Session Profile: Andre Hanimägi
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary sitting
2024-10-17
Political Position
The political stance is one of strong opposition to Mart Maastik's draft legislation concerning the granting of procedural permission for applications seeking the review of court decisions, particularly those related to the period before 2006. This position is principled, underscoring the critical importance of legal certainty and the potential unconstitutionality of the proposed bill. Furthermore, the stance is heavily grounded in policy and procedure, relying on the comprehensive negative opinion issued by the Ministry of Justice.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates profound expertise regarding civil procedure and the principles of legal certainty, explaining the conditions and deadlines for filing an application for extraordinary review. This expertise is grounded in the views and technical details (e.g., deadlines of two months, five years, ten years) provided by an advisor from the Ministry of Justice's Judicial Administration Policy Department. They are capable of distinguishing the specific differences between extraordinary review in civil and criminal procedure, including the absence of human rights violations related to these deadlines.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The style is formal, procedural, and analytical, focusing on conveying the work of the Legal Affairs Committee and the opinion of the Government of the Republic. The speaker uses logical arguments and technical terms, avoiding emotional appeals. In the third speech, the tone is more defensive, intended to refute the impression of selective interpretation and to clarify the actual nature of the deadlines for applications for review.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker's mode of operation is linked to representing the steering committee in the plenary session, conveying the discussion and consensus decisions of the Legal Affairs Committee. Mention is made of participation and the delivery of a presentation at the committee meeting on October 7th, as well as involvement in proposing the rejection of the draft bill.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The opposition is directed against Mart Maastik's draft bill, which is criticized due to its legal-technical flaws and the violation of legal certainty. The criticism is strong and is based on the government's 11-point negative opinion, which suggests the bill's constitutionality is questionable. In his rebuttal, he defends the committee's position that the draft bill does not solve the problem.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The style of cooperation is consensual and institutional, emphasizing that the decisions made by the Legal Affairs Committee to reject the draft bill were reached consensually by all participating members. Furthermore, collaboration with experts from the Ministry of Justice is crucial, as their comprehensive opinion is considered decisive.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
No data available
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Data missing.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The addressing of social themes is confined to protecting the principles of the rule of law and legal certainty. It is noted that in criminal proceedings, such as in cases of human rights violations, no deadlines whatsoever have been set for applications for review, which demonstrates an awareness of the balance between fundamental rights and procedural rules.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is the rejection of Mart Maastik's Draft Law 7, concerning amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure regarding applications for the reopening of proceedings. The speaker, representing the leading committee, is implementing the consensus decision to reject the bill, emphasizing the quality and constitutionality of the legislation.
3 Speeches Analyzed