First Reading of the Draft Act on the Amendment of the Competition Act and the Amendment of Other Associated Acts (384 SE)
Session: 15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session
Date: 2024-04-10 20:22
Participating Politicians:
Total Speeches: 36
Membership: 15
Agenda Duration: 1h 1m
AI Summaries: 36/36 Speeches (100.0%)
Analysis: Structured Analysis
Politicians Speaking Time
Politicians
Analysis
Summary
The first reading of draft bill No. 384 has reached the Riigikogu. Initiated by the Government of the Republic, the bill aims to amend the Competition Act and related legislation in order to transpose the European Union's ECN+ Directive (EU 2019/1). The core focus is on strengthening the powers and independence granted to the Competition Authority. A new special procedure for competition supervision has been carved out at the legislative level, and concepts are being decriminalized while fundamental rights are simultaneously protected. A new administrative law special procedure will be established, replacing the existing misdemeanor proceedings. This procedure will allow the Competition Authority to carry out evidence-gathering and investigative measures, including searches, although applications must be submitted to obtain permission from the administrative court. It has also been noted that the unrestricted use of searches and requests for information, along with the increase in coercive fines and penalties, may impact the operations of businesses and the state's judicial control mechanisms. For the bill to enter into force, the constitutional and international legal policy context, as well as the structure for the protection of fundamental rights within the European Union, must also be assessed. It is an open secret that Estonia is the only member state that has not fully transposed the directive into its national law, which has led the European Commission to initiate infringement proceedings, potentially resulting in significant fines. The joint discussion centered on whether and how the new special procedure, the increased role of the court, and the powers for collecting information fit within the Estonian legal order and whether they comply with constitutional rights.
Decisions Made 1
The Riigikogu essentially concluded the first reading of Draft Bill 384; the voting result was: 6 in favor, 50 against, with no abstentions; the motion to reject the first reading of the bill did not receive support; the deadline for submitting amendments was set for May 2nd at 17:15; the idea of including the positions of the Constitutional and Legal Chancellor (Chancellor of Justice) and the opinions of the court and analysis departments was added.
Most Active Speaker
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart, on behalf of the Centre Faction (left/left). She is the most active spokesperson regarding this agenda item, representing the Centre Party faction, and frequently adopts a critical stance, calling for oversight against the draft bill. She emphasizes the necessity of considering constitutional rights and the criticisms raised with the Chancellor of Justice. Her role reflects a left-wing political position, and she has established herself as a significant voice and a focal point for the ongoing discussion.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The Riigikogu moves on to agenda item 14, which involves the first reading of Draft Act 384, initiated by the government, concerning the amendment of the Competition Act and other related legislation. Justice Minister Madis Timpson, who is addressing the Riigikogu podium for the first time, will be speaking.
Justiitsminister Madis Timpson
AI Summary
The presentation explains the substance of Draft Law No. 384, the purpose of which is to transpose the ECN+ Directive, establish an administrative supervision procedure for the Competition Authority, decriminalize competition infringements, and grant courts the power to impose monetary fines. Furthermore, it allows for the collection of evidence and the implementation of interim measures, while ensuring the protection of fundamental rights. The presentation also emphasizes that Estonia is the only member state that has not yet transposed the directive, which has resulted in infringement proceedings initiated by the Commission and potentially significant penalties.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The Deputy Chairman thanks the Minister, notes that there are questions, and gives the floor to Jaanus Karilaid.
Jaanus Karilaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Jaanus Karilaid emphasized that to explain the draft bill, a practical example or case must be provided, demonstrating which economic environment problem it solves, and specific companies that manipulate consumers must be named, and it must be clarified exactly what is being fixed in Estonia.
Justiitsminister Madis Timpson
AI Summary
Justice Minister Madis Timpson said that the aim of the directive is to standardize the handling of competition infringements across the entire European Union, replace the current four different procedures with a single one, improve cooperation with other countries, and fulfill the commitments made to the EU, should the EU path be chosen.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The Deputy Chair invited Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart to take the floor.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
The speech criticizes the draft bill for creating a new fining and punitive body out of the Competition Authority and the administrative court. It also appears to be a political choice, focusing on fining businesses during a crisis, without a thorough comparative analysis of why this approach is suitable for misdemeanor proceedings.
Justiitsminister Madis Timpson
AI Summary
Minister of Justice Madis Timpson emphasized that the government has not intentionally worsened the situation, and the special administrative procedure is currently the best solution, as it fits our legal system. The directive precludes offence proceedings, and therefore, no amendments will be made to the Penal Code (KarS) or misdemeanor proceedings introduced.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The Deputy Chairman invited Mart Maastik to speak.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Maastik expresses concern that the administrative court might not initiate proceedings, allowing the Competition Authority to handle the primary work of issuing penalties. This could lead to unprofessional decisions, which the administrative court would then simply confirm, thereby turning the court into a rubber stamp for the Competition Authority. This raises the question of where one could turn afterward, and whether the Estonian legal order would be fundamentally undermined, given that the administrative court is intended not as a punitive institution, but rather to protect private legal entities against the arbitrary exercise of state power.
Justiitsminister Madis Timpson
AI Summary
Minister of Justice Madis Timpson confirmed that the administrative court and the Estonian judicial system are highly reliable, and the Competition Authority exercises oversight, during which the administrative court can either uphold the fine decision or send it back if it seems unjust.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Vice-Speaker Jüri Ratas invites Priit Sibul to take the floor.
Priit Sibul
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Priit Sibul expresses concern that the procedure for competition offenses will be changed to follow a special order of administrative proceedings, and that administrative courts will be used to confirm the fines imposed by the Competition Authority. He asks why this solution was chosen and whether its impact on our legal system and the role of administrative courts has been properly thought through.
