Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The most crucial position is the opposition to the Social Democrats’ plan to transform the Competition Authority into a punitive body and establish a separate administrative procedure. He/She stresses that misdemeanor proceedings must be utilized when transposing the directive, and has previously presented and defended relevant amendments concerning this viewpoint. This position supports the Supreme Court’s Olerex case law, as well as the views of the Chancellor of Justice and criminal law experts, all of whom affirm the necessity of preserving the constitutional framework rather than creating a new “punishment state.” This is primarily a policy-driven and legally justified stance, not a populist or emotional attack.

It demonstrates technical expertise regarding misdemeanor proceedings versus administrative proceedings, and the feasibility of implementing large fines. It cites specific case law (the Olerex €300,000 fine) and emphasizes the support of the Chancellor of Justice and criminal law experts. It utilizes terminology such as “precedent” and “transposition of the directive.” The nature of the expertise is strongly legal, and the arguments are based on legislation and court proceedings.

The analysis processes the arguments forcefully and critically, employing vivid warning signs and expressions of concern ("dangerous precedent," "Pandora's box"). It utilizes rhetorical questions, reiterates its core position, and cites specific legal authorities (the Supreme Court, the Chancellor of Justice, experts) to bolster the argument's reliability. The text emphasizes alternatives and potential risks, all while maintaining a formal, constitutionally grounded approach.

Two addresses were delivered on the same day (2025-03-12): one was comprehensive and lengthy, the other a short, questioning remark. This suggests an intense day of debate, but there is no data regarding longer, sustained public activity.

Highly critical of the Social Democrats (Sotsid), accusing them of wanting to create a “punishment state” via the Competition Authority. The criticism is fundamental (a political demonstration/show) and highly intense; the search for compromise or solutions is not specifically emphasized, but rather the focus is on highlighting dangers and scenarios that threaten the legal framework.

It demonstrates a certain degree of readiness for cooperation: it has submitted and defended proposed amendments; it points to the necessity of discussing the Ministry of Justice’s intentions and seeks broader support from legal institutions and experts. It does not highlight specific joint cooperation projects with party colleagues, but emphasizes the inclusion of experts' and the Chancellor of Justice’s viewpoints in the legislative process.

The national level focuses on Estonia's state legal system and discussions at the ministerial level. It does not refer to local or regional economic zones or regions.

From an economic perspective, the preferred approach is to avoid imposing large fines through separate proceedings, opting instead for misdemeanor proceedings, which helps prevent the creation of a "punishment state." The Olerex court decision and the criticism surrounding large fines illustrate his concern regarding the negative impact on the business environment. He emphasizes that a legally sound framework makes companies better prepared.

There is no available data concerning social issues (abortions, LGBT topics, immigration, weapons, etc.) in this presentation. Not enough data.

The core value is the transposition of the Competition Act and its implementation through administrative offense proceedings; amendments have been submitted and defended, and the necessity of avoiding separate punitive proceedings is emphasized. Discussion with the Ministry of Justice and other institutions is encouraged, and reference is made to the Supreme Court's case law so that the directive can be implemented going forward.