Civil Case No. 2-23-1235 is not an ordinary dispute over a failed real estate transaction. It is a story of how a state system can first exhaust a person for decades, then place the property value created by their own labor at the disposal of others, and finally confirm with court decisions that everything happened legally.

The Ege Hirv case is not about a random piece of land or a mere “opportunity to acquire another part of the common property”, as the Tallinn Circuit Court downplayed. It was a jointly owned farm, the residential building of which was acquired by Ege Hirv in 1999. According to him, he has borne the costs of maintaining, using, maintaining and managing the farm since then. As a result of his work and persistence, approximately 40 hectares of land were privatized next to the old farm.

The privatization of the land allegedly took not a few months as stipulated by law, but approximately 20 years. According to Ege Hirve's appeal, the procedure was delayed due to illegal actions and obstacles by Rae rural municipality officials, and the property was only registered in the land register in 2019.

So Ege Hirv worked on the property since 1999, bore the burden of it, and waited two decades until the state finally allowed him to go through the bureaucratic process. When the approximately 40-hectare property was finally formed, the way was opened for it to be divided, transferred, and removed from Ege Hirv's control.

This is the real background to the case. Without it, the courts' approach creates the misleading impression that Ege Hirv was simply trying to acquire property that belonged to someone else. In fact, he was fighting to preserve the integrity of the farm that he had owned, financed, and used for decades, and where he had his permanent residence.

Twenty years of land privatization – in whose interests was the state dragging its feet?

First of all, the question must be answered why the privatization of land next to the old farm took approximately 20 years.

If the law provided for a few months for the procedure, but Rae Municipality and other relevant authorities needed two decades to do so, this is not an ordinary delay or an innocent bureaucratic error. This is the substantive transformation of a person's property right into an empty promise.

During the twenty-year process, Ege Hirv had to maintain the farm himself, pay for it, and fight for it, not knowing whether the state would ever fulfill its obligation. The state's inaction made his life precarious and prevented him from using, developing, and disposing of his property normally.

The nearly 40-hectare property, which only entered the land register in 2019, did not arise out of nowhere. It was the result of decades of work and expense by Ege Hirve. Yet, in a later dispute, the courts treated this background as almost nonexistent.

The state system first forced people to wait 20 years for their rights. Then, the same system did not protect them in a situation where the property created as a result of their work was divided and alienated against their will.

Co-ownership was treated in court as if it were a question of buying someone else's property

Ege Hirv was a co-owner of the property. The dispute concerned the other half of the same farm, to which he had a pre-emptive right under the law.

The right of pre-emption was not a favor or a gift to him. It was a legal protection mechanism for the co-owner, the purpose of which is to allow him to avoid a situation in which a third party is brought into joint ownership with him against his will.

Ege Hirv exercised his right of pre-emption by means of a notarial declaration. As a result, a sales contract was created between him and the seller under the same terms and conditions under the law. Instead of ensuring the performance of the contract and the realization of the co-owner's right, the courts focused on finding ways to consider the seller's withdrawal valid.

The district court ultimately stated that Ege Hirv was not deprived of his share of the co-ownership, but only of the opportunity to acquire another share. This wording conceals the actual consequence.

If a person has kept a farm since 1999, borne its expenses, fought for 20 years for the privatization of the land, and lived there permanently, the loss of the other notional share is not simply a failed investment. It means losing control over one's home, the integrity of the farm, and the future.

The court-created deadline expired before it reached Ege Hirven.

The central basis for the court decisions was the alleged notice of January 4, 2021, which gave Ege Hirve an “additional and final deadline”.

According to this, Ege Hirv had to announce by January 8 whether he was willing and able to make the transaction. The property rights agreement had to be concluded no later than January 14.

The district court also acknowledged that the notice could only be considered to have been received by Ege Hirve on January 12th.

Thus, the deadline for responding had passed four days before the court's own assessment that the notice was legally received. Two to three days remained to find a notary, prepare the transaction, coordinate the parties' times, and deposit the money.

Despite this apparent absurdity, the district court found that Ege Hirv did not prove that it would have been impossible to make the transaction in three days.

Thus, the burden of proof was turned into a weapon against the person himself. The party that set the deadline was not required to explain how the natural person was supposed to arrange a notarial real estate transaction within a few days. Instead, Ege Hirve was required to prove that the impossible deadline was indeed impossible.

