While Villu Reiljan's appeal did not overturn his conviction, he did recieve a lesser sentence. Photo by Annika Arouja.

TALLINN — Former People’s Union leader and environment minister Villu Reiljan’s appeal against a bribery conviction was struck down by the Estonian Supreme Court Wednesday afternoon.

Reiljan was convicted in May 2009 of taking a one million krooni (€63,900) in cash and real estate as bribes, but appealed the sentence. The Supreme Court decided there was no reason to annul the Harju County Court decision but gave a lesser sentence, reducing Reiljan’s two year and three month jail sentence to a three-year probation. He will also lose his seat in parliament as of midnight.

The court found that in 2006 while serving as environment minister Reiljan, of the troubled People’s Union party, requested lawyer Tarmo Sild ask money from Wipestrex Grupp representative Aivo Pärn to authorize the sale of a state-owned office building located at Rävala pst 8 in Tallinn on favorable conditions for Wipestrex. Pärn accepted the offer. Pärn has to pay 143,440 krooni (€9,167) and Sild 102,870 krooni (€6,574) fine. The case came to light when another company that initially put up a higher bid than Wipestrex cried foul.

Reiljan maintains his innocence.

“I am not asking anything from anyone or asked anyone to ask, and have not received anything. For me, these things are clear and the courts can understand that they like,” Reiljan told reporters outside the courthouse after the sentence was given.

The Supreme Court annulled Reiljan’s mandate in Riigikogu, which also cancels his position in the council of Public Broadcasting. Reiljan’s mandate will expire at midnight on Wednesday. Reiljan is also expected to leave the People’s Union. Reiljan told reporters that he is shall retire from politics.

“I am no longer a politician from this day,” Reiljan said.

Reiljan’s attorney Aivar Pilv told BNS that he most likely will take the case to European Court of Human Rights once he has discussed it with Reiljan.

“The Supreme Court did not answer to all of the questions asked by the defendant, which are important from procedural and also evidential aspects. Therefore, in our opinion it also does not meet the principles that are repeatedly stressed by the European Court of Human Rights,” Pilv told Postimees.