Justiitsminister Madis Timpson
AI Summary
Timpson said that there are different approaches within the European Union, and most matters concern civil and administrative courts. Although he did not disclose the length of the analysis, he believes that Ministry of Justice officials, along with others, have decided that the administrative court could be the one to confirm this, and while the topic may still be discussed in the commission, the current government regulation is structured this way.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Jüri Ratas invited Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart to speak.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart emphasizes that the directive does not require transposition within the framework of administrative procedure, but rather recommends that member states adopt its most suitable form. Although the Chancellor of Justice and most legal experts are critical of the draft bill and have written to the Riigikogu expressing their concerns, she believes that if the bill passes three readings, the Chancellor of Justice will appeal to the Supreme Court. She further asks why the Ministry of Justice disregards these opinions and continues to grant the Competition Authority additional rights that other agencies do not possess.
Justiitsminister Madis Timpson
AI Summary
Minister of Justice Madis Timpson stated that while the prevailing opinion among legal scholars is uncertain, and the Chancellor of Justice has expressed differing views, both sides must be heard during the consultation process. Nevertheless, the formation of legal policy remains the exclusive prerogative of the Ministry of Justice, and should anyone consider something unconstitutional or infringing, they are free to appeal to the court, where the dispute will be adjudicated.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas called upon Mart Maastik to speak.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Mart Maastik thanked the Chairman and the Minister, but admitted he did not understand the Competition Authority's decision. He asked whether the decision could be appealed in court, and if the administrative court were to rule, where the subsequent appeal would lie—a question he did not receive an answer to.
Justiitsminister Madis Timpson
AI Summary
Minister of Justice Madis Timpson emphasizes that control mechanisms are in place during court proceedings, and further steps follow when appealing an administrative court decision. He also concedes that this process could be described in greater detail within the commission.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Jüri Ratas invites Priit Sibul to the stage.
Priit Sibul
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Priit Sibul thanked the minister and noted that the Chancellor of Justice has presented various viewpoints, which he has treated as one-sided, and asked in the context of ECN+ how long the implementation of the right of administrative courts to impose fines through special administrative proceedings would take, and how quickly this could transition to misdemeanor proceedings.
Justiitsminister Madis Timpson
AI Summary
Minister of Justice Madis Timpson acknowledged that the initial positions regarding the draft bill were different, emphasizing that the implementation of the directive does not require rewriting the entire bill concerning administrative offense procedure and criminal law, and that while he cannot venture to name a deadline, the process will certainly take time.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The presenter and the minister were thanked, the question period concluded, and Mario Kadastik was then invited to the Riigikogu podium for the next address.
Mario Kadastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The Economic Affairs Committee discussed Bill 384 and focused primarily on whether the amendment to the Competition Act should be handled under administrative or misdemeanor proceedings, emphasized broader involvement, and decided, together with the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, to place the bill on the plenary session agenda on April 10th and seek opinions from other institutions, including planning a public hearing.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas thanked [the floor] and invited Jaanus Karilaid to ask his question.
Jaanus Karilaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Jaanus Karilaid emphasizes the need for inclusion and transparency, requesting the publication of the positions held by the Bar Association, the opinions of legal experts from the University of Tartu, the criticism leveled by the Chancellor of Justice, and the impact analysis. He also asks how much resources and expertise the Competition Authority and the administrative court will need to acquire in order to begin implementing this law later on.
Mario Kadastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kadastik stated that there are various opinions regarding the draft bill: the Bar Association and the Faculty of Law favor continuing through misdemeanor proceedings, while the Chancellor of Justice and the Supreme Court are ambivalent or rather prefer purely administrative proceedings regarding issues related to special administrative proceedings. Furthermore, the impact analysis was not discussed in the commission, and the precise numerical data are currently unavailable.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chairman thanked the rapporteur, announced that inter-faction negotiations would now commence, and assumes Jaanus Karilaid holds the mandate of the Isamaa faction, asking him to deliver his address from the Riigikogu rostrum.
Jaanus Karilaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Jaanus Karilaid stated that the current arrangement fails to provide practical solutions, creates inconsistency and litigation, and intimidates the business environment, which is why the Isamaa parliamentary group demands that the bill be rewritten and rejected at the first reading.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Toomas Uibo is representing the Eesti 200 faction at the Riigikogu podium and requests three additional minutes.
Toomas Uibo
Profiling Eesti 200 fraktsioonAI Summary
Toomas Uibo highlighted that the role of the court must be increased in the imposition of monetary fines for competition law violations under the draft bill, involving the courts and the Chancellor of Justice and adhering to constitutional rights. Furthermore, Eesti 200 submitted procedural remarks and included an alternative draft bill, where fines are imposed by the court after a thorough evaluation of evidence, and which aligns better with the nature of the administrative court.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chair thanks the previous speaker and announces that the next speaker will be Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart, on behalf of the Centre Faction, and requests three minutes of additional time.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart claims that the draft legislation, which establishes a parallel fine procedure for the Competition Authority and the administrative court, is unreasonable and dangerous to entrepreneurship and the separation of powers, and must be rejected at the first reading.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Speaker declares the debate closed and calls upon the Riigikogu to take a position and vote on rejecting Draft Act 384 at the first reading, pursuant to the motion put forward by the Isamaa faction and the Estonian Centre Party faction.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar announced that the proposal received 6 votes in favor and 50 against, with no abstentions. Consequently, it failed to gain support, and the first reading of Bill 384 was concluded. The deadline for submitting amendments is May 2nd at 5:15 PM.