Moreover, § 114(1) of the Civil Procedure Code states that an unreasonably short term shall be extended to a reasonable term. The courts cited the norm but refused to give it actual content.

This is not applying the law. This is exploiting the wording of the law to justify a previously desired outcome.

Ege Hirv found a notary – the court called it inaction

Ege Hirv already announced on January 13, 2021, that he had booked a notary appointment for February 5 to conclude a property law contract. He did this the day after receiving the alleged legal notice.

The seller withdrew from the contract on January 21, thus being aware that Ege Hirv wanted to complete the transaction and that there was a specific notary period for this.

The courts did not consider the booking of a notary appointment as evidence of the intention to perform the contract. The district court reached the opposite conclusion, arguing that Ege Hirve's inaction could be inferred from his lack of desire and opportunity to conclude the transaction.

How can the actions of a person who has booked a notary appointment be called inaction? How can a lack of intent to transact be inferred from a specific transaction proposal?

There is no logical answer to this in the court decisions. The courts needed Ege Hirve's "inaction" to justify withdrawing from the contract, and therefore even his specific actions were rendered essentially non-existent.

The disputed Word document was made into decisive evidence

Ege Hirv contested the sending, content and authenticity of the January 4th notice throughout the proceedings.

According to the complaints, an unsigned Word document and later a PDF screenshot of the alleged email were submitted to the court. Neither the original digitally signed file nor the original email with technical data that would have allowed verification of who actually sent the declaration of intent, when, and with what content.

Nevertheless, the courts treated the contested document as essentially an indisputable fact.

When the outcome of an entire case depends on a single alleged message, its provenance and integrity are crucial. A Word file can be edited. A screenshot can change the date, recipient, sender, and attachment name. That is why the court should have demanded the original, or at least explained why it considered the material presented to be reliable.

The courts did not do this.

Thus, a person was deprived of the opportunity to maintain control over their decades of life's work based on a document whose authenticity was not answered in a substantive way.

The obligations of the contracting party were transferred to a third party

According to the sales contract, the seller had to notify the buyer of the date, time, and place of the conclusion of the real property contract at least seven days in advance.

However, the courts considered this obligation fulfilled by the notifications sent by the original buyer , Lauri Kolg . After exercising the right of pre-emption, Lauri Kolg did not have the status of seller in the sales contract with Ege Hirve.

The courts subsequently amended the third party's letters to fulfill the seller's contractual obligations. This released the seller from its own obligation and placed the consequences on Ege Hirve.

If a party's obligation can be declared fulfilled by a court decision through the actions of another person, the contractual liability becomes void. One party retains rights, the other party has obligations, and the actions of a third party are formalized, as necessary, as the actions of the party in whose favor the decision is being justified.

The purchase price already paid was changed to a violation again

The courts found that the original buyer had already paid the purchase price of 47,282.84 euros to the seller.

The District Court also acknowledged the previous position of the Supreme Court, according to which the seller cannot rely in such a situation on the fact that the person with the right of pre-emption failed to pay the purchase price to him.

However, Ege Hirve's failure to deposit the same amount into the notary's account was used as a reason for withdrawing from the contract.

The seller had received the money. Ege Hirve's notary appointment was on February 5. According to the contract, the money had to be deposited one day before the conclusion of the real estate contract. Despite this, he was accused of not having deposited the amount by the earlier dates declared valid by the courts retrospectively.

The court's construction allowed it to simultaneously claim that the seller had received the entire purchase price, but Ege Hirv had still committed a significant breach by failing to pay the money.

This contradiction is not an extraneous legal nuance. It was one of the main grounds justifying the exclusion of a person from acquiring another part of his own farm.

A 40-hectare property was divided into pieces during a dispute

According to the appeal, the total area of the disputed property was nearly 40 hectares. The cadastral unit 65301:001:4898, which was part of it, was divided into new units 65301:001:6648 and 65301:001:6649 based on the order of the Rae Rural Municipality Government of 28 December 2023.

Ege Hirv argued to the court that the division was unlawful because it was actually co-ownership and there was no consent from all co-owners. In his opinion, the land register entry was used, which did not take into account the material legal effect of his exercised right of pre-emption.

The division took place while the ownership was in litigation. Instead of maintaining the status quo until the end of the dispute, the system allowed the structure of the property to be changed and made it increasingly difficult to actually restore Ege Hirve's rights.

