For this reason, the coalition is also considering limiting breaks.

Last December, the Riigikogu's Legal Affairs Committee reviewed some 500 amendments made to the hate speech bill.

With approximately 400 of these, the committee decided in a single vote to not support them. However, these amendments were not bundled together for forwarding to the main assembly for voting on by MPs. This means that if the bill were to go to a second reading now, the Riigikogu would have to vote on each of these 500 proposals, separately.

Eduard Odinets (SDE), legal affairs committee chair, recalled that the bundling of filibustering amendments was already attempted with the marriage referendum in late 2020. However, that administration fell before the bill was officially passed, so its legality was never tested at the Supreme Court.

As of December, Odinets said he did not have enough confidence that bundling amendments together would withstand future legal disputes.

However, since then, the Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of the Riigikogu's self-organization rights. As a consequence of this, Odinets says he believes that, for example, in the case of the whistleblower bill, it might be worth attempting to bundle amendments together.

"The latest Supreme Court decision very clearly states that the Riigikogu has not only the right but also the obligation to remove factors obstructing the legislature's work," Odinets said. "The committee is the first level at which it is viable to remove factors that obstruct that legislative work," he added.

Whether the whistleblower bill will set a precedent is not yet certain.

According to Odinets, the committee will start preparing for the bill's second reading in April.

EKRE withdrawing proposals from many bills

As recently as last week, it transpired that a precedent would be set in March, when the Riigikogu's finance committee is due to send a bill that extends the tax exemption for donations made to Ukraine to its second reading.

EKRE had made 200 amendments, each proposing a different income tax rate.

Annely Akkerman (Reform), Riigikogu finance committee chair, said she was ready to bundle these proposals together. "I have been of the opinion from the start that alternative proposals made to the same clause can be bundled together," she said.

In this case, one proposal would reach the plenary assembly, listing the entire range of proposed tax rates. "If the assembly votes in favor of changing the income tax rate within this range, then the second reading is interrupted, and the committee will select one rate," Akkerman added.

This time around in any case, this test to break the filibuster did not take place since, on Monday, the opposition Conservative People's Party of Estonia (EKRE) withdrew its amendments.

EKRE chair Martin Helme says the party is now focusing on those bills whose obstruction is genuinely important to them. "We didn't actually have any substantive issue with this income tax bill," Helme said. "This was part of a suite by which we tried to stall all bills in the autumn, to foment snap elections. That didn't work out for us, so this has exhausted its purpose in that respect."

Helme stated that the filibuster will continue against half a dozen bills, including the car tax and hate speech bills, as well as a legislative amendment that would help transfer frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, to aid with its reconstruction.

Between 30 to 60 proposals made on car tax bill to be brought to main hall

The three opposition parties, EKRE, Isamaa and the Center Party, have submitted over 800 amendments to the motor vehicle tax bill.

Akkermann said that most of these can be bundled into groups.

For example, Isamaa MPs wanted to augment 24 clauses of the bill with more than 200 different figures. Of these ideas, the finance committee could make 24 proposals. "And then, if the Riigikogu decides to support the amendment of a clause, it can go back to the committee," she said.

Center Party MPs proposed about a hundred different target groups, who should not be liable to the car tax. They believe, for instance, that motor vehicles used in competitive sport, or vehicles produced before 1990, should be exempt from the car tax. Akkermann added the Riigikogu can vote on these proposals in one raft.

After such a bundling, 30 to 60 tranches of amendments could reach the main chamber.

Helme: there's no point in wasting money in the Supreme Court

Martin Helme, the leader of EKRE, believes that among the amendments to the vehicle tax bill, there are at least 400 whose bundling should not be so simple. However, he is not very optimistic.

"We actually don't have a precedent in front of us. We don't know what the threshold is whereby the coalition says that these things can be bundled together, and these cannot," Helme said. "But life experience teaches us that they find a justification according to what they currently like and need."

The timing of the second reading of the car tax bill is not yet known.

