Draft law amending the Church and Religious Communities Act (570 UA) – second reading
Session: 15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
Date: 2025-06-11 23:58
Total Speeches: 63
Membership: 15
Agenda Duration: 1h 38m
AI Summaries: 63/63 Speeches (100.0%)
Analysis: Structured Analysis
Politicians Speaking Time
Politicians
Analysis
Summary
The agenda item concerned the second reading of the bill amending the Act on Churches and Religious Communities, initiated by the Government of the Republic. The main objective of the bill is to limit the influence and disinformation reaching congregations through administrative relations of religious associations, taking into account the general security situation. The President did not proclaim the text adopted by the Riigikogu on April 24, 2025, and the bill was brought back into the hall. The discussion gathered in the Legal Affairs Committee on June 3, 2025, brought forth eight amendments proposed by the Centre Party and the Ministry of the Interior. The main concerns were technical terms («to be guided by», «person with significant influence») and considered extensions to the period for bringing the church's articles of association into compliance. Discussions also focused on constitutionality, including §§ 130 and 40, and the definition of infringement of rights, as well as the reflection of the President's positions in the explanatory memorandum. As a consensus of the committee, it was decided to proceed to the second reading, and the completion of the Act’s procedure was planned for June 11th, with a final vote on June 19th. After various discussions and voting on amendments, the plan to complete the second reading eventually fell – but the results of the votes did not support the proposal, and the agenda item remained unfinished as a separate procedural suspension. Finally, a clarification was made in the final meeting document stating that the second reading of bill 570 would be concluded and the proceedings on the agenda item would be closed.
Decisions Made 9
Amendment proposal no. 1 did not find support in the Riigikogu (13 in favor, 59 against). Therefore, this proposal was disregarded.
Amendment proposal no. 2: to be fully considered (recommended by the legal affairs committee). This decision was reflected as a collective recommendation, but the desired result was not achieved in the final vote.
Amendment proposal no. 3: to be disregarded (not subject to a vote according to item 2 of section 106 of the rules of procedure).
Amendment proposal no. 4: to fully consider (Law Commission). The final court confirmed the consideration in this case.
Amendment proposal no. 5: to disregard (Centre Party faction). Not included in the vote.
Amendment proposal no. 6: to fully consider (law committee). This outcome was adopted in a discussion between the governing coalition and factions.
Amendment proposal no. 7: to be fully considered (Legal Affairs Committee). It was supported in the vote and received the coalition's approval.
Amendment proposal no. 8: to be fully considered (EKRE faction proposal). Referred to a supporting reading.
The proposal to end the second reading failed to gain sufficient support (14 members of the Riigikogu in favor, 62 against; 0 abstentions). Therefore, a decision was made to end the second reading of the bill and to close the agenda item relating to it.
