of persons and agencies exercising public authority, the Chancellor initiated 55 proceedings, of these 23 on his own initiative and 32 based on a petition. These cases are described in more detail in the following subdivisions. During the reporting year, several parents contacted the Chancellor because of the shortage of kindergarten places. Although in the Chancellor’s opinion rural municipality or city authorities are clearly in breach of the Pre-school Child Care Institutions Act if they do not ensure a kindergarten place for entitled children in their territory, the Chancellor nonetheless did not carry out proceedings in these cases. The reason is that it is fairly doubtful whether anyone would obtain a kindergarten place as a result of the Chancellor’s proceedings because, due to the limits of his competence, the Chancellor cannot force rural municipality or city authorities to create kindergarten places. Having recourse to the court would ensure a much higher probability of success as, unlike in the case of the Chancellor’s proceedings, compliance with a court judgment is mandatory. It is known that on several occasions the court has granted a claimant’s request in such cases,35 including obliging a rural municipality or city authority to compensate the cost of a place in a private kindergarten for the claimant. Therefore, the Chancellor explained to the petitioners that in such cases they could significantly more effectively exercise their rights through court proceedings rather than via the Chancellor. At the same time, the Chancellor found that obtaining a kindergarten place through court does not resolve the overall problem with the provision of the service. Systematic changes are needed; inter alia, as concerns the issue of admission to child care institutions and dismissal from them. Namely, in a situation of shortage of kindergarten places, rural municipality and city authorities have also attempted to alleviate the problem by establishing extra criteria for admission to child care institutions and dismissal from them. For example, the scrutiny of Keila Rural Municipality Administration regulation No 1 of 10 March 2011 „The procedure for the admission of children to and dismissal from pre-school child care institutions in Keila rural municipality” revealed that the rural municipality administration, in violation of the Pre-school Child Care Institutions Act, in addition to establishing the procedure for the admission of children to and dismissal from pre-school child care institutions, had also established substantive criteria for the admission and dismissal (The conditions for the admission of children to and dismissal from Keila rural municipality pre-school child care institutions, case No 6-5/111616). 16 35 See, e.g., Pärnu Administrative Court judgment of 1 December 2011 in case No 3-11-1757, available online in Estonian: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/kohtuteave/maa_ringkonna_kohtulahendid/menetlus.html?kohtuasjaN umber=3-11-1757/26.