According to Akkerman, first of all the opinion of the European Commission on the registration fee for older cars is needed. If the commission does not favor the idea proposed by the Estonian Ministry of Finance, the bill will need to be amended, and if that turns out to be the case, the second reading may only take place in May or June.

M-voting bill to reach the main hall with more than 100 amendments

The idea of bundling proposals is also being considered by or on other committees. The bill allowing for the utilization of frozen assets has mainly received amendments from EKRE. For example, Henn Põlluaas and Jaak Valge (both EKRE MPs) have suggested that the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) should provide an overview of the implementation of sanctions, 184 to 201 times a year.

According to Hendrik Terras (Eesti 200), chair of the constitutional committee, such proposals can be bundled together. Terras added that the sanctions bill still needs substantial amendments, but he hopes to send it to the full assembly in April.

"The traditional process of filibustering via amendment proposals, which we got accustomed to, such as night sessions and taking breaks, has likely been taken away from us," Helme said.

Coalition members also acknowledge that bundling cannot be applied to all proposals.

For instance, the constitutional committee has been discussing a bill that would, among other things, pave the way for voting via mobile devices and allow the use of Smart-ID in elections (M-Voting). EKRE, traditionally the most e-voting skeptical of the parties, has submitted 266 amendments to this bill.

Terras added that a large portion of these EKRE proposals are in fact substantive. This means that, even after bundling clearly obstructionist proposals, over 100 will make it to the full assembly.

"Let's say one work week goes on voting on these amendments if they are voted on sequentially. It might even take one-and-a-half weeks," Terras said.

Since reviewing the proposals will need several more committee sessions, it means that the adoption of the bill will take a considerable amount of time. This means that Smart-ID may not be used in the European Parliament elections.

Limits may also be introduced on taking breaks

Coalition members are increasingly considering how to more rapidly overcome those proposals that still reach the plenary assembly, ie. the 101-seat chamber, for debating, questions and voting. Akkerman said that the chair of the Riigikogu session, ie. the Riigikogu speaker or one of their two deputies, can save working time by no longer allowing the 10-minute breaks permitted under rules of procedure.

"This is because the Supreme Court's decision also stated that obstruction cannot unduly burden the coalition," Akkerman said.

The Reform MP, a former finance minister, said that the principle of breaks taken before voting on amendments had been abused. Taking breaks was tolerated when the obstruction took place a couple of nights per year, but not more than that, Akkermann added.

"It cannot become the norm that 100 people dash in and out of the chamber every 10 minutes. Just as many will be in the house from among the Riigikogu's office staff. It is neither reasonable nor justified, and does not yield any results," the MP said.

Many other coalition members also discuss limiting breaks in the Riigikogu.

Helme said that such actions would clearly violate the Riigikogu's rules of procedure. "If it is stated that every faction has the right to take breaks and then the Riigikogu's leadership simply decides not to give them anymore, it confirms what we have been saying for some time, that we no longer live in a rules-based political landscape," he said.

The fate of the hate speech bill remains uncertain

Prohibiting the taking of breaks could provide one potential answer to the question of what happens next with the hate speech bill.

Eduard Odinets said, however, that he does not wish to send 569 amendments to the full plenary.

"I will have to think and see, discuss with colleagues, how to proceed with this bill. But personally, I would very much like this bill to become law before summer," Odinets said.

Odinets noted that, theoretically, the legal affairs committee could reprocess the bill and overturn decisions made in December. In light of the latest positions of the Supreme Court, it might be possible to try bundling proposals related to this bill.

"But that's again a new precedent. And whether to go down this path or not, I now have to calculate, think, and discuss," Odinets said.

The cultural affairs committee faces a similar question, having reviewed a bill last fall that would allow for the exclusion from school of Ukrainian children who have moved on or who have returned to their homeland. In principle, this could go to a second reading as soon as next week, along with 200 amendments.

Most likely, it would be easier for both bills to be tabled and started over from scratch. Naturally, the government has the option to tie the bills to its confidence, but this is currently only a theoretical possibility.

As for the hate speech law, it is not certain if the coalition is united on its text. Moreover, everyone is eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's decision, which should clarify when tying bills to confidence can be used at all.

--

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