Most Active Speaker
The most active registered speaker was Andre Hanimäe (a member of the legal affairs committee), who primarily presented and led statements and discussions. His role was that of presenter and representative of the committee; his actions were mainly central and led discussions with authority, and he represented the coalition's positions. He is considered representative of the "action factions," but his position is more within the framework of "others" rather than a classical left- or right-wing alignment.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The ninth item on the Riigikogu's agenda is the second reading of Bill 570, the draft Act amending the Churches and Congregations Act, initiated by the Government of the Republic. The rapporteur is Andre Hanimäe, a member of the Riigikogu Legal Affairs Committee.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi stated that the government submitted a draft bill on January 27th aimed at preventing hostile influence activities carried out through the administrative relations of religious associations. Following the president’s decision on April 9, 2025, not to proclaim it, eight amendments—proposed by the Centre Party and the Ministry of the Interior—were discussed in the Legal Affairs Committee on June 3rd. These amendments primarily focused on ensuring constitutionality and extending deadlines. However, these proposals failed to gain sufficient support, and the committee decided to conclude the second reading, move the draft bill to the plenary session on June 11th, and hold the final vote on June 19th.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi thanks [the previous speaker/process] and asks Vadim Belobrovtsev to answer the questions.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Vadim Belobrovtsev points out that the assertion made by the president's representative—that the Center Party's amendment, which was approved from the beginning, would have been supported and the law promulgated—doesn't align with the fact that the committee voted down that very same proposal again.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi stated that there are two main reasons: the issue of influence is broader than the Centre Party faction's wording, and the potential for infringement may be greater because monitoring every directive originating from abroad for Estonian churches and congregations is complicated.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Vice-Speaker Toomas Kivimägi called upon Helir-Valdor Seeder to speak.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
My question is whether the Legal Affairs Committee concluded during the discussion that the bill returned to Parliament was unconstitutional, or whether those amendments were made simply to satisfy the President's objection.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi stated that the explanatory memorandum provided by the Ministry of the Interior has made the draft bill significantly more precise, and there is no infringement upon the constitution, although everyone is free to believe what they wish, as the issue touches upon freedom of association and other liberties.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi invites Varro Vooglaid to take the floor.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid emphasizes that the Legal Committee has not made a decision regarding the absence of infringement, and refers to Mall Gramberg’s unambiguous answer that the amendment does not eliminate the unconstitutionality. He then asks whether it can therefore be argued that the bill will not be proclaimed by the President.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi emphasized that he was not referring to a separate decision regarding unconstitutionality, but rather that the Legal Affairs Committee had consensually forwarded the draft bill to the second and third readings. Although the question remains whether the President's Office is satisfied with this, and the President will not provide a concrete answer before the bill is adopted, the Riigikogu will decide today whether to conclude the second reading and move on to the third, or not. The ball will then be back in the President’s court.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi invited Priit Sibul to speak.
Priit Sibul
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Priit Sibul, along with Valdo Randpere, noted that they had investigated what the Ministry of the Interior’s future steps regarding the draft bill might be and what might happen if it is adopted, and that neither he nor his colleague have understood the bill or the ministry’s positions, and he is requesting clarification on exactly what will happen once the amendment is implemented.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi emphasized that the issue is multi-faceted: it involves an abstract norm, administrative procedures, and potential judicial proceedings for compulsory dissolution. Historically, Estonia has established a canonical solution for the co-existence of the two churches, and should this matter proceed to court in practice, the minister will be required to demonstrate proportionality and, if necessary, petition for compulsory dissolution.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
This is a short plea directed at Varro Vooglaid.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Vooglaid claims that they know very well what the president’s decision would be, and if the amended bill retains the requirement to sever canonical ties, then the president will not promulgate the law, and they will adopt it again, because he deems it unconstitutional.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi stated that the content of the explanatory memorandum, which was discussed and significantly supplemented in the committee, addresses constitutional compliance and provides examples from the European Court of Human Rights. He confirmed that the goal of the KiKoS amendments is to create a value-based code of conduct, adding that these amendments do not prohibit any religious confession or terminate the activities of congregations. He also noted that if the President sends the draft bill back to the Riigikogu after the third reading, the corresponding procedures will be followed, although the committee could not say whether the President is entirely satisfied with the outcome.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
We invite Vadim Belobrovtsev to the stage to perform.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Vadim Belobrovtsev claims that the amendments are more cosmetic than substantive, notes the skepticism of the Ministry of the Interior's representatives regarding the president's conduct, and finds that although the changes appear to merely correct the wording, the bill remains in conflict with the constitution. He asks whether the commission will intentionally send back to the floor an item that violates the constitution.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi stated that the committee did not act deliberately, and a thorough explanatory memorandum and the ministry’s responses indicate that the issues of concern are being addressed, and that it would not be realistic to claim the unconstitutionality of the draft law. Therefore, the Legal Committee concludes the second reading and sends the bill to the third reading, confirming that separate procedures are in place, and that points of concern have existed and will continue to arise, which the questions and answers substantiate.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
This is simply Kalle Grünthal's calling.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal criticizes the committee's attempt to present things in black and white, noting that the Chancellor of Justice has visited here three times this year with the proposal to bring adopted laws into compliance with the constitution. He feels shame and embarrassment and refers to a quote by Varro Vooglaid, asking what Vooglaid, in his opinion, said wrong.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi said that Vooglaid did not explicitly say anything wrong and brought up the topic discussed in the committee. He noted that there are weighty arguments on both sides, and the Riigikogu is there to listen to them and form its position, based on Sections 40, 48, and 130 of the Constitution and the combined effect of Articles 9 and 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi invites Vladimir Arhipov to perform.
