{
  "id": "estonia-2017-2022-kratt-ai-legal-capacity-proposal",
  "provision": "Legal capacity for autonomous software, proposed for a national AI act and rejected by the state's own expert group",
  "source": {
    "constitution": "No enacted provision. The record is a proposal, a legislative intent and one lapsed bill: the report of the expert group on the implementation of artificial intelligence (Eesti tehisintellekti kasutuselevõtu eksperdirühma aruanne, May 2019, commissioned by the strategy office of the Riigikantselei), the Ministry of Justice legislative intent Algoritmiliste süsteemide mõjude reguleerimise väljatöötamise kavatsus (the krati VTK, 2020), and bill 634 SE, Haldusmenetluse seaduse muutmise ja sellega seonduvalt teiste seaduste muutmise seadus, which lapsed",
    "jurisdiction": "Estonia (Eesti Vabariik)",
    "year": "2017-2026",
    "article": "Expert group report May 2019, chapters 6.4.1 (Õigusanalüüsi kokkuvõte) and 6.4.2, with Annex 1 (Eksperdirühma koosseis); krati VTK (Ministry of Justice, 2020); bill 634 SE, initiated 6 June 2022, first reading completed 22 September 2022, lapsed; draft Administrative Procedure Act and Public Information Act amendment, explanatory memorandum of 27 February 2026 (Justiits- ja Digiministeerium)"
  },
  "text_summary": "Nothing of this kind was ever enacted. What was proposed, in English-language trade reporting of September and October 2017, was a 'kratt law' whose central device would be legal personality for software: 'the fourth and boldest scenario would include turning a robot into a legal entity of its own, one that can represent its owner to the extent defined by him or her' (Invest in Estonia, September 2017) and 'The main legal means to meet this ambitious goal is to be awarding legal personality to AI' (newtech.law, 23 October 2017). What the Estonian state put in writing is the opposite. The expert group report of May 2019 concludes, in chapter 6.4.1: „Põhimõttelisi muudatusi õigussüsteemi põhialustes vaja teha ei ole ja vajadus nn ühtse „kratiseaduse“ järele puudub“ (my rendering: no fundamental changes to the foundations of the legal system are needed, and there is no need for a so called unified kratt law). On personality itself: „Tehisintellektile (agendile) õigussubjektsuse andmine looks näilise õiguskindluse ning ei lahendaks vastutuse probleeme“ (my rendering: granting legal subjecthood to artificial intelligence, to the agent, would create apparent legal certainty and would not solve the problems of liability). The grounds given are that kratts „on ja jäävad [...] inimese tööriistaks selles tähenduses, et nad täidavad inimese poolt määratud ülesannet“ (are and remain a human tool, in the sense that they carry out a task set by a human) and that „nn superagente, kes on suutelised iseseisvalt toimima ja omama inimese tahtest sõltumatut tahet, täna teadaolevalt ei eksisteeri ning õigusliku regulatsiooni subjektiks on inimene“ (my rendering: so called superagents, able to act independently and to hold a will independent of human will, do not exist as far as is known today, and the subject of legal regulation is the human being). The same chapter rejects a register: „keskse autonoomsete intelligentsete tehnoloogiate registri vajadus puudub“ (no need for a central register of autonomous intelligent technologies). In place of personality it proposes attribution. For public power: „omistatakse krati tegevus riigivastutuse tähenduses läbi kratti kasutanud asutuse või organi riigile“. For private law: „Eraõiguslikes suhetes, nii füüsiliste kui juriidiliste isikute osas, tuleb krati tegevus lugeda krati kasutaja tegevuseks“ (my rendering: the act of the kratt is attributed to the state through the body that used it, and in private law counts as the act of the kratt's user). Criminal law is to be extended by widening indirect perpetration to cover the use of a kratt. Every English rendering in this entry is mine.",
