To manage administrative burden, the government introduced a so-called "one in, one out" rule last spring. This means that whenever a new requirement is imposed on individuals or businesses, an existing requirement must be eliminated at the same time.

The rule, set out in the guidelines for good legislative drafting and legislative technique, applies to all regulatory acts originating from the government, whether laws or regulations.

In simple terms, the state's administrative burden is the time, money and effort required to comply with and administer the state's laws, rules and requirements. Every law and regulation inevitably creates some burden, but problems arise when that burden becomes unreasonably large, resulting in overregulation.

From May through December of last year, the "one in, one out" principle was applied to a total of 34 draft laws. Bills in which the rule was applied because the administrative burden on individuals or businesses increased accounted for roughly one-third of all draft legislation.

In 55 cases, the rule was not applied because the administrative burden remained unchanged or decreased. These accounted for about half of all draft bills.

In eight cases, exemptions applied and the rule did not have to be used. Such exemptions are permitted, for example, when the state is implementing an international treaty or when additional administrative burden arises due to an important national defense or security need.

Margit Juhkam, head of the legislative policy department at the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs, said that while the so-called administrative burden balancing rule was initially met with skepticism and many believed it would have little effect, it is now evident that the obligation has prompted lawmakers to take administrative burden more seriously.

"Since the administrative burden balancing rule was introduced, we have observed cases where obligations have not been imposed because no quick way to reduce existing burden could be found. The introduction of a requirement is postponed or the need for it disappears from the agenda altogether, at least for a time. We see this as a favorable and positive side effect of the rule," Juhkam said.

As a specific example of reducing administrative burden through the "one in, one out" principle, Juhkam pointed to recent amendments to the Fishing Act. Under the changes, the state abolished the requirement for fishers to submit a vessel seaworthiness certificate when applying for a fishing permit. The move away from paper documentation also included replacing fishing vessel certificates with modern electronic solutions.

While paperwork was reduced, the same amendments to the Fishing Act introduced new obligations for some businesses. Owners of vessels shorter than 12 meters must now install location-tracking devices on their boats, Juhkam explained.

Another example comes from planned amendments to the Animal Protection Act. Administrative burden is expected to increase because a ban on keeping hens in cages would impose costs on egg producers related to restructuring production. To balance this increase, the government plans to reduce existing administrative burden for animal keepers who raise nutria or chinchillas primarily for meat production.

Under the rule established in the guidelines for good legislative drafting, any increase in administrative burden resulting from a draft law, as well as the legal provision that will be repealed to offset the new requirement, must be specified at the beginning of the bill's explanatory memorandum.

Principle not observed in parliamentary bills

Juhkam explained that determining whether a draft law increases administrative burden is primarily the responsibility of the bill's author. However, during the interministerial consultation process, the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs reviews draft legislation and the ministry's regulatory impact assessment advisers also provide their assessment of any potential increase in administrative burden.

According to Juhkam, if it becomes clear during a second round of consultations that a bill would increase administrative burden but no balancing measure has been proposed, the ministry simply refuses to approve the draft.

"There have been several cases where the author of a bill has concluded that administrative burden would not increase, but we have pointed out that it would, in fact, increase and that ways to reduce it should be found," Juhkam said.

The official acknowledged that it is often not easy to determine whether a particular bill would increase administrative burden.

"Defining administrative burden is not among the simplest tasks. There can be gray areas where questions arise as to whether something constitutes an increase in administrative burden given the existing system," she said.

Not all legislation passes through the scrutiny of the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs. For example, the balancing requirement applies only to legislation initiated by the government. If a bill is introduced in the Riigikogu, there is no central oversight of administrative burden.

"For example, if a bill initially contains no requirement that would increase administrative burden, but an obligation is added during the Riigikogu's legislative process, the rule is not applied separately in that case," the ministry official said.

The Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs also does not monitor administrative burden in ministerial regulations. According to Juhkam, it is up to each ministry to ensure that the rule is followed and that any additional burden is genuinely offset by reductions elsewhere.

In fact, the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs does not know whether, or to what extent, the "one in, one out" principle is being applied in ministerial regulations. "We cannot say that nobody is applying it; that much I can say," Juhkam said.

Ministry completes broad-based regulations review

Last year, the Ministry of Justice also carried out its first comprehensive review of regulations, with the goal of reducing excessive administrative burden on businesses and individuals.

As part of the review, all 4,009 regulations published in the State Gazette as of May 1, 2025, were examined. The process identified 304 regulations that formally remained in force even though their substantive application had ended or the subject matter did not require regulation at the ministerial regulation level in the first place.

"The State Gazette now presents as valid those regulations that actually need to remain in force, and that is a major benefit," Juhkam said.

The ministries also identified opportunities to reduce administrative burden in 327 regulations. According to a Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs overview, many of these opportunities involved simplifying the conditions for granting support, while duplicate requirements in legislation were also eliminated.

Juhkam said ministries are now planning to amend those regulations in order to reduce administrative burden.

"We are waiting for the right moment to incorporate these legislative changes into the planning process. Work on these issues will continue for some time," she said.

--

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