At today’s sitting, the Riigikogu heard the report of Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise on the protection of climate and restrictions of fundamental rights.

The Minister said to the Riigikogu that Estonia had assumed fixed-term commitments in regard to the protection of nature and climate, and it was necessary to make changes in a large number of sectors to meet them. “Unfortunately, the Acts that regulate the life and distribute rights and obligations in these sectors for the most part do not at all reflect the commitments assumed. There is a danger that, at some point when the deadlines will be very close, it may suddenly be realised that something has to be done at once. And then we could be facing a situation where there is a great confusion, there are many court disputes, and there is a possibility that huge compensations will have to be paid from the budget that is tight as it is.

According to her, the Constitution requires the protection of the environment and thereby giving to the future generations a chance for life and success, while it also requires that the necessary rules be enforced fairly and reasonably. “Among other things, this fairness and reasonability means that enough time will have to be allowed for rearrangements. In some sectors, for example in mining, this sufficient time may be as many as five, six or seven years. And there are more sectors like these,” she said.

Madise pointed out that reasonability and fairness also meant common-sense exceptions. “They will have to be debated in depth in the European Union. However, you, honourable members of the Riigikogu, can make sure here that in Estonia there will be no need to renovate houses for thermal insulation where this is not sensible, where the environmental footprint is larger than the potential gain, that people in rural areas are not left without a robust car, and so on,” she said.

Madise emphasised that, within the meaning of the Constitution, the time for adapting to the changes cannot begin to run until a sufficiently specific Act has been published in the Riigi Teataja so that the person can understand that it pertains to them, and they can understand what the future rights and obligations are.

“And of course, when I say here that all important issues must be decided by laws, I do not mean that technical details could be described in laws. No, the regulations of ministers, the regulations of the Government, and various guidelines also definitely have their role, as does the discretionary power of officials. What I have in mind is that the fundamental questions as to who restricts which fundamental rights – the freedom of movement, the freedom of ownership, the freedom to conduct a business – and in what manner, for what purpose and to what extent – all this must be set out in law. If it is not there in the Act, the Act does not have any constitutional meaning either,” the Chancellor of Justice said.

During the debate, Liisa-Ly Pakosta from Estonia 200 Parliamentary Group, Anti Poolamets from the Estonian Conservative People’s Party Parliamentary Group, Andres Metsoja from Isamaa Parliamentary Group, Hanah Lahe from the Reform Party Parliamentary Group, Tõnis Mölder from the Centre Party Parliamentary Group and Jevgeni Ossinovski from the Social Democratic Party Parliamentary Group took the floor.

After the sitting, the members of the Riigikogu continued to form parliamentary friendship groups and associations.

Photos (Author: Erik Peinar / Chancellery of the Riigikogu)

Verbatim record of the sitting (in Estonian)

The video recording of the sitting will be available to watch later on the Riigikogu YouTube channel. (Please note that the recording will be uploaded with a delay.)

Riigikogu Press Service
Karin Kangro
+372 631 6356, +372 520 0323
[email protected]
Questions: [email protected]