Top court sidesteps parental-benefit equality ruling

Estonia's Supreme Court (Riigikohus) has declined to rule on whether the shared parental benefit (jagatav vanemahüvitis) rules discriminate against parents of prematurely born childrenRiigikohus. In its ruling of 14 September 2026 in case No 5-26-26 (court order 5-26-26/12)RiigikohusRiigikohus, the Constitutional Review Chamber left the constitutional-review case initiated by the Tartu Administrative Court unexaminedRiigikohus.

The underlying dispute concerned a child born on 29 April 2025, about two and a half months prematurely: the expected birth date was 12 July 2025. The Social Insurance Board (Sotsiaalkindlustusamet, SKA) first granted the complainant mother's benefit (ema vanemahüvitis) of 97.19 euros per calendar day, calculated from the 21 calendar months preceding the expected birth month minus the nine months preceding it. When the mother's benefit period ended, the SKA's decision of 19 June 2025 granted shared parental benefit and recalculated the daily rate from the 21 months preceding the actual birth month minus the nine preceding months. Because the child was premature, the reference period shifted three months earlier than for the mother's benefit, excluding a period in which the complainant's income had risen — leaving a shared-benefit daily rate of 80.77 euros.

The complainant challenged the SKA decision, arguing that the Family Benefits Act puts parents of premature children in an unequal position. The Tartu Administrative Court agreed in its decision of 24 April 2026 in case No 3-25-3166Riigikohus: it held that § 39(3)(2) of the Family Benefits Act (Perehüvitiste seadus, PHS) conflicts with the right to equality in so far as it computes the shared benefit of parents of premature children from the actual rather than the expected birth monthRiigikohus, disapplied the provisionRiigikohus, annulled the SKA decisionRiigikohus and ordered the SKA to decide anew using the mother's-benefit reference periodRiigikohus.

The Constitutional Review Chamber — presided over by Villu Kõve with members Oliver Kask, Ivo Pilving, Heili Sepp and Margit Vutt, deciding in written proceedings — did not reach that constitutional questionRiigikohus. Its central holding is interpretive: § 45(3) PHS, which provides that where the same person repeatedly claims benefit for the same child the daily rate is not recalculatedRiigikohus, also covers a parent who first claims one type of benefit and then another for the same childRiigikohus. The Riigikogu, the Government and the SKA had argued the provision applies only to repeated claims for the same type of benefit; the Chamber disagreed, holding that the wording draws no such distinctionRiigikohus and that the provision's placement does not point to the narrower readingRiigikohus.

On that reading, the administrative court should have upheld the complaint on the basis of § 45(3) — by holding that the mother's-benefit daily rate already granted to the complainant could not be recalculated when she claimed shared benefit for the same childRiigikohus — rather than by disapplying § 39(3)(2). Because § 39(3)(2) was therefore not decisive for deciding the main case, it was not a relevant provision for concrete review, and the review case had to be left unexaminedRiigikohus. The Chamber also ordered the complainant's name replaced with initials in the published order.

The Riigikogu, the SKA and the Government defended the actual-birth-month rule as objective and justified, while the Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs considered it unjustified unequal treatment. The equality question itself was not decidedRiigikohus; on the Chancellor of Justice's doubt over the mother's-benefit reference month, the Chamber expressly declined to share it.

Legal basis: ruling 5-26-26/12 of the Constitutional Review Chamber of the Riigikohus of 14 September 2026, interpreting § 45(3) of the Perehüvitiste seadusRiigikohus; the constitutional review initiated by the Tartu Administrative Court decision of 24 April 2026 in case No 3-25-3166 was left unexaminedRiigikohus.