Proposal of the Chancellor of Justice for bringing the Code of Civil Procedure into conformity with the Constitution
Session: 15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd sitting, plenary session
Date: 2024-06-06 13:05
Participating Politicians:
Total Speeches: 17
Membership: 15
Agenda Duration: 17m
AI Summaries: 17/17 Speeches (100.0%)
Analysis: Structured Analysis
Politicians Speaking Time
Politicians
Analysis
Summary
The Riigikogu debated the proposal by Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise to bring § 182 subsection 2 point 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) into compliance with the Constitution. The Chancellor of Justice pointed out that the current provision does not allow for a person's unavoidable expenses for food, medicine, and hygiene supplies to be taken into account when deciding on procedural assistance in non-contentious proceedings. This places the most vulnerable members of society (e.g., people with disabilities) in a situation where they must choose between the right to access the court and covering essential living costs, which conflicts with Article 15 of the Constitution.
Pipi-Liis Siemann, representative of the Constitutional Committee, announced that the committee supported the proposal by consensus, finding that although the Ministry of Justice believed the courts had sufficient discretion, the current wording of the law creates legal ambiguity and has led to unconstitutional situations. Andre Hanimägi, representative of the Legal Affairs Committee, highlighted that the discussion in their committee was tense, and opinions regarding the infringement of the Constitution diverged. The Legal Affairs Committee decided not to support the proposal (with 3 votes against and 2 in favor). However, during the plenary vote, the Chancellor of Justice's proposal found widespread support.
Decisions Made 1
The Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) supported the proposal by the Chancellor of Justice to bring the Code of Civil Procedure into conformity with the Constitution (45 in favor, 1 against). The Legal Affairs Committee was tasked with initiating a draft bill to amend the Code of Civil Procedure (TsMS) to allow the costs of food, medicine, communication, and hygiene supplies to be taken into account when granting legal aid in non-contentious proceedings.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas outlined the procedure for bringing the Chancellor of Justice’s proposal into compliance, which included presentations lasting up to 20 minutes, a question-and-answer round (with a limit of three oral questions), subsequent debates, and a final vote. Following this, he invited Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise to the Riigikogu podium.
Õiguskantsler Ülle Madise
AI Summary
The Chancellor of Justice, Ülle Madise, called upon the Riigikogu (Parliament) to bring Section 182 subsection 2 point 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure into conformity with the Constitution. This measure is intended to ensure that in petition (non-contentious) proceedings, a person's indispensable expenses for medicines, food, hygiene supplies, and communication—which can be vitally important for vulnerable individuals—are taken into account, and to amend the law accordingly.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
This address expresses gratitude to the Chancellor of Justice, notes that there are questions, and calls upon Eero Merilind.
Eero Merilind
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Eero Merilind addresses the Chancellor of Justice and asks whether the individual's state fee should be waived, or if the paid state fee should be claimed back from the fund.
Õiguskantsler Ülle Madise
AI Summary
The Riigikogu should decide whether to support the proposal, because Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise is requesting an exemption from the state fee, arguing that 20–70 euros can be an obstacle for people seeking access to the court, especially since they have to plan their budgets down to the last euro.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Jüri Ratas addresses Tanel Kiik and asks him.
Tanel Kiik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Tanel Kiik supports the Chancellor of Justice's proposal and asks for clarification on how many people this might affect annually.
Õiguskantsler Ülle Madise
AI Summary
Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise said that we do not know the exact number of people who were unable to appeal to the court due to a decision on placement in a closed institution or another restriction, but some cases have reached their desk. And if, while resolving one application, it becomes clear that the reason for the person's grievance is an unconstitutional norm, they will also bring that norm before you for consideration.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Jüri Ratas addresses Liisa-Ly Pakosta and asks her.
Liisa-Ly Pakosta
AI Summary
Liisa-Ly Pakosta thanked those who brought forward the proposal, confirmed her support for it, and asked for a brief re-explanation of where this unconstitutionality stems from, so that it would be more uniformly clear.
Õiguskantsler Ülle Madise
AI Summary
Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise emphasizes that if a person has to choose between going to court to protect their rights and, as a result, being left without medication, suffering from hunger, or being unable to buy necessary hygiene supplies, this is considered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court en banc. Furthermore, this also relates to the requirement for the protection of disabled people under the state's special care, a matter which has been explained in greater detail in the written proposal.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Ratas thanked the Chancellor of Justice for his presentation and answers, said that there were no further questions, and proposed that Pipi-Liis Siemann be the rapporteur in the Constitutional Committee.
Pipi-Liis Siemann
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The Constitutional Committee of the Riigikogu discussed the calculation of procedural assistance costs and the combined effect of two provisions on May 28th. The committee found that their interaction might be unconstitutional or compromise legal certainty, and consequently, they unanimously appointed Pipi-Liis Siemann as the committee's representative and supported the proposal.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas thanked the rapporteur, announced that there were no questions, and invited Andre Hanimägi, the representative of the Legal Affairs Committee, to the Riigikogu rostrum.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The Legal Affairs Committee debated the Chancellor of Justice’s proposal regarding constitutional compliance and found that the matter might constitute a constitutional infringement, but ultimately did not support the proposal (3 votes in favor, 2 against) and appointed Andre Hanimägi as the committee’s representative for the plenary session debate.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas announced that opening the debate was not recommended, and voting commenced to determine who was in favor of the Chancellor of Justice's proposal.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The first agenda item was approved (45 in favor, 1 against), and the Legal Affairs Committee is tasked with initiating a draft act concerning the calculation of costs in non-contentious proceedings, for the purpose of bringing the Code of Civil Procedure into conformity with the Constitution.