Skip navigation


The Riigikogu supported the Proposal No 12 from the Chancellor of Justice concerning notifying of a surveillance activity and monitoring thereof with 72 votes in favour.
The Chancellor of Justice Indrek Teder analysed the regulation of the Code of Criminal Proceedings and the Surveillance Act in the course of his constitutional review. This legal analysis led the Chancellor to conclude that some of the provisions of this Act are not in conformity with the constitution.
The report of the Chancellor of Justice said that the proposal concerns postponing or forgoing notification of surveillance activities for the purpose of preventing any harm to criminal proceedings or surveillance activities, or avoiding facilitation of crime; however, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Surveillance Act also include other bases for postponing notification of surveillance activities, e.g. for the protection of a covert collaborator. Teder emphasised that if the proposal finds support, it would be pertinent to review the system of notification of surveillance activities as a whole because the principles taken into account by the Chancellor in forming his opinion largely extend to other bases for postponing notification as well. The Chancellor believes that the first step should be the clarification of the wording of the Act, and that a special controlling body should be provided.
Deputy Chairman of the Constitutional Committee Deniss Boroditš and Member of the Legal Affairs Committee Andres Anvelt presented their reports on the discussions in their respective Committees on the proposal of the Chancellor of Justice. The Committees concluded that the rights of persons should be under effective protection and people should feel secure. Violations of fundamental rights should be regulated with as much precision as possible. There was a general opinion that the Act should specify the terms mentioned in the proposal of the Chancellor, namely facilitation of crime and risk to the objective of the surveillance activities, that are clearly too broad in meaning. The Committees also concluded that the regulation of control over forgoing notification of surveillance activities should be regulated better in order to ensure effective protection of constitutional rights of individuals. Consequently, the Constitutional Committee as well as the Legal Affairs Committee both decided to support the proposal of the Chancellor of Justice.
According to the procedure in force, a proposal was made to the Legal Affairs Committee to initiate a relevant amendment Bill.
Marko Pomerants, Andres Anvelt, Kalle Laanet and Peep Aru took the floor during the debate.
On the motion of the Economic Affairs Committee, the Bill on Amendments to the State Assets Act (3 SE), initiated by the Estonian Centre Party Faction, was rejected at the first reading. The result of voting: 41 votes in favour, 26 against.
The Riigikogu Press Service