By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The ability to analyze the broader impact of draft legislation has been demonstrated, along with referencing the explanatory memorandum and the lists of planned taxes (motor vehicle tax, tax on sweetened beverages, national defense tax, state fees). The concern is rooted in specific figures (parking fines 80/160, fare evasion fines 20/40, expedited passport processing 45 rising to 250 euros), and the necessity of a rigorous impact assessment is debated. The text directly addresses the relationship between the budget and taxation, criticizing their overall effect on society.

Featured topics: Conflicts related to European Union law and the Constitution, the registry fee as a discriminatory mechanism, and the assessment of taxpayer damage/loss; reference is made to the European Commission's assessment, the considerations of the Chancellor of Justice, and the analysis of the impact of tax practice.

Possesses subject matter expertise regarding the risks and security of e-voting, mentioning facial recognition, redundant servers, the role of app stores, examples of e-voting architecture (e.g., e-notary), and the dangers posed by system failures. It refers to explanatory memoranda and the positions of the Chancellor of Justice to clarify the necessity of transparency and legal clarity in elections. It presents technical and institutional nuances and relies on them to illustrate specific risks.

Demonstrates knowledge of sports financing structures and the role of umbrella organizations: specifically pointing out the withdrawal of funding for school and recreational sports and the potential lack of coordination. Refers to the specific sum of half a million euros and discusses the implications of the consequences of redistribution.

Refers to the explanatory memorandum and the background of the draft, demonstrating knowledge of the budgetary process and implementation; it emphasizes that an impact assessment is necessary before proceeding.

It incorporates references to the handling of legislation and directives, as well as the opinions of the Chancellor of Justice, while stressing the absence of comparable analysis and the effect of the distinctions between petty offense proceedings and administrative proceedings. It recognizes the constitutional separation of powers and warns against potential institutional overreach. Furthermore, it demonstrates awareness of the context in which the directive requests member states to select an appropriate form.

He refers to existing legal analyses and the European Commission's confirmation that the car tax is discriminatory; he highlights constitutional issues and the awareness of the problem over the last year. He emphasizes issues related to healthcare network funding and the hospital network, and possesses knowledge of state and local government financial decisions, as well as the technical aspects of tax policy.

He demonstrates expertise in cryptocurrency regulation, AML requirements, and the relevant supervisory structures (the Financial Intelligence Unit and the Financial Supervisory Authority). He also highlights the importance of impact assessments and the transitional matters associated with transposing the European Union regulation.

The expertise presented is central to: constitutional protection (especially Article 28 concerning large families and persons with disabilities), the interplay of European Union law in draft motor vehicle tax legislation, and the impact of social and tax incentive policies (where specific provisions are lacking). Furthermore, the ability to handle legal and financial risk analyses is noted (e.g., conflicts between the European Commission and EU law, discussion regarding interest).

It utilizes specific examples and figures (a 17 euro salary increase, 2418 euros in Tallinn, 133% of the Estonian average, 120% of what was promised in the coalition agreement), along with references to strikes in Ida-Virumaa and Tartu, indicating a certain grasp of regional wage policy. It demonstrates a specific level of knowledge regarding salary levels and the regional context. The thematic focus overall is tied to the context of education, wages, and strikes.

Demonstrates theoretical and practical competence in tax policy, mentioning specific draft legislation (the bank tax, the digital tax, the corporate tax, the Facebook/Google tax) and healthcare financing issues; uses technical terminology and refers to previous proposals.

The speech is based on legal and financial arguments: it refers to a legal analysis commissioned by the faction, which indicates that the car tax may conflict with EU law and Section 28 of the Constitution. It also mentions the 21.9% annual interest rate on potential damages compensation, as well as the complexity of adhering to tax law and state obligations.

Made extensive use of arguments concerning constitutional law, European Union law, and budgetary legality (e.g., the principle of constitutionality, Section 28 regarding large families, and conflict with EU law concerning the car tax). The text refers to specific numerical examples (€4.9 million, a €17 salary increase, the salaries and number of positions for Tallinn teachers) and utilizes inquiries and analyses (e.g., a legal analysis of the car tax). Knowledge of social policy, education funding, and the impact of tax and benefit systems is highlighted.