Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The Centre Party is vehemently opposed to the motor vehicle tax and demands the withdrawal of the draft bill, arguing that its implementation would be unacceptably in conflict with both European Union legislation and the Estonian Constitution. Their stance is clearly oppositional regarding the tax proposal, and they accuse the government of risking financial damage to the state and incurring large interest payments. They also stress that the focus of their deliberation is solely on legal certainty and the protection of fundamental values; contacts are also planned with the President to ensure the bill cannot enter into force if it conflicts with the Constitution or EU law.

The speaker highlights the legal analysis commissioned by the faction and references EU law and the Constitution (Section 28), utilizing these as the primary arguments. Attention is drawn to potential damages compensation, rising interest rates (up to 21.9% annually), and the additional state expenditures that would accompany the tax hike. The arguments are based on the criticism voiced by the Chancellor of Justice and the observation that the draft legislation fails to provide adequate exceptions for large families or persons with disabilities.

The address is agitated, overtly critical, and emotionally charged, backed by strong ethical and legal arguments. The text blends analytical explanations with narrative examples (such as large families, people with disabilities, and sports history). It emphasizes the necessity of withdrawing the draft bill and indicates a firm intention to appeal directly to the President.

Not enough data.

Fundamental opposition to the tax policy: the draft bill is opposed, its withdrawal is demanded, and the threat of violating the rule of law and the constitution is emphasized. Intense criticism is directed at the government's tax policy and the substance of the draft bill; the suspension of the bill and an inspection of the relevant government agency are considered the necessary next steps.

Insufficient data.

The focus is at the national level, but specific attention is drawn separately to the situation in rural areas and the potential consequences of abolishing free public transport—regional attention is directed toward the complex jumble of issues facing rural and countryside regions.

The tax policy is facing criticism: the car tax should not be introduced, as the draft legislation will result in potential harm and extra costs for the state, including vital funding sectors that will require compensation for the increased tax revenue. Allegedly, the "car boom" will subside if investment in roads and public transport provision is neglected; the perceived alternative involves changes to existing state subsidies or services, potentially including the elimination of public transport in rural areas.

Emphasis is placed on protecting vulnerable groups (families with many children, people with disabilities); it is argued that the draft bill fails to provide them with special provisions and violates fundamental rights. Social inequality is highlighted, as is the necessity of finding quicker support measures and legitimate solutions.

Focuses on the decision of the first reading and the necessity of withdrawing the draft bill (374 OE). The speaker informs that the planned proceedings should be terminated and the state should withdraw the bill; plans are underway to appeal to the president not to promulgate the motor vehicle tax, which is in conflict with the Constitution or EU law.