By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The primary objective is either amending or abolishing the car tax; it notes that the Center Party has filed two appeals with the administrative court and the Riigikogu has supported the constitutional position, but actual progress has been slow. The aim is for the Ministry of Finance to draft a new or revised bill.

The main draft bill addresses the issue of implementing a 24% value-added tax (VAT) and income tax; the speech emphasizes the necessity of either adopting or rejecting the fundamentally outlined draft legislation. There is a shared focus during the plenary session on criticizing legislative measures and monitoring the government's actions.

Not enough data.

It focuses on the transparency of the draft bill's explanatory memorandum and the actual figure; it demands real data and explanations from the ministry. It recognizes the necessity of parliamentary oversight and emphasizes that the discussion must be evidence-based.

The legislative focus appears to be centered on the oversight and transparency of Rail Baltic funding. This includes references to a session of the special anti-corruption committee and assessments from the National Audit Office. Emphasis is also placed on the necessity of conducting risk analysis and synchronizing cooperation. While specific bills or plans have not been directly cited, the overall concentration remains on criticizing government policy and ensuring financial transparency.

The core of the address concerns the requirement for the roll-call disclosure of votes taken during the bill's first reading; the transparency of the minutes and the public disclosure of votes are emphasized as a parliamentary principle. There is a desire to clarify who voted for versus who voted against.

It expresses the strengthening of supervision and the creation of new legislation as core priorities. It seeks discussion between the Riigikogu (Parliament) and the government, and cooperation with Parliament, to establish laws that are more easily interpreted and preventative. The focus is primarily on the broader implementation of legal liability for legal entities (the Pihlakodu case), and it will investigate and discuss comprehensive mechanisms for handling care homes and incidents involving violence.

The core value is the actual implementation of the provision concerning the liability of a legal person and the fostering of the necessary development for the creation of case law; it emphasizes that Parliament adopted the provision proactively, and now it must be effectively implemented and its limits tested in jurisprudence; it indicates a desire to establish prior precedents and incorporate a broader benefit into legislative activity.

The main priorities are the annulment of draft legislation/achieving tax cuts (VAT, income tax), emergency bills (excise duties), and the review of the government's tax specifications; initiatives for open and public debate are sought (Porto Franco), as well as the establishment of a special anti-corruption commission and the discussion of competition law issues.

The primary minority priority involves organizing public hearings, overseeing the work of the special anti-corruption commission, and investigating budget and financing issues, coupled with the desire for the inclusion of all political parties in the public sphere. No specific legislative initiatives (bills) have been put forward; the focus is on oversight and the implementation of procedures.

The legislative focus centers on ensuring the independence of officials and protecting the fundamental principles of the state order. Emphasis is placed on the importance of procedural suitability, and the debate serves as an advocate for the foundational principles of the state apparatus and democracy. No specific draft legislation was introduced, but the principles of institutional protection and neutrality were vividly underscored.

The legislative priority centers on the timely transposition of EU directives into misdemeanor proceedings, rather than establishing separate administrative procedures for specific institutions, and subsequent amendments to the draft legislation. It stresses compliance with the positions of the Supreme Court and the Chancellor of Justice, and the necessity of moving the bill forward to avoid constitutional risks. Additionally, the subject of the special committee on combating corruption and the transparency of the bill's proceedings are mentioned.