Vladimir Arhipov
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Arhipov poses a rhetorical question: where do you think these people—whom you are literally persecuting right now—should turn for help and pray, if the law is passed, the president rejects it, and the court ruling will likely yield the same outcome?
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi emphasized that the draft bill is an administrative matter, not a religious issue, and its purpose is not to persecute any religion or individual, but rather to address the Moscow Patriarchate.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Kalle Grünthal is asked to come forward at the beginning of the address.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal asks which legal norm is currently being violated by restricting the activities of the Moscow Patriarchate. He emphasizes that there are no legally binding conviction judgments, which is why this seems to him like pure persecution of the organization.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The primary objective of this report is to prevent hostile influence, extremist ideologies, and disinformation from reaching congregations or individuals residing in monasteries through religious associations, and not to persecute or shut down any faith or administrative unit which the chamber will decide upon based on arguments.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Toomas Kivimägi invited Vladimir Arhipov to speak.
Vladimir Arhipov
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He asks if they understand the consequences of the law, arguing that its adoption opens Pandora’s box. He then refers to a draft bill that addresses access to information and records a person's political affiliation, which could be pro-Russian today, pro-EKRE tomorrow, or pro-Center Party the day after tomorrow.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi emphasized that the committee’s deliberations have been respectful, and the draft bill is not aimed against any specific religion or group of people. Rather, it constitutes an abstract norm applied across three different procedures. He noted that its implementation requires caution to avoid creating the impression that a ban on Russian Orthodoxy is being planned, especially since historical examples attest to cooperation and existing legal solutions. Furthermore, any consequences arising after the law enters into force must be considered separately.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi expresses his thanks, states that there are no further questions, opens the negotiations, and calls upon Aleksandr Tšaplõgin.
Aleksandr Tšaplõgin
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He claims that the government and the Social Democrats want to restrict the Estonian Orthodox Church's ties to the Russian Church by labeling it and severing its canonical connections. He emphasizes that punishment can only apply to specific actions, and since the church is separate from the state, the law should be rejected and Russian Orthodox believers should be left alone.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi called upon Varro Vooglaid to speak and granted the speaker eight minutes of additional time.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid claims that the bill is unconstitutional and that the security argument is false, asserting that the real goal is to force the Estonian Orthodox Church and the Pühtitsa Convent to sever canonical ties. He also notes that the president failed to promulgate the law and that the Riigikogu should suspend the bill's second reading.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi invites Vladimir Arhipov to speak.
