STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS Table 1. Distribution of cases by content 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 480 24.7% 449 22.1% 480 24% 395 22.7% 296 18.4% 411 26.5% constitutional review proceedings 151 7.8% 124 6.1% 168 8.4% 127 7.3% 98 6% 136 8.8% ombudsman proceedings 258 13.3% 231 11.4% 214 10.7% 186 10.6% 109 6.8% 168 10.8% special proceedings 71 3.7% 94 4.6% 98 4.9% 82 4.7% 89 5.5% 107 7.0% Non-substantive proceedings of cases 1464 75.3% 1584 77.9% 1523 76% 1344 77.3% 1314 81.6% 1140 73.5% Total cases, including 1944 2033 2003 1739 1610 1552 66 3.5% 82 4% 75 3.7% 72 4.1% 52 3.2% 92 5.9% 33 49 42 53 44 49 Cases accepted for proceedings, including own-initiative proceedings inspection visits Opinions of the Chancellor of Justice Resolving petitions received by the Chancellor takes place according to the principle of freedom of form and expediency of proceedings, and by taking necessary investigative measures to ensure effective and independent investigation. The Chancellor’s opinion upon closing a case shows what solutions the Chancellor found or what steps he took as a result of the proceedings. By types of cases the Chancellor’s opinions can be divided as follows (see also Figure 2): PART IV 2. PART II 2008 PART I Number and proportion of cases opened PART III Type of case Petitions Own initiative Proceedings of cases Case accepted for proceedings Constitutional review proc. Ombudsman proceedings Special proceedings + Proposal to bring an Act into conformity with the Constitution + Proposal to eliminate violation + Proposal to consent to lifting immunity of member of Riigikogu and draw up statement of charges + Recommendation to comply with lawfulness and good administrative practice – Opinion to Riigikogu on lifting immunity of member of Riigikogu + Report to the Riigikogu + Resolved by institution during proceedings Reply to interpellation by member of Riigikogu + Request to the Supreme Court to declare an Act unconstitutional and invalid – Opinion on finding of no violation + Proposal to bring a regulation into conformity with the Constitution + Memorandum to executive authorities to initiate Draft Act Explanation of refusal to investigate Forwarded to other competent bodies Taken note of Reply to written question of a member of Riigikogu Opinion on draft legislation Opinion within constitutional review court proceedings + Memorandum to executive authorities to adopt a legal act + Initiating disciplinary proceedings against judge + Resolved by institution during proceedings – Decision not to initiate disciplinary proceedings against judge – Opinion on finding of no conflict No substantive proceedings initiated + Agreement in conciliation proceedings – Terminating or suspending conciliation proceedings due to failure to reach agreement Figure 2. Distribution of cases opened and outcome of proceedings 71