Madise believes that, for example, in cases where an error identified in a law needs to be a corrected or an issue that has arisen needs to be addressed, the drawing up of a legislative intent could be replaced with a clearly worded, smaller-scale bill together with a letter of explanation. Those who will be affected by any changes could then be given enough time to submit concrete suggestions for improving the bill.

"This would save time for everyone involved," she said.

"In other words, if it becomes clear that legislation is needed to cover a situation, but the solution isn't a novel one and if drafting the bill is expected to take less time than drawing up a legislative intent, then that process should start right away with drawing up the bill, and the legislative intent can be skipped," she added.

According to the justice chancellor, it currently tends to be the case that more time is spent on drawing up and coordinating the legislative intent than on the actual bill, and the actual impact of the legislation, including the accompanying degree of bureaucracy, only emerges with the bill itself. She also pointed out that those affected by the bill are given too little time to submit their opinions.

She likewise emphasized the importance of keeping an eye out to ensure that those who draft a bill also analyze its constitutionality.

EU legal initiatives must be constitutional

Madise noted that it is crucial to monitor a bill's constitutionality when shaping EU law as well.

"In the case of just a draft EU legislative act, then it's constitutionality cannot be assessed based on the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia Amendment Act," Madise noted.

"An official does not have the authority to make a definitive determination regarding whether any provision of the Constitution represents a fundamental principle of the Constitution, or how to interpret the Constitution in accordance with EU law – that authority is granted by Estonia's legal order to the Supreme Court," she explained. "Thus, when participating in negotiations, the official must act cautiously and aim to achieve in negotiations the greatest possible compatibility of the legislation with all provisions of the Constitution that have not been interpreted differently by the Supreme Court."

To this end, it is essential to continuously and comprehensively analyze the constitutionality of EU legislative initiatives, the justice chancellor stressed.

"If it emerges that a provision of a proposed EU legal act may conflict with any rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia, this must be be reported to both the Government of the Republic and the Riigikogu," she said.

Madise noted that it isn't necessary to compare every provision of EU legal initiatives in writing with every provision of the Estonian Constitution.

"That wouldn't be reasonable, necessary or actually possible," she acknowledged. "What is important is to simply, clearly and concisely state the core of an initiative or planned act – what it will mean for Estonian individuals and institutions – and then focus on assessing the constitutionality of the key aspects."

"If the analysis reveals that the EU legal initiative runs the risk of conflicting with any provision of the Constitution, then this analysis should explain what constitutes this conflict with a rule of the Constitution and clarify what instructions the official will be given for negotiations (e.g. should they achieve the amendment of the initiative or the option or an exemption for member states)," she continued.

Madise stressed that the Riigikogu must be clearly informed if an adopted EU legal act includes rules whose compliance with the Estonian Constitution is debatable.

"In the case of an EU legal act, the transposition of which requires passing a law in Estonia, the letter of explanation should indicate which provisions of the bill initiated for the transposition of the legal act are in conflict with the Estonian Constitution, and what that conflict is," she noted. "If those drafting the bill believe that this conflict can be used to invoke the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia Amendment Act, then they must provide an analysis of this in the letter of explanation.

Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs Liisa Pakosta (Eesti 200) recently sent a letter to Estonia's ministers, Government Office, chancellor of justice and auditor general requesting advice on how to reduce bureaucracy.

One of the major goals outlined in the current government's coalition agreement is the reduction of bureaucracy and regulation.

--

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