Session Profile: Mart Maastik
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary sitting
2024-10-17
Political Position
The political focus is on protecting the principles of the rule of law and the individual rights of citizens, especially ensuring the inviolability of property, which is enshrined in the Constitution. The speaker strongly supports a value-based legislative amendment that would grant retroactive effect to the expansion of the grounds for judicial review, in order to rectify unjust court decisions made before 2006. He emphasizes that the rights of every individual are important, even when dealing with isolated cases.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker addresses the implementation of the Code of Civil Procedure and the procedure for filing an application for the reopening of proceedings, utilizing technical terminology and citing the Code's effective dates. He/She candidly admits that he/she is not a legal expert but has thoroughly studied the substance of a specific issue concerning the emergence of new evidence after a court judgment. He/She is capable of explaining the content of the legislative amendment at the level of specific sections/articles.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is persuasive, empathetic, and at times defensive, stressing the Riigikogu's moral obligation to assist individuals who have been wronged. Both logical arguments (a small administrative burden) and emotional appeals (peace of mind, injustice) are employed, and an example illustrating the importance of a comma in a sentence is brought up. The speaker actively attempts to change the positions that colleagues had previously established in their factions or committees.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The scope of activity is confined to presenting and defending the draft bill during the Riigikogu plenary session, actively responding to colleagues' questions and clarifying his standpoints. He references his previous work introducing the bill in the committee, conceding that he might not have been as articulate there.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opposition came from the Legal Affairs Committee, where the draft bill was rejected on the grounds that a precedent should not be set or the law changed for the sake of individual cases. The speaker criticizes this procedural objection, stressing that the rights of every individual are important and that this is not about setting a precedent, but rather about granting an opportunity to all persons in a similar situation.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker is seeking broad support, urging all colleagues to vote in favor of the bill, irrespective of the factions' prior decisions. He/She supportively references the earlier positions of other colleagues (e.g., Grünthal, Jaanson, Vooglaid) who have backed a similar principle of justice, thereby demonstrating an openness to sharing ideas across party lines.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is exclusively on national legislation and guaranteeing the rights of all Estonian citizens who have fallen victim to the time limitations imposed during the application of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no specific regional emphasis.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
No data available
8 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Instead of social topics, the focus shifts to legal justice and the protection of individual rights, particularly concerning the inviolability of property—a constitutional principle. The speaker emphasizes compassion and the desire to resolve the concerns of fellow citizens.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative priority is narrowly focused on amending the Act on the Implementation of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Enforcement Procedure. The speaker is the initiator and a staunch defender of this draft bill, aiming to retroactively grant the opportunity for the reopening of court judgments to individuals who received an unjust decision before 2006 and for whom new circumstances have emerged.
8 Speeches Analyzed