<DEMO>ESTONIA.CON
22.01.1992 – EH/af
COMMENTS
The draft Constitution of the Republic of Estonia appears to be generally well constructed and fulfils the basic requirements of:
– enumerating the basic values and ideals of society
– establishing the instruments of governments, their structures and powers
– declaring the rights of the citizens.
The text of the Articles is clear, precise and reads well in its English translation.
I have the following minor comments to make and questions to put:
Art. 6 (para. 1) “under State protection” – unclear what this means
(para. 2) “Economical use of natural resources guaranteed by law” – perhaps it should appear in a statute governing management of natural resources and not in Constitution.
Art. 12 para. 4 will in the specific Estonian context be of major importance and might warrant more clarification.
Art. 16 it would be preferable to ban the death penalty also.
Art. 17 and other Articles providing for exceptions to the full enjoyment of human rights (such as 18, 19, 20, 23) might be drafted so as to reflect more closely similar exception clauses in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Art. 25–26 Is there a contradiction between 25.2 (responsibility for educating children) and 26.1 (compulsory schooling)?
Art. 26 Should minority schools be allowed not to teach Estonian?
Would it not be reasonable to provide “as their main language of instruction” and to impose a basic teaching of Estonian.
Art. 32, 1st sentence does not seem necessary. Is the wording of the second sentence tantamount to a prohibition of forced labour?
Art. 33 Should the restrictions not be spelt out in the Constitution?
Are property rights guaranteed to citizens and to residents?
Art. 45, 2nd sentence would appear to state the obvious, as the courts are obliged to apply the Constitution.
Art. 54 Is it intended that the adoption of a vote of no-confidence in the Government (Art. 86) does not give the Prime Minister the right to call new elections? Nor after a major legislative defeat (Art. 87)?
Art. 57 The order in which the different prerogatives of Parliament are listed, might be reconsidered, the order of the listing for the State Elder in Art. 71 seems clearer and more logical.
Art. 66 The definitions of the majorities would appear more naturally in the Rules of Procedure of Parliament.
Chapter 5: Should the State Elder not enjoy general immunity of jurisdiction, as for Parliamentarians in Art. 86?
Art. 72–73 seem contradictory, either election by Parliament or by an Electoral Body.
Chapter 6: There is no clause of immunity for members of the Government, contrary to members of Parliament (Art. 58).
Art. 95 The State Elder’s prerogatives is not a right of veto, but rather a request for a second examination and vote on the law, as the same majority is required in both votes.
Art. 98 Is there any reason for not submitting treaties to a referendum, for instance on the possible future accession to the European Communities?
Art. 103 Are custom duties covered by “levies”?
Art. 105 Does the fiscal year coincide with the calendar year?
Art. 140 Should this Article not apply to all judges? Which body decides whether there has been a “serious transgression …” (item 4)?