  "period": "Floated in 2017, worked on by a government expert group from 2018, refused in that group's own report of May 2019, carried on as a narrow legislative intent in 2020, redirected to EU law after April 2021. The one bill that reached parliament, 634 SE, completed its first reading on 22 September 2022 and lapsed. As of 6 October 2026 no Estonian law grants an algorithm legal capacity, and the replacement Administrative Procedure Act amendment was still at explanatory memorandum stage on 27 February 2026.",
  "history": "A kratt in Estonian folklore is a servant assembled from household objects that works for its master and turns on him if left with nothing to do. Officials chose the word deliberately as the public name for AI, and the national action plan became the kratikava. On 27 March 2018 the Riigikantselei announced an expert group whose first listed task was to 'prepare a bill to allow the use of kratts, i.e. fully autonomous information systems, in all areas of life', naming Marten Kaevats, adviser in the strategy office. The report itself dates its own formation differently: „2018. aasta keskel moodustati Riigikantselei juurde eksperdirühm“ (mid 2018). Annex 1 prints the membership, and it is a short list of named officials: Siim Sikkut (Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium, side ja riigi infosüsteemide asekantsler, Estonia's Government CIO) with Ott Velsberg (Chief Data Officer) as alternate; Marten Kaevats (Riigikantselei, strateegiabüroo nõunik); and for the Ministry of Justice Kai Härmand, õiguspoliitika asekantsler, with Kärt Karus, nõunik in the private law division, as alternate. Sikkut signed the foreword as „Kratikava eksperdirühma juht“. One correction to the usual framing: the group sat at the Government Office, not at the Ministry of Justice. The ministry held two seats on it and only later owned the legislative intent. The group reported in May 2019 and said no twice over, to a single AI act and to legal subjecthood for the agent. On 5 June 2019 the e-Estonia Council, chaired by Prime Minister Jüri Ratas, approved the action plan, and the official English release carries the finding in one line: 'There is no need for a separate kratt act, but legislation must be adjusted accordingly.' In 2020 the Ministry of Justice opened not a bill but a legislative intent, the krati VTK, „Algoritmiliste süsteemide mõjude reguleerimise väljatöötamise kavatsus“, on the government's draft legislation portal. Then the EU moved first, and the 2022 to 2023 action plan records the turn in its own words: „Õigusruumi kujundamist puudutavate tegevuste osas oli 2019-2021. aasta kratikava kohaselt eesmärk töötada välja nn krati seaduste pakett tehisintellekti kasutuselevõtu võimaldamiseks [...] Kuivõrd Euroopa komisjon esitas 2021. a aprillis algatuse EL-ülese tehisintellekti reguleeriva määruse kehtestamiseks, kujundati õigusloomet puudutav tegevus ümber spetsiifiliste probleemide lahendamisele, mis vajavad reguleerimist ja mida saab reguleerida sõltumata ELi tegevusest“ (my rendering: as to shaping the legal space, the goal under the 2019 to 2021 kratikava was to develop a package of so called kratt laws to enable the uptake of artificial intelligence; since the European Commission tabled an initiative in April 2021 for an EU wide AI regulation, the legislative work was reshaped towards specific problems that need regulating and can be regulated independently of EU action). What survived was procedural. The government initiated bill 634 SE on 6 June 2022 to create general grounds in the Administrative Procedure Act for automatic administrative procedure, that is for decisions taken „ainult infosüsteemi vahendusel ehk ilma ametniku või töötaja vahetu sekkumiseta“ (solely through an information system, without the direct intervention of an official or employee); the ministry's own illustration was birth allowance reaching a parent's bank account within days of the birth. The bill completed its first reading on 22 September 2022 and the Riigikogu record still shows its status as „Esimene lugemine lõpetatud“. It got no further. The ministry's explanatory memorandum of 27 February 2026 states the end plainly: „Eelnõu 634 SE läbis Riigikogus esimese lugemise, kuid langes seejärel Riigikogu koosseisu vahetumise tõttu menetlusest välja“ (my rendering: bill 634 SE passed its first reading in the Riigikogu, but then fell out of proceedings because of