By Agendas: Kalle Laanet

The main criticism is directed at the Prosecutor's Office, which is accused of excessive ambition and using disproportionate procedural methods that infringe upon fundamental rights. He also criticizes the media for one-sided coverage and points out that the issue was only raised after his criticism regarding the management of the Prosecutor's Office. He emphasizes that state authorities should be capable of recognizing human errors, rather than pursuing punishment in every case.

There is absolutely no opposition; the speaker notes that not a single proposal was received by the deadline for submitting amendments, which indicates widespread consensus on the draft bill. Neither criticism nor attacks against opponents are highlighted.

Criticism was presented by Eduard Odinets and Anti Poolamets. Odinets challenged the scope and strictness of the DNA expertise requirement, especially regarding the risk of children born in Estonia losing their citizenship. Poolamets sharply criticized the e-residency system as an international threat that places Estonia under scrutiny as a former top money laundering country, citing a Council of Europe report.

The criticism is aimed at the government's inaction or improper conduct concerning Nordica, particularly the lack of clarity in the Prime Minister's answers, which Laats labeled as obfuscation. Procedural opposition is also directed at the fragmentation of the issue across multiple committees, which is deemed ineffective. Opponents of the investigative committee criticize the proposal as impractical, arguing that it would interfere with the work of law enforcement agencies.

There is no criticism of opponents; instead, it is highlighted that even the opposition has commended the bill during questioning. This indicates that this is a consensus security topic, free from attacks.

The main opposition, coming from the majority of the government and the committee, was directed against the immediate adoption of the proposal put forward by the bill's initiators (Ms. Poolamets). The criticism was policy- and procedural-based, emphasizing the lack of an impact analysis in the bill's explanatory memorandum and insufficient clarification regarding its application to employees working with aggregated working time.

It indirectly criticizes the initiators of the inquiry commission (the opposition), suggesting their aim might be more about seeking publicity than achieving actual results, given the commission’s limited legal powers. It also points out that if there are suspicions regarding activities that fall under the Penal Code, one should turn directly to law enforcement agencies, rather than establishing an intermediate commission.

Insufficient data

The criticism is primarily aimed at systemic and procedural factors, such as rigid procedural rules and legislative ambiguity, which permits laws to be interpreted in multiple ways. One speaker relayed the State Prosecutor General's criticism regarding the courts' slowness in issuing surveillance warrants.

The criticism is leveled against financial institutions (banks) that refuse to open accounts without providing a justification for their decision, asserting they have no duty to explain. This criticism focuses on procedural injustice and a lack of transparency, not on a personal level.