Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The main position is that the Riigikogu must form a special investigative committee to clarify the circumstances related to the termination of Nordica's activities; the goal is to increase accountability and transparency for the protection of taxpayer interests. The proponent is critical of the actions taken by Michal, KredEx, and the Ministry of Climate, emphasizing that anti-corruption oversight and the public disclosure of evidence are essential. The viewpoint has been raised that existing objections and concealed decisions must be brought to light, and the committee should offer assistance and outline further steps for the Prosecutor's Office.

The speaker is addressing the detailed Nordica case, outlining how Nordica was on the brink of bankruptcy in 2023–2024, detailing the six-month, €1,140,000 contract with Knighthood Global (€190,000 per month), the €1.5 million loan received from KredEx in April 2024, and the role of management and board members, including the payment of their substantial management fees. Contacts and backgrounds from foreign countries (Italy, Malta) are also mentioned, as is the connection of Board member Camiel Eurlings with the company, which further raises questions about potential conflicts of interest and exposure. Furthermore, reference is made to the investigative work of special committees and the lack of documentation, reinforcing the expert group’s stance on the necessity of transparency.

The discourse is typically combative and accusatory, utilizing specific data and authoritative examples; it often poses rhetorical questions ("whether...") to underscore ethical and legal points of concern. The text is characterized by emotional momentum and a consistent thread of detail, which helps the reader identify specific individuals and institutions as the culprits. The tone of defense or criticism is sharp and is motivated by the author’s familial and ethical convictions, while sensitive data is simultaneously presented in a reasonable and evidence-based manner.

Ongoing activities and extended proceedings are mentioned intermittently: the discussions are part of a Riigikogu session (the first reading of Bill 54 OE), where the author emphasizes that responses to documents have been awaited since November, and that materials have been submitted to the Prosecutor's Office. Repeated reference is made to the work taking place within the special committees and the necessity of controlling the formation of contracts and the decisions made by management authorities; continuous monitoring and the collection of new evidence are emphasized.

The opponent faces severe criticism: the primary targets are Michal and his coalition partners (the Reform Party), KredEx, and the Ministry of Climate. Furthermore, the coalition is accused of employing deliberate mechanisms to ensure the continuation of these projects. The stated purpose of these decisions is described as serving special interest groups rather than protecting the interests of funders and taxpayers. The tone is extremely forceful, and the possibility of compromise is limited or nonexistent. The statements indicate that the opposition is aggressively critical, demanding a public inquiry and strong resistance to the coalition's activities.

The style of cooperation is primarily adversarial and control-focused; although documents and evidence are mentioned as being shared with the prosecutor’s office and the work of special committees is followed, there is a lack of substantive cooperation with the coalition. The text indicates that cooperation occurred mainly through channels of institutional accountability and legal procedures (the prosecutor’s office, special committees), rather than as a multilateral consensus in the political arena. Nevertheless, some references to past or potential cooperation in state-level decisions are noted, but this remains predominantly within a critical context.

The focus is primarily at the national level, centering on Estonian public administration and state institutions (the Ministry of Climate, Stenbock House, KredEx). International connections are mentioned contextually (Camiel Eurlings’ background), but the main impetus and focus of attention are the Estonian state’s funding issues and corporate governance. Therefore, the regional concentration is primarily within a national and administrative context.

Economically, the situation is critical concerning the management of state funds and rescue operations: it is stressed that Nordica was artificially kept afloat at the taxpayer's expense, and a significant loss was inflicted upon the public through an additional loan of 1.5 million euros and a consultation agreement valued at 1.14 million euros. This contrasts sharply with the need for transparent and responsible financing. Furthermore, it is emphasized that taxpayer interests must be protected and expenditures must be controlled; the criticism specifically targets decisions related to the national support model and the perceived lack of cooperation.

Not enough data

The legislative focus is centered on the formation of a Riigikogu (Parliamentary) investigative committee to probe the Nordica matters, and the necessity of employing procedures involving special committees and compulsory measures to hold members of the management and supervisory boards accountable. Mention is made of the issue of document availability and the possibility of utilizing parliamentary procedures (such as subpoena or compulsory attendance), thereby strengthening cooperation with the Prosecutor’s Office. The primary objective is parliamentary oversight and increasing the accountability of governing bodies.