Agenda Profile: Toomas Uibo

The central theme is the enforcement of competition law and the protection of constitutional rights when imposing large fines. The political stance is strongly aimed at ensuring the principles of the rule of law and the fair treatment of businesses, supporting the compromise that fines should be imposed by the administrative court, not the Competition Authority. This position is policy- and value-based, emphasizing the need to resolve the shortcomings of the draft bill in the Riigikogu (Parliament). It is also emphasized that there has been a delay in transposing the directive, which has resulted in an infringement procedure.

The speaker demonstrates profound expertise in the fields of competition law, administrative procedure, and constitutional law. Specific legal terminology is employed (the Administrative Court, full scope review, § 15 and § 24 (2) of the Constitution), and references are made to government protocols and analyses conducted by legal experts (the Chancellor of Justice, University of Tartu). Particular emphasis is placed on the consequences of violating procedural norms and formal requirements, as well as the extent of judicial review.

The style is formal, analytical, and constructive, beginning with thanking the minister for their open mind. The tone is solution-oriented, emphasizing that Eesti 200 is a solution-oriented political party. The appeals are primarily logical and legal, focusing on the compliance of procedural norms with the constitution, and calling for polite and respectful debates.

The speaker actively participates in the legislative process, submitting comments derived from the government protocol and referencing the preparation of an alternative draft bill. This approach demonstrates detailed intervention during the first reading of the bill to ensure that the necessary amendments are made.

The criticism is directed at the deficiencies of the current version of the draft bill and its conflict with the Constitution, not at individuals. Specifically, criticism focuses on the draft's insufficient description of court procedure and the situation where large fines (e.g., 100 million) could be imposed without granting the individual a hearing. The criticism is procedural and legal, demanding that the draft bill be brought into compliance with Articles 15 and 24 of the Constitution.

The speaker is cooperative, recognizing the achievement of a political compromise regarding the imposition of fines. Emphasis is placed on the necessity of involving the courts, the Chancellor of Justice, and other legal experts in the Riigikogu proceedings. There is a call for constructive work within the Riigikogu to amend the draft bill.

The focus is at the national level, concentrating on the competitiveness of Estonian entrepreneurs and protecting Estonian business sectors from excessive fines.

Support is given to ensuring free competition and protecting businesses from the arbitrary actions of state authorities. Warnings are issued against fines imposed haphazardly or incorrectly, which could stifle entire sectors and leave people unemployed, highlighting concerns regarding economic stability and employment.

The primary focus is on protecting the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens and legal entities. Particular emphasis is placed on the right against self-incrimination and the right to protection against the arbitrary actions of state power.

The primary priority is the refinement of the draft bill amending the Competition Act (384 SE) to ensure its compliance with the Constitution and the principles of the rule of law. The speaker is an active initiator of these amendments, submitting detailed requirements for supplementing the provisions on judicial procedure and referencing the preparation of an alternative draft bill.