According to Hent-Raul Kalmo, the president's legal adviser, the president does not dispute the objective of the amendment; however, the wording of the law is such that it conflicts with three articles of the Constitution by disproportionately restricting freedom of association and freedom of religion. The ambiguity currently present in the law would likely lead to legal disputes and could ultimately enable the restriction of freedoms for all associations.

"This is a disproportionate restriction on the freedoms of association and religion. Primarily, this means that there are other measures available to achieve the same goal. The Constitution requires that if such alternatives exist, they must be used. In other words, the president has no objections or disagreements regarding the objective of the law. The goal — preventing undue influence — is very important, but he also pointed out that other mechanisms already exist. The state already has tools for controlling acts such as treason and this must be kept in mind," Kalmo said.

The aim of the bill was to ensure that religious organizations operating in Estonia could not be used to incite hatred or violence. Initially, the law would have applied to the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church [formerly MPEÕK], which would have been required to sever ties with the Moscow Patriarchate. Minister of the Interior Igor Taro (Eesti 200) said that the problems concerning the church will not go away.

"This issue must be resolved in such a way that Estonian congregations and Estonian believers are not dependent, in any way, on an organization that supports aggression, or, as a universal principle for the future, on any terrorist regime. I do not believe this concern will disappear," Taro said.

The bill was drafted when Lauri Läänemets (SDE) was serving as minister of the interior. He said that the Riigikogu must continue working on the legislation.

"Security assessments have not changed according to the ISS, the Foreign Intelligence Service or any other organization. The security issues related to subordination remain and the parliamentary majority's consensus on this matter has not shifted," said Lauri Läänemets, chair of the Social Democratic Party.

If the president refuses to promulgate a law and sends it back to the Riigikogu, the parliament can either amend the legislation or adopt it in its original form. If the Riigikogu re-adopts the law unchanged, the president must either promulgate it or refer it to the Supreme Court for a decision.

--

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