The new law, which was passed 65-3 with 15 abstentions on Wednesday, authorizes the use of the assets frozen under sanctions of persons and entities that have contributed to Russia's illegal actions as advance payment for damages owed to Ukraine by Russia.

Speaking to ERR, Tupay said that the objective of the law is entirely understandable: Russia must be held accountable for what it is doing in Ukraine; for the killing, for the war and for the damages caused. Even so, she emphasized that this is property belonging to private individuals, albeit Russians or connected to Russia, and as the Riigikogu itself admitted, this is a very problematic regulation.

"The Riigikogu itself is taking into account the fact that [this will be subject to] constitutional review, and also confirmed that it considers that to be right," the professor said. "Because indeed, there is a political objective here, but the question is, can it indeed be legally done to hold private individuals accountable for what Russia has done in Ukraine."

According to Tupay, one of two things is now expected to happen: either the president will submit the newly passed law for constitutional review or, should he nonetheless promulgate it, the ball will then be in the justice chancellor's court, who can initiate a constitutional review in the Supreme Court.

Whether the law is definitely unconstitutional or not, she didn't want to say, noting that a good lawyer never knows anything for certain, and that their position is predicated on the result of mutual discussion, debate and analysis.

"Even so, we're also seeing that similar issues exist at the national level in EU member states, and that even in other countries, everyone has the same concerns," the law professor pointed out.

"The issue now isn't so much with the monies of the Bank of Russia (CBR); those clearly belong to the Russian state," she continued. "The question is what can states do with the frozen assets of all those private individuals, and in this respect, democratic countries have of course provided for extensive protection for private individuals. Only if it is absolutely certain that my property has been acquired through criminal means can the state seize it from me, sell it, deprive me of it."

Tupay had presented these views at a sitting of the Constitutional Committee of the Riigikogu as well, where she said that if these assets are currently frozen, then EU law states that freezing [them] limits access, but it doesn't indicate whether this property can be permanently deprived from an individual.

"That's what's causing problems here," she explained. "We've also seen, for example, that assets have been frozen, and that their owners have successfully sued and regained the right to use their property. The dangers being highlighted here are that if we treat one group of people differently than the rest and say that they have fewer rights, that their fundamental property rights are less protected, then that can come back to haunt us."

The constitutional law professor stressed that first and foremost, everyone has the right to property, and that these rights are equally protected. Therefore, the threshold for permanently depriving an individual of their property and not returning it to them should nonetheless apply according to the same rules in every country, regardless of where they happen to be coming from.

"Otherwise the same treatment may await us too," she warned. "Even in international law, Estonia is always very strongly in favor of the law applying equally and in the same way to all, because that is in our best interest as well. After all, we don't want to ever be told that we're on the wrong side and that certain rights don't apply to us."

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!