The decision had been made by the Riigikogu board, and refers to the second reading (of three) of a bill – which is the point at which the bulk of substantive legislative amendments are made.

The Supreme Court stressed that while Riigikogu MPs must be provided with sufficient information and an opportunity for substantial debate, the right to take breaks during Riigikogu sessions is not a central, constitutionally protected aspect of a member's mandate, to the extent it would warrant a complaint to the Supreme Court.

During a plenary session on April 17, when the second reading of the bill to amend the Riigikogu Election Act and related laws was under process, the EKRE faction's whip and deputy whip exercised their right under the Riigikogu's Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act to take seven, 10-minute breaks, before voting on the bill's amendments.

In response, the Riigikogu decided to head off any future breaks before voting on amendments, to avoid delaying the legislative process.

The EKRE MPs who filed the complaint argued that this decision unconstitutionally restricted their right to participate in the legislative process, and created conditions for the majority's will to be imposed without considering that of the opposition.

In its Thursday ruling, the Supreme Court reiterated an earlier stance that a Riigikogu member can only file a complaint against a Riigikogu decision when it is needed to protect central, constitutionally safeguarded aspects to their mandate.

The Riigikogu's Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act grants the chair and vice-chair of a parliamentary group the right to take a break of up to 10 minutes before voting on amendments in the plenary session, aimed at ensuring the efficiency of the Riigikogu's work.

However, this right is not crucial towards ensuring adequate and free parliamentary debate, since other opportunities for discussing bills before voting are provided for by law, such as time allocated for committee and faction meetings.

The Supreme Court also noted that dismissing a complaint does not mean the absence of judicial control over the restriction of the right to take breaks, but that such control can only occur within the framework of constitutional review of laws processed by the Riigikogu.

Assessing whether measures taken by the Riigikogu to ensure its functionality did not unjustifiably and excessively restrict the rights of the parliamentary minority can also be undertaken in this way.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has dismissed or rejected complaints from parliamentary groups. In February, the Supreme Court dismissed a complaint from EKRE MPs on Riigikogu decisions related to aid to Ukraine.

In November, the Supreme Court rejected a complaint from EKRE members who challenged the fact that their inquiries were not answered within the 20 session days stipulated by the constitution and that the first reading of a bill initiated by their faction did not take place within the seven working weeks required by the Riigikogu's Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act.

Last June, the Supreme Court dismissed a complaint filed by 38 members of the Riigikogu from the EKRE, Center Party, and Isamaa factions. The complainants sought to annul the Riigikogu's decisions on May 15, 16, and 22, which ended the submission of procedural questions about the agenda and the handing over of bills and inquiries. The Supreme Court found that restricting the submission of inquiries and bills was necessary to ensure the functionality of the Riigikogu and did not violate the rights of parliament members

Breaks had been taken during a long period of filibustering at the Riigikogu, starting from late April last year when the current Reform-SDE-Eesti 200 administration entered office.

Since each break is about 10 minutes long and some bills were subject to hundreds of amendment proposals, this led to a virtual deadlock at the Riigikogu.

--

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