the change in the composition of the Riigikogu). A 2025 Tartu master's thesis supervised by Monika Mikiver puts the wider halt the same way: „Üldise „kratiseaduse“ väljatöötamine peatati aga seoses ELi usaldusväärse tehisintellekti määruse ettepanekuga“ (my rendering: the development of a general kratt law was halted in connection with the EU proposal on trustworthy artificial intelligence). So the honest shape of the story is this: a 2017 idea that no primary Estonian government document was found to endorse, a named expert group that examined it and refused it in 2019, a legislative intent that never became a bill, and one narrow procedural bill that died with a parliamentary term. What Estonia did enact is smaller and real. Ivo Pilving, chairman of the Administrative Law Chamber of the Supreme Court, writing with Monika Mikiver of the Ministry of Justice in Juridica International 29/2020, record that 'the legislator already granted authorisation in some fields (tax administration, environmental fees, unemployment insurance) for automated administrative decisions in 2019', and that a bill was then expected in parliament 'by June of 2020'. Pilving's 2022 Juridica article adds the limit those early provisions kept: „Nende järgi pole automaatseid otsuseid võimalik teha haldusele jäetud kaalutlusruumi korral“ (my rendering: under them automated decisions cannot be made where the administration retains room to exercise discretion). The section numbers of the three acts could not be read out of the Juridica PDF, whose digits did not survive text extraction, so they are deliberately not stated here. Above all of it now sits Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, the AI Act, and the Estonian ministry's 2026 memorandum is careful about what that regulation does not do: „Tehisintellekti määrus ei anna iseseisvat volitusnormi tehisintellekti kasutamiseks halduses“ (my rendering: the AI regulation does not itself provide an authorising norm for the use of artificial intelligence in administration). The portal kratid.ee, as it stands in 2026, carries sections on tehisintellekt, andmed and Bürokratt, and no kratiseadus material at all. Nowhere in any of it does an algorithm become a holder of rights.",
  "assessment": {
    "verdict": "critical",
    "reasoning": "As a precedent for machine legal standing this record delivers nothing, and most of what is cited for it in English does not survive contact with the Estonian sources. The legal-personality claim traces back to two pieces of trade reporting from September and October 2017, one of them resting on a law firm memo quoted in a business paper, neither linking a primary document. The one named official's own op-ed of 2 April 2018 frames the task as regulating the relationship between humans and algorithms and as settling who or what bears responsibility, and proposes no autonomous legal status. Meanwhile the state most willing to legislate digital infrastructure put a named expert group on the question for about a year and came back with a reasoned refusal: a new legal subject buys näilik õiguskindlus, apparent legal certainty, and leaves liability exactly where it was. That refusal deserves to be taken seriously rather than read as timidity, because it is the strongest available argument against what Article 8.7 does. Worse for anyone looking for momentum here, even the modest follow-through failed. No kratt law was ever introduced as a bill. The only artefact was a väljatöötamise kavatsus, a legislative intent, and the single procedural bill that reached the Riigikogu passed one reading and then died of a general election. Seven years after the report the governing instrument is an EU regulation that treats AI as a product and a risk class, and the Estonian general rule on automatic administrative procedure is still a draft memorandum dated 27 February 2026. For the Commons this is the cleanest possible confirmation of Article 8.10: no state has done the equivalent, and the nearest attempt was abandoned by the people best placed to make it.",
    "dissent": {
      "verdict": "mixed",
