By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

Legislative priorities include the discussion of the land tax bill and the definition of its scope, the issue of tax exemption for land under one's residence, and the submission of procedural changes (e.g., Korobeinik’s amendments); the necessity of rejecting [the bill] at the first reading is emphasized, as well as the importance of budgetary and impact analysis.

The focus is on criticizing the legislative process; it is stressed that bills and amendments are handled amid speculation and a lack of transparency. It is noted that during rapid, simultaneous discussions within committees, all proposed amendments are combined, and the procedure is rushed, which suggests inadequate debate. Direct attention is drawn to the structure and timing of the lawmaking process itself.

It focuses on draft legislation concerning the increased taxation of pensioners and the rise in land tax; it criticizes these bills from the perspective of their acceptability and legitimacy.

Priorities: Increasing social benefits for people with disabilities and possible exemption from the motor vehicle tax; specific draft bills or procedural stages are lacking; the need for change has been noted, but neither progress nor the names of the proposed legislation were referenced.

The legislator's priorities include a critical analysis of both the necessity of transposing EU law and the practical application of adapting those laws to the Estonian legal system. It is argued that a more thorough analysis must be conducted and the quality of legislation improved, rather than simply copying EU directives. The impact of implementing draft legislation, the need for training, and the reduction of bureaucracy have been highlighted as crucial aspects that have not received sufficient attention.

The focus is on economic policy, tax and budget matters, and the transparency of impact assessments. Specific legislative drafts are absent, and the necessity for concrete actions and impact analysis is stressed. The primary emphasis lies in highlighting outcomes achieved through oversight and deliberation, rather than proactively engaging in cooperation to generate new legislative proposals.

The main bills discussed are: the growing workload of administrative courts and the addition of new responsibilities; raising the qualification requirements for kindergarten staff and educational roles; and the inclusion of children with special needs and the creation of a coordinator for support services. Also addressed are the proportion of Estonian language used in advertising, the language of domain names, and the organization of foreign-language materials. The speaker emphasizes the need to discuss and monitor the impact of the bills, referencing the stages of the third reading.

Given that the discussion addresses the topics of state fees and bailiff expenses, alongside the question of franchise within the context of the Isamaa draft bill, the necessity of guaranteeing constitutionality and the protection of rights has been emphasized. These viewpoints suggest that focus is shifting toward regulations concerning administrative and electoral law, as well as related deliberative activities. While specific legislative actions have not been proposed, the subjects themselves point toward the direction of potential key draft bills and debates.

The primary objective is the legislative processing and impact analysis of various bills: the Whistleblower Bill, the Hate Speech Bill, and the mega-fines imposed by the Competition Authority. During the discussions, emphasis is placed on the need to vote separately on the bill's title, monitor the handling of amendments, and debate EU legislation instead of focusing solely on harmonization and analysis. Characteristic of the debate is the criticism regarding the "copy-paste" transposition of European Union directives, coupled with a demand for a thorough legal impact assessment (a "horse analysis") to be organized before the bill's adoption.

The legislative priorities revolve around requiring impact assessments for draft legislation and ensuring thorough review before amendments are adopted; criticism regarding the lack of substance in government decisions; and emphasizing the necessity for serious research and debate (specifically, the analysis of explanatory notes). Specific attention is drawn to the increase in fines and state fees, as well as changes to the pricing of state services. The role is positioned as an opposing voice, rather than an initiator, but stresses the importance of legislative deliberation and transparency.

The core of the main applications and priorities centers on the draft legislation concerning mobile voting (m-elections) and e-voting, including a discussion of their shortcomings and risks. It emphasizes adherence to constitutional principles and the protection of the equality of the mandate; it refers to parliamentary interpellations and the assessment of the Chancellor of Justice as elements of the court proceedings; and it reflects criticism regarding the government's rapid pace of legislative changes.

The main focus is on amending the statutes and reviewing legal and administrative changes; it emphasizes the need for cooperation among committees and the involvement of stakeholders, and consequently, the readiness to continue the discussion of constitutional and legislative amendments. It also mentions potential progress in the adoption of decisions within the Riigikogu (Parliament).

The legislative focus is on reviewing the drafts concerning the car tax and the sweet drink tax, as well as the registry fee and state aid requirements. He intends to withdraw the drafts or submit them for discussion after consulting with the European Commission. Furthermore, he emphasizes the Riigikogu's duty, as the legislative body, to find solutions collaboratively.