If the disputed 40-hectare farm is divided into new cadastral units during the proceedings and the courts then remove the protection of securing the claim, the inevitable question arises: was the purpose of the proceedings to protect rights or to provide time to cause irreversible consequences?

Courts erased a person's life's work with the word "emotional"

Ege Hirv acquired the house in 1999. He used it for decades, at least ten of them as a permanent residence. According to him, he bore the expenses of the farm alone, and it was his work and persistence that made it possible to privatize approximately 40 hectares of land next to the old farm.

The district court reduced it all to “emotional attachment” and noted that the seller does not have to take this into account when withdrawing from the contract.

This approach shows the cold and detached nature of the judicial system. A person's decades of work, expenses, home, and living environment lose their importance in the eyes of the court as soon as they can be called emotions.

But it wasn't just about emotion. It was about a financial contribution, a 20-year struggle for privatization, co-ownership, a home, and the future of a farm of approximately 40 hectares.

The courts did not protect the person who created and maintained this property. They created a legal cover for a situation where the result of his work could pass into the control of others.

The Supreme Court closed the door and left the system intact.

The appeal raised detailed questions about the contested evidence, the impossible deadline, the purchase price, the seller's obligations, co-ownership, the home, and the principle of good faith.

The Supreme Court – Kaupo Paal, Urmas Volens and Kai Kullerkupp – refused to accept the appeal on December 17, 2025. No response was given to the substantive contradictions.

This did not correct the errors of the lower courts or explain how the deadline for responding can expire before the notice is received, how a Word document can be sufficient decisive evidence, how a lack of intent to transact can be inferred from booking a notary appointment, or how an already paid purchase price again becomes a material breach.

The Supreme Court simply closed the door.

When every part of the system works against the person

There is not a single mistake in the chain of events described by Ege Hirve.

According to him, Rae rural municipality officials delayed the privatization of the land for about 20 years. When the land was finally privatized and a nearly 40-hectare immovable property was formed, the co-ownership share was sold to a third party. Ege Hirv exercised his legal right of pre-emption, but its implementation was blocked by contested notices and artificial deadlines. During the litigation, the immovable property was divided. The county court accepted the legal construction supporting it. The district court confirmed it. The Supreme Court refused to intervene.

When officials procrastinate, the land registry entry allows the property to be divided, a contracting party can withdraw based on questionable evidence, and the courts turn every disagreement against the person who protected the property, the result can no longer be described as a collection of random errors.

From Ege Hirve's point of view, this is a legal mafia-style mechanism for confiscating property: no one has to publicly take property by force. It is enough to drag out proceedings, exploit records, shift the burden of proof against the victim, and each subsequent institution confirms the consequences of the previous action.

The existence of a criminal "mafia" is not proven by these documents. However, the way the system described operates is mafia-like in the truest sense of the word: a person is isolated, exhausted by procedures, and ultimately deprived of actual control over the property whose value he or she has been responsible for creating for decades.

This is not justice – it is the legalization of a position of power

Civilian No. 2-23-1235 shows a system where:

• land privatization will take approximately 20 years instead of a few months;

• a person bears the costs of a farm for decades, but their contribution is reduced to emotion;

• the second part of a jointly owned farm of nearly 40 hectares will be transferred to the control of a third party;

• the exercise of the right of pre-emption is rendered meaningless;

• the deadline for replying expires before the notification is received;

• the contested Word document is turned into decisive evidence;

• the person who booked a notary appointment is declared inactive;

• the purchase price already paid is changed again to a breach of contract;

• the contested immovable property is divided into new cadastral units during the proceedings;

• The Supreme Court refuses to review the contradictions on the merits.

Such a system does not protect the individual from power and the stronger party. It uses the form of law to give an official seal to an unjust outcome.

Ege Hirve's life was made virtually impossible through state procedures, property disputes, and court decisions. He had to fight for 20 years to privatize his land, and then for years more to preserve the farm he had created through his own labor. Instead of protecting his rights, the system helped create a situation where his property could be divided into pieces and taken out of his control.

This can no longer be hidden behind neutral expressions such as “withdrawal from the contract”, “additional term” or “emotional attachment”.

It's about a person's home, decades of work, and a farm of nearly 40 hectares.

The question is whether the Estonian state protects the property owner or helps to bring his life's work under the control of others through legal constructions.

In Civil Case No. 2-23-1235, the answer seems devastatingly clear.