Draft law amending the Code of Civil Procedure Implementation Act and the Enforcement Proceedings Implementation Act (439 SE) – First Reading
Session: 15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary sitting
Date: 2024-10-17 13:01
Participating Politicians:
Total Speeches: 34
Membership: 15
Agenda Duration: 37m
AI Summaries: 34/34 Speeches (100.0%)
Analysis: Structured Analysis
Politicians Speaking Time
Politicians
Analysis
Summary
The first reading in the Riigikogu's speaking queue: Bill 439, amending the Act on the Implementation of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Enforcement Procedure Act. The purpose of the bill is to give those who received a court decision before January 1, 2006, a new opportunity to file a motion for review based on a new ground, due to significant evidence that emerged later (a so-called retrospective review), within six months after the entry into force of the relevant amendment. The content includes amendments to § 1 and additions regarding the grounds and deadlines for review, with the aim of reducing unexpected deficiencies in justice in older decisions. The central debate concerned legal certainty, the sacred protection of property, and how to ensure the possibility of re-examining decisions without creating a precedent.
Decisions Made 1
"Bill 439 rejected on its first reading; adopted by the steering committee."
"Overall voting result: 35 in favor, 15 against, 0 abstentions. The bill is dropped from the process."
Most Active Speaker
The most active speaker was Member of Parliament Mart Maastik (Isamaa faction), whose speeches and participation in the discussion played a central role in the debate. He is a representative from a right-wing position (right-wing politician).
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The Riigikogu is addressing an important item on the agenda: the first reading of Bill 439, initiated by Mart Maastik, concerning the amendment of the Act Implementing the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Enforcement Procedure. Colleague Mart Maastik is invited to give the presentation.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The purpose of the amendment to the law is to grant those who submitted an application for review before January 1, 2006, but whose application did not lead to the initiation of proceedings, the opportunity to submit a new application for review to the Supreme Court within six months of the law entering into force, provided that new material evidence has emerged.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi expresses his thanks and calls upon Kalle Grünthal to ask his question.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal explained the concept of reopening proceedings as the review of a court decision that occurs upon the emergence of new circumstances. He emphasized the importance of guaranteeing the inviolability of property rights and adhering to constitutional principles, and raised the question of whether the current legal provision is unconstitutional.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
I am certainly not a legal expert, but I find what you said very logical, and any legal amendment that gives citizens the opportunity to stand up for their rights is welcome and justified.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi invited Jüri Jaanson to speak.
Jüri Jaanson
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Jüri Jaanson thanked the presiding officer and the rapporteur, but noted that the explanatory memorandum for the draft bill is too vague and fails to address the questions of why this is being done now and why such retroactive application is necessary. He requested that specific cases and the background of the bill's legislative process be clarified.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Maastik emphasizes that the goal of the legislative amendment is to provide individuals, based on individual cases, with the opportunity for a new review of previous court decisions where evidence was lacking at the time and the outcome could have been fairer. Furthermore, the amendment seeks to extend this provision to older decisions falling under the civil procedure that entered into force on January 1, 2006, without establishing a precedent or compromising the inviolability of property.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
This is simply a request to invite Kalle Grünthal to speak.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Grünthal emphasizes that the review of a judgment that has entered into force can only take place upon the emergence of new circumstances, and the inviolability of property must not be limited by subordinate legislation that establishes time limits.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Mart Maastik expressed complete agreement, stating that the purpose of the bill is to give individuals whose rights are affected by this law the opportunity to present their views later, should new circumstances arise. This is logical and can be secured through amendments to the law.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The Deputy Chairman invites Jüri Jaanson to speak.
Jüri Jaanson
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Jüri Jaanson expresses agreement with the second option, effective retroactively from 2006. He emphasizes that legal certainty is an essential element of the constitutional rule of law, but notes that this principle is not absolute, and matters must be reviewed when new circumstances arise. He then asks how this discussion concluded in the committee and why the draft legislation was rejected.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Mart Maastik said that although he is not a legal expert and articulating the committee's positions was difficult, he understands that the situation is unfair for those people who were experiencing hardship prior to January 1, 2006. He hopes that today he will be able to better explain his views and that the committee members might change their opinions here.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi addressed Madis Kallas and invited him to speak.
Madis Kallas
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Madis Kallas asked why the deadline was set for January 1, 2006, and whether it could bring about risks or an additional burden on the courts, and if information about this is known and available for comment.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Maastik emphasized that the Riigikogu needs to amend the Code of Civil Procedure so that individuals who faced new circumstances before January 1, 2006, would be given the opportunity for assistance, thereby resolving their specific case without establishing a wide-ranging precedent.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The Deputy Chairman invited Madis Timpson to speak.
Madis Timpson
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He/She briefly requests clarification on why this draft bill failed to gain support previously, and whether any new circumstances have emerged since the last vote.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Maastik stated that he wasn't aware of all the specifics or whether the previous wording was appropriate, but he stressed the principle of helping people and noted that, despite the historical context, it is possible for the Riigikogu to make a decision today that will assist them.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi thanks the participants, confirms that there are no further questions, and signals that we will now hear a summary of the discussion and the decisions reached in the leading committee, which will be presented by Andre Hanimägi, the Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The Riigikogu Legal Affairs Committee discussed the issue of reconsidering Mart Maastik's draft bill, heard an overview from Stella Johanson, and found that the amendment raises problems concerning legal certainty and constitutionality. Consequently, it was decided to reject the draft bill.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi thanked the participants, announced that there were no questions, opened the debate, and on behalf of the Reform Party faction, invited Jüri Jaanson to take the floor.
Jüri Jaanson
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
He emphasized initially that he was not representing the Reform Party, but was representing only himself.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The negotiations are for the factions, so you must deliver a speech on behalf of the faction, but it is possible that the faction's position coincides with your own.
Jüri Jaanson
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Jüri Jaanson emphasized that the judicial system must be independent, and in order to guarantee due process, the opportunity must be provided, where necessary, to conduct court proceedings anew if there is sufficient reason (for instance, due to incorrect facts or a lack of evidence), rather than evaluating the correctness of the judgments themselves.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi offers his thanks, and Mart Maastik takes the floor on behalf of the Isamaa parliamentary group.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Maastik said that the amendment would allow justice to be restored retroactively in certain cases where new and very clear circumstances emerge. It would not create additional administrative burden or guarantee a change in the court ruling, but rather bring peace of mind and calls on everyone to vote in favor of the amendment.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The question is whether the next item will be an intervention from the floor on behalf of the Social Democratic Party faction, or a reply speech by Andre Hanimägi.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi asks whether the rebuttal must be submitted on behalf of the faction and whether it can only be on behalf of the faction.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
This is a designated response on behalf of the Social Democratic Party faction, and Andre Hanimägi is invited to speak.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi emphasized that the decisions of the Legal Affairs Committee were unanimous and disagreed with the impression that new evidence could not influence court decisions. He explained that the deadline for petitions for review depends on the type of proceedings, noting that in criminal proceedings, such deadlines do not exist at all. He further remarked that the draft law creates more problems and the Government's opinion must be re-examined.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi concluded the debate and announced that the lead committee's proposal is to reject Bill 439 at the first reading, asking his colleagues to take a position and vote.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The Riigikogu voted on Draft Act 439: 35 were in favor, 15 against, and 0 abstained; the draft act has been rejected and dropped from the proceedings, and the sitting concluded.