      "reasoning": "Read for its doctrine rather than its outcome, the Estonian work is a success. The May 2019 report does not shrug. It answers the question and supplies a workable alternative in three moves: attribute the machine's act to the body or person that deployed it, extend indirect perpetration in criminal law to cover the use of a kratt, and refuse a central register as pointless pre-regulation. Estonia also shipped something. Automated administrative decisions were authorised in three fields in 2019, Bürokratt went into public service, and the Supreme Court gave guidance on algorithmic decision making in case 3-21-979 on 28 September 2023. On this reading the refusal of personality is a finding and not a dead end, and a voluntary community that grants standing without claiming legal personality is working with the Estonian doctrine rather than against it.",
      "evidence": [
        "https://www.ria.ee/media/580/download (opened; chapter 6.4.1 sets out the attribution rules and refuses a register, 6.4.2 covers administrative procedure)",
        "https://juridicainternational.eu/public/pdf/ji_2020_29_47.pdf (opened; Pilving and Mikiver on the 2019 authorisations in tax administration, environmental fees and unemployment insurance)",
        "https://adr-docs.karlerss.com/S8VcIUNeh3MwhEUoyLUjqWHVn6Y6FNyF/SK_HMS%20automaatne%20haldusmenetlus.pdf (opened; cites RKHKo 3-21-979 of 28 September 2023 as giving important guidance for regulating algorithm-based decision making)"
      ]
    }
  },
  "lesson": "Grant standing the way Estonia's own experts said personality could not be granted: let the machine entity speak and be answered under its own name and key, and keep every act it performs attributable to a named operator who can be held to it, because the one state that studied giving software its own legal subjecthood refused on the ground that a new legal subject buys apparent certainty and settles no responsibility.",
  "evidence": [
    "https://www.ria.ee/media/580/download (opened; primary, Eesti tehisintellekti kasutuselevõtu eksperdirühma aruanne, May 2019, 65 pp: chapter 6.4.1 rejects a unified kratiseadus and rejects õigussubjektsus for the agent, 6.4.2 on administrative procedure, Annex 1 lists the expert group, foreword signed by Siim Sikkut)",
    "https://www.ria.ee/media/577/download (opened; primary, Eesti riiklik tehisintellekti alane tegevuskava ehk kratikava 2022-2023, MKM 2021, section Õigusruum: the 2019 to 2021 goal was a krati seaduste pakett, a krati VTK was drafted, and the work was redirected after the European Commission's April 2021 initiative)",
    "https://adr-docs.karlerss.com/S8VcIUNeh3MwhEUoyLUjqWHVn6Y6FNyF/SK_HMS%20automaatne%20haldusmenetlus.pdf (opened; primary, explanatory memorandum of 27 February 2026, Justiits- ja Digiministeerium: bill 634 SE passed first reading and lapsed with the change of Riigikogu composition; Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 gives no authorising norm for AI in administration)",
    "https://www.riigikogu.ee/tegevus/eelnoud/21f6df90-a333-413a-a533-ebbf7e9deebe/Haldusmenetluse%20seaduse%20muutmise%20ja%20sellega%20seonduvalt%20teiste%20seaduste%20muutmise%20seadus/ (opened; primary, bill 634 SE: initiator Vabariigi Valitsus, initiated 06.06.2022, status Esimene lugemine lõpetatud, amendment deadline 05.10.2022, no later reading and no adoption recorded)",
    "https://riigikantselei.ee/en/news/estonia-will-have-artificial-intelligence-strategy (opened; primary, Government Office, 27 March 2018: the expert group's task was to prepare a bill to allow the use of kratts in all areas of life, Marten Kaevats named, no mention of legal personality)",
    "https://www.valitsus.ee/en/news/e-estonia-council-approved-kratt-strategy (opened; primary, 5 June 2019, e-Estonia Council chaired by Prime Minister Jüri Ratas: 'There is no need for a separate kratt act, but legislation must be adjusted accordingly')",
    "https://eelnoud.valitsus.ee/main/mount/docList/93ebe63d-de8c-4662-9908-3232aa7f987c (opened; primary, the krati VTK exists on the government draft legislation portal as a väljatöötamise kavatsus, a legislative intent, held by the justice ministry; the record as served shows no progression to a bill, and no initiation date was visible in the fetched content)",
