Riigikogu vice-president irked by court's expectation for detailed legislation
The court's recent criticism regarding the vagueness of the Status of Members of the Riigikogu Act isn't entirely justified, as not everything can be spelled out in detail in legislation, First Vice-President of the Riigikogu Toomas Kivimägi (Reform) told ERR. He did not, however, rule out the possibility of changes being made to the regulation on expense allowances.
Harju County Court on Wednesday acquitted Martin Repinski of charges of breach of trust, fraud and embezzlement. The fraud episode concerned rent expenses reimbursed by the Riigikogu, regarding which the first-tier court noted that a criminal court cannot correct the wording and substantive shortcomings of the Status of Members of the Riigikogu Act and the rules for reimbursing MPs' housing expenses, thus criticizing the broad wording of the law.
According to Kivimägi, the court should not justify its indecisiveness with shortcomings in the law.
"I'm bothered by the court's expectation for detailed regulation," he said. "The general principle is rather that we shouldn't overregulate too much in legislation. And now, in this case, the court expects us to spell out every minute detail at the legislative level – how, what, where, how, with whom, in what color car or whatever. I think that's an unreasonable expectation. Instead, the court should have the courage to interpret the law – considering their purpose – much more boldly, is my understanding."
Commenting on last spring's case of former EKRE MP Urmas Reitelmann using expense allowances to fill up the tank, Kivimägi also noted that the laws shouldn't necessarily be amended, as that would set unjustified restrictions on MPs who use their expense allowances correctly.
"We can't overregulate even such sensitive matters as expense allowances," the Riigikogu vice-president stressed. "There are still general principles that need to be followed, and when they aren't followed, it's still the court with the right to issue rulings. In that sense, the court has taken the path of least resistance – 'We want to, and we understand, but you see, the regulation doesn't so clearly state that after all.' I think this is still an unjustified expectation; the court had more than enough room to make a substantive assessment under current regulations. Rather, these are contrived excuses for not making a decision."
Law may change anyway
In its ruling, the county court noted that establishing more precise conditions for reimbursing MPs' rental expenses is the responsibility of the legislature, not the criminal court, which can be interpreted as an indirect recommendation.
Kivimägi didn't rule out that the Status of Members of the Riigikogu Act may be amended.
"These regulations have been in force for a long time, and times have changed, and people have gotten smarter, and new ideas and thoughts have emerged about how [to do things]," he acknowledged.
He added that of course the regulation could also be improved, but he wouldn't want to stake too much on that.
"I won't rule out that we might take up this regulation too, but changing these regulations is [difficult] too," the vice-president said. "These are things where a consensus of the parties represented in the parliament is expected. Changing it; everyone has some argument, some reasoning of their own."
As the county court's ruling has not yet entered into force and is likely to be appealed, Kivimägi said that they need to await the final decision and then start considering whether the law needs to be amended or not.
"I think that we'll draw conclusions accordingly about whether we need to change this regulation or not," he said. "I believe this is a somewhat contrived excuse for not making a substantive decision, especially considering the purpose and general principles of the law."
Ultimately, he continued, it's up to each MP to decide how they behave.
"There are some basic principles that should clearly be followed," he said. "If even just once you have to pay for your own trip out of pocket, that's not some sort of overwhelming burden for an MP. Yes, I also think these rules are a bit relaxed, and could be a bit stricter, but again – I don't support overregulation either."
If someone really wants to do something wrong, they will still find a way, Kivimägi noted, "but it would narrow those possibilities if we were to tighten up regulations. But it shouldn't become too constrictive either."
If the law does end up needing to be amended, then it has to be on the initiative of MPs.
--
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Aili Vahtla