Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The core focus is on safeguarding constitutional rights and preserving procedural guarantees; there is criticism of the draft bill that would permit the Competition Authority to employ simplified administrative procedures and impose substantial fines, arguing that this could violate the fundamental principles of the legal system. It highlights that the constitution and judicial rights, such as the presumption of innocence and the obligation regarding the submission of documents, must be protected; it emphasizes the principle of *ultima ratio* and expresses concern over the potential emergence of a punitive state. The style reflects robust political criticism, undertaken with serious commitment rather than mere compliance, centered on the protection of rights and the legitimacy of legal procedures.

Using adaptation frameworks, it draws upon relevant legal sources (the Constitution, the Supreme Court, the Chancellor of Justice) and highlights the protection of fundamental rights and the balance of procedural rights. It references specific legal concepts (judicial rulings, the standpoints of the Chancellor of Justice, ultima ratio) and aims to enhance the debate by utilizing these legal sources. Its narrative is grounded in the interaction with the positions of experts on rights and procedural guarantees, alongside adherence to the opinions issued by the Chancellor of Justice.

The speaker is characterized by a combative and cautionary tone, employing emotional and moralizing rhetorical devices; they utilize counter- and warning metaphors such as the "punishment state" and "opening Pandora's box." The text structure is often a combination of an interrogative framework and fact-based citation, emphasizing the protection of fundamental rights and a sense of systematic threat. The complex, yet repetitive, granular stylistics are grounded in legal argument and moral assessment.

Participation in the Economic Affairs Committee and the Legal Affairs Committee, along with references to a three-part joint discussion concerning the draft legislation; this indicates that the individual is regularly involved in parliamentary sessions, contributing to debates on both economic and legal matters. It is mentioned that the discussions held within the committees are significant to the individual, and points to active involvement regarding the continuation of the second reading of the aforementioned bill. This demonstrates consistent participation and sustained focus on the procedural and legal protection aspects of the draft legislation.

The primary resistance centers on the bill's expansion of the Competition Authority's powers and the introduction of simplified procedures; it accuses the plan of significantly undermining rights and stresses the need for constitutional protection. The criticism is aimed at the Social Democrats, who are accused of seeking to expand these powers; it presents counterarguments and warnings regarding serious legal and superficially economic consequences. A strong, politically critical stance is thus established, emphasizing the core principles of rights and the rule of law.

Demonstrates a readiness to cooperate with legal institutions (the Chancellor of Justice, the Supreme Court) and stresses prior collaboration with the Centre Party faction in affirming these standpoints. It presupposes and underscores the necessity of cooperating within constitutional boundaries and adhering to the opinions of the Chancellor of Justice, while simultaneously remaining critical of opposing factions. It conveys an attitude that is somewhat coalition- or broadly consensus-seeking, yet fails to put forward a specific compromise.

Not enough data

Highlighting the protection of economic activity and the interests of free enterprise, coupled with a fear regarding the impact of excessive restrictions related to the cyber footprint; this opposes over-control and the emergence of a punitive state, which could damage business operations and lead to bankruptcies. The necessity of adhering to proportional sanctions and emphasizing the securing of rights, rather than extensive administrative enforcement that could negatively affect the economy, is clearly outlined. However, a different rhetoric is also present, with some colleagues advocating for larger fines; consequently, the overall position on economic activity is visibly complex and contested.

Not enough data

The primary focus is on continuing the second reading of Bill 609 SE and evaluating the impact of its legislative structure; it is stressed that new punitive mechanisms must not exceed constitutional boundaries, and the principles of the rule of law must be adhered to, including the presumption of innocence and the protection of due process rights. Reference is made to the Supreme Court ruling, the Chancellor of Justice, and the necessity of complying with their positions. The need to satisfy the requirements of legal and constitutional standards is highlighted, and the opening of Pandora’s box must be avoided in the context of future legislative changes.