2025/06/17 by Roosve, Triin
paper · doi:10.15158/4yvh-bf95
This paper examines the scope and limits of the general and urgent competence of the police as set out in Section 6(2) and (3) of the Estonian Law Enforcement Act (Korrakaitseseadus), analysing how these competences relate to the German legal concept of a general clause (Generalklausel) in law enforcement legislation. The focus is on situations involving countering a threat, as distinct from threat prevention, as the general and urgent competence granted to the police under the Law Enforcement Act does not extend to threat prevention. Given that Estonian law enforcement legislation has been strongly influenced by the German legal tradition, the paper compares the development of law enforcement measures – particularly the general clause – in Estonian and German law, distinguishing between the competence-related and intervention-related aspects of general clauses. The paper shows that the evolution of general clauses in Estonia and Germany has followed different paths, shaped by their respective legal histories and the fact that Estonia’s reform of law enforcement legislation began when sectoral supervisory legislation had already developed independently from police law. Through interpretative and comparative legal analysis, the paper shows that a purely grammatical interpretation is insufficient for determining when the police may act based on general or urgent competence. A proper understanding requires familiarity with the core concepts of law enforcement legislation (such as threat, significant threat, serious threat, immediate threat and disturbance of public order), as well as with the structure and aims of the legislation. The paper concludes by presenting a step-by-step guide for determining whether and under what conditions the police may act in their roles as a law enforcement agency with general or urgent competence.