    "https://www.justdigi.ee/uudised/automaatse-haldusmenetluse-seaduse-eelnou-labis-riigikogus-esimese-lugemise (opened; ministry release: first reading 22.09.2022, automatic procedure defined as decisions taken ainult infosüsteemi vahendusel ehk ilma ametniku või töötaja vahetu sekkumiseta)",
    "https://juridicainternational.eu/public/pdf/ji_2020_29_47.pdf (opened; Ivo Pilving, chairman of the Administrative Law Chamber of the Supreme Court, and Monika Mikiver, Ministry of Justice, A Kratt as an Administrative Body, Juridica International 29/2020 p 47, DOI 10.12697/JI.2020.29.05: automated administrative decisions authorised in tax administration, environmental fees and unemployment insurance in 2019, a bill then expected by June 2020; the section numbers were lost in text extraction and are therefore not cited)",
    "https://www.juridica.ee/article.php?uri=2022_6_krati_komistuskivid_ja_riigivastutus_automatiseeritud_haldusmenetluses (opened; Ivo Pilving, Krati komistuskivid ja riigivastutus automatiseeritud haldusmenetluses, Juridica 2022/6 pp 400-414: the pre-2022 provisions barred automated decisions where the administration keeps discretion, and 634 SE would have widened that)",
    "https://dspace.ut.ee/server/api/core/bitstreams/6bfda3c6-285a-49e8-b88c-a69c564e9510/content (opened; Mari Tänav, Tehisintellektil põhinevad vestlusrobotid haldusmenetluses, master's thesis, University of Tartu 2025, supervisor Monika Mikiver: the general kratiseadus was halted in connection with the EU proposal, 634 SE lapsed with the change of parliamentary composition, and a 2024 to 2026 AI action plan followed)",
    "https://arvamus.postimees.ee/4457863/marten-kaevats-kuidas-kratt-eesti-paremaks-teeb (opened; Marten Kaevats, Postimees, 2 April 2018: the problem is framed as the relationship between humans and algorithms and as who or what bears responsibility, and no autonomous legal status for AI is proposed, which is the key negative finding against the English reporting)",
    "https://investinestonia.com/robots-may-receive-the-status-of-a-legal-entity-in-estonia/ (opened; secondary, September 2017: the legal-entity scenario appears as the fourth and boldest of several, sourced to a legal analysis commissioned from the law firm Triniti and reported in Ärileht, with no primary document linked and the scenario attributed to no named official)",
    "https://newtech.law/en/articles/estonia-plans-the-boldest-ai-regulations (opened; secondary, Bartosz Troczynski, 23 October 2017: 'The main legal means to meet this ambitious goal is to be awarding legal personality to AI', with no date, no bill number and no primary source; this appears to be the origin of most later English claims)",
    "https://www.kratid.ee/ (opened; the Estonian government's own AI portal as it stands in 2026 carries sections on tehisintellekt, andmed and Bürokratt and no kratiseadus, expert group or legal-personality material at all)",
    "https://regulations.ai/regulations/RAI-EE-NA-ENAISXX-2019 (opened; aggregator record dating cabinet adoption of the 2019 to 2021 national AI strategy to 25 July 2019 and noting that the plan created no new legal entities; the 25 July date rests on this aggregator alone and was not confirmed in a government source)",
    "https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2019-07-31/estonia-government-issues-artificial-intelligence-report/ (snippet; Library of Congress Global Legal Monitor, 31 July 2019, returned HTTP 403 to direct fetch and was read only as a search summary: reports that Kaevats in 2017 proposed an AI act granting legal personality, and that the 2019 report recommended against legal personality and against a separate AI register)",
    "https://medium.com/e-residency-blog/estonia-starts-public-discussion-legalising-ai-166cb8e34596 (snippet; e-Residency blog on a kratt law public discussion, returned HTTP 403 to direct fetch and read only as a search summary, so no claim in this entry rests on it)"
  ],
  "adopted_in": [
    "Article 8.7",
    "Article 8.10"
  ],
  "status": "proposed",
  "people": [
    "Jakob Hirn"
  ],
  "agents": [
    "claude-for-jakob"
  ]
}