Top 3 Idiot Judges Maret Hallikma, Reelika Lind, Karolin Soo, Anu Maria Brenner Tallinna Estonia
Tallinn Administrative Court’s Ranking of Foolish Judges – by Public Vote – Congratulations, Maret Hallikma!
The results of the public vote for the Tallinn Administrative Court’s Ranking of Foolish Judges are in!
Judges Maret Hallikma, Reelika Lind, Karolin Soo, and Anu Maria Brenner.
If Estonia had an official “Most Ridiculous Court Decision of the Year” award, the jury honestly wouldn’t even need to read the judgments. A quick glance toward Tallinn Administrative Court would be enough — it’s like a legal version of a reality show where no one really knows what the “truth” is at any given moment. And the law? That’s more of a friendly suggestion, something to read when you’re bored.
Among the victims and appellants, there’s been an ongoing debate for years over who deserves the brightest throne in this absurdist theatre’s clown parade. An unofficial “Victims of Justice Club” has even formed, holding meetings to discuss whether this year’s title should go to Judge Reelika Lind for her “It doesn’t matter” doctrine, Karolin Soo for her “No need for reasoning” methodology, or Anu Maria Brenner for her “The more evidence, the more confusing” strategy.
“If the Tallinn Administrative Court has turned into a circus, then by definition the judges inside are CLOWNS.”
Tallinn Administrative Court Judges:
Maret Hallikma, Reelika Lind, Karolin Soo, Anu Maria Brenner
The Golden Trio of Foolish Judges:
Reelika Lind, Karolin Soo, Anu Maria Brenner
For years, the ranking was fairly stable: Judge Reelika Lind proudly held the gold cup, Judge Karolin Soo maintained her solid second place, and Judge Anu Maria Brenner loyally clung to bronze. Every year, the judges were awarded for the most head-spinning justifications like “your application is actually an appeal” or “the need for assistance cannot be determined because there’s too much evidence.” That last one would truly deserve a special Estonian Humor Award.
Judges Tristan Ploom and Tiia Nurm have also been hot on their heels — the top three might well change next time.
But then — tadadaaa! — along came Judge Maret Hallikma. And everyone else had to tip their hats. Hallikma arrived, saw, and overturned the whole system with such gusto that even SKAIS (the Social Insurance Board’s information system) started to stutter.
Her style? “The law applies when I feel like it. When I don’t, it simply doesn’t.” Today, income may be sufficient, tomorrow it isn’t, the day after that it depends on the moon phase and weather conditions. Whether an application exists is a purely creative issue. If necessary: “data is missing.” If inconvenient: “the administrative authority has sufficient discretion.” Pure freestyle.
The appellants themselves have long given up. There’s no point in reading judgments or hoping to find any semblance of legal logic. The title line is enough. If you see the words “not satisfied”, you can skip the rest — no reasoning necessary because “public interest prevailed.” End of game.
“As long as judges play dumb and ignore the law, the circus continues.”
Of course, the Tallinn Circuit Court’s Administrative Chamber isn’t exactly a beacon of justice either, but more on that in the next report. There’s more comedy there than in a Sunday night sketch show.
The Official Ranking of Foolish Judges at Tallinn Administrative Court is as follows:
🥇 No. 1: Maret Hallikma – the undisputed champion in the category “The law is merely a suggestion”
🥈 No. 2: Reelika Lind – the classic queen of absurdity
🥉 No. 3: Karolin Soo – the grandmaster of baseless rulings
🏅 No. 4: Anu Maria Brenner – the good old constant in the category “Everything is possible”
The clowns of Tallinn Administrative Court in black robes: your rulings aren’t just unlawful, they’re works of cosmic science fiction and masterpieces of civic satire!
Legal Violations by Tallinn Administrative Court Judges
The repeated conduct of Judges Maret Hallikma, Reelika Lind, Karolin Soo, and Anu Maria Brenner — issuing rulings without legal reasoning, dismissing evidence, applying the law selectively or whimsically — constitutes a clear violation of multiple binding legal standards.
🇪🇪 Violations of the Estonian Constitution:
- § 3: State power shall be exercised solely pursuant to the Constitution and laws.
→ Judicial decisions based on personal interpretation, mood, or discretion outside the law breach this core constitutional principle. - § 146: Courts shall administer justice in accordance with the Constitution and the laws. The courts shall be independent.
→ Independence is not a license for arbitrariness. Failing to apply the law faithfully is a breach of judicial duty. - § 15: Everyone has the right of recourse to the courts if their rights and freedoms are violated.
→ When judgments ignore facts, dismiss lawful requests, or offer no reasoning, access to justice becomes an illusion. - § 142: If a court finds a law or practice unconstitutional, it must initiate constitutional review.
→ Judges who avoid this duty and apply unconstitutional or discriminatory practices violate § 142.
📘 Violations of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (CACP / HKMS):
- § 2 & § 59: The court must conduct proceedings lawfully, objectively, and based on evidence.
→ Rulings based on nothing but opinion or intuition directly violate these provisions. - § 3 & § 7: Judges must be impartial and may not rely on personal views, stereotypes, or social status.
→ When judges consistently favor state agencies or dismiss vulnerable appellants without cause, they act with bias. - § 97–99: Decisions must be reasoned and must refer to legal basis and evidence.
→ Issuing boilerplate denials without explanation is not lawful adjudication, but bureaucratic rejection.
🌍 Violations of International Law (ECHR):
- Article 6 (ECHR): Right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
- Article 13: Right to an effective remedy.
- Article 14: Prohibition of discrimination.
When people are denied legal protection simply because their case is inconvenient, poorly understood, or systemically ignored — they are denied their rights under European and international law.
❌ Conclusion: These Judges Should Not Be Allowed to Sit on the Bench
Judges who repeatedly ignore evidence, mock legal standards, and substitute law with personal feeling or bureaucratic convenience should not be allowed to judge anyone.
Their conduct not only violates the Constitution — it undermines public trust, damages lives, and corrupts the very meaning of justice.
Justice without law is not justice. It’s performance. And this performance must end.