Vladimir Arhipov
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Vladimir Arhipov warns against the current campaign targeting the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church, stressing the importance of religious freedom and church autonomy, and arguing that the real threat is not praying believers, but the hypocrisy of the authorities who seek to turn faith into a political battlefield.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Toomas Kivimägi expressed his sincere thanks to everyone and then addressed Ando Kiviberg with a request.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The presentation emphasized that the bill does not infringe upon religious freedom, and that Estonia's independence and democratic state order constitute a constitutional foundation that must be protected, and further, that ties must be severed with those individuals who deny the temporariness of the independence of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, citing the historical occupation experience of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi thanks everyone and invites Kalle Grünthal to speak.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Grünthal emphasizes that we have failed to uphold the oath of loyalty to the constitutional order, arguing that coalition MPs have pushed through partially unconstitutional bills. He calls for the suspension of the bill's reading, asking that the president’s decision be respected and that focus be placed on the actual problem and accountability, instead of leveling alleged accusations.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The Deputy Speaker thanks you and calls upon Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart stated that the draft bill violates constitutional principles—namely, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and proportionality—and holds local communities and churches accountable for foreign influence. She concluded that it is therefore merely a cosmetic change, given that existing penal provisions and Supreme Court rulings already penalize such actions.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
He asks for three minutes to be added.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart warns that if they proceed with the same amendment proposals, there is a high probability that the President will not promulgate the law and will send it to the Supreme Court. She calls on everyone to support the Centre Party's amendment proposal, which excludes the legal effect resulting from the organization or regulation of foreign states or religious associations, and establishes the obligation for the forced dissolution of the church through the court, in order to avoid unconstitutional situations.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The speech includes an expression of gratitude and an invitation for Priit Sibul to take the floor.
Priit Sibul
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Priit Sibul argues that the bill, which the president declined to promulgate and returned for further discussion, is purely formal and fails to address genuine issues. He states that this is because the bill attempts to deal with the canonical governance of the church—a matter outside the parliament's competence—and could potentially discredit the state. Consequently, he believes the bill is unnecessary.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The speech expresses deep gratitude to the audience and invites Peeter Ernits to the stage.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits states that he is against the new draft bill because it conflicts with the constitution, represents preemptive state control, and fosters excessive fearmongering within Estonian society.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
At the beginning of the address, thanks were offered, and Helir-Valdor Seeder was asked to take the floor.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Helir-Valdor Seeder stresses that violating the constitution is not the parliament’s objective, and recent amendments were adopted with broad consensus, including changes to the local government elections act concerning the organization of life for churches and congregations. The Isamaa faction supports the deliberation of the draft bill to ensure security and internal peace, but he warns that instructing KAPO (the Internal Security Service) to be more forceful poses a danger to Estonia’s rule of law, and parliament must not provide excessive direction to law enforcement bodies.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Toomas Kivimägi thanked you and invited Vadim Belobrovtsev to speak.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Belobrovtsev said that the draft bill, which aims to sever all ties with the Moscow Patriarchate, is unconstitutional and therefore unnecessary. He added that although the Centre Party faction submitted amendments, they did not receive support in the committee, and the current situation reflects only cosmetic changes.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi announces that three additional minutes will be added.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Belobrovtsev called for the second reading to be suspended, arguing that the draft bill is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and unnecessary for Estonia, adding that one injustice must not compensate another, and that the document should be tossed in the trash.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi invites Kalev Stoicescu to speak.
Kalev Stoicescu
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalev Stoicescu argues that while the debate surrounding the draft law centers on security and avoids violating the constitution, the real and most critical consideration is the Estonian Orthodox Church's submission to the Moscow Patriarchate and the Putin regime, a situation that jeopardizes both religious freedom and the independence of the Estonian state.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Thank you! I conclude the debate, and we will now proceed to review the eight amendments; the first amendment was submitted by the Estonian Centre Party faction, and the leading committee decided to reject it.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
The speaker asks the audience to vote in favor of it.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Regarding Draft Law 570, Amendment Proposal No. 1, submitted by the Estonian Centre Party Faction, is currently under consideration. The lead committee recommends rejecting this proposal. We now ask you to take a position and cast your vote.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi stated that several amendments were introduced during the second reading of Draft Act 570. Some of these were considered and accepted, while others were disregarded. Although the leading committee recommended concluding the reading, the EKRE and Estonian Centre Party factions submitted a motion to interrupt the proceedings and called for a vote.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
During the second reading of Bill 570, 14 votes were cast in favor, 62 against, and there were no abstentions; the proposal failed to gain support and the proceedings were terminated.