Seisukohtade andmine

Kaaskiri Justiits- ja Digiministeerium esitab EL koordinatsioonikogule kooskõlastamiseks vastused Euroopa Komisjoni avalikule konsultatsioonile „ EU Questionnaire to Member States on gold-plating “. Vast uste koostamiseks koguti sisendit ministeeriumidelt , v astused on läbiräägitud Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeeriumiga. Konsultatsioonile vastamise tähtaeg on 15.09.2026. Taust Euroopa Komisjoni saadetud küsimustiku eesmärk on kutsuda liikmesriike jagama enda vaateid ja kogemusi seoses Euroopa Liidu õigusa ktide rangema ülevõtmise ja rakendamisega ( kasutusel ka termin ülereguleerimine; inglise keeles gold-plating ). Küsimustik on seotud Euroopa Komisjoni ühtse turu strateegiaga ja regulatiivse lihtsustamise teatisega . Euroopa Komisjon on tuvastanud, et liikmesriikides on levinud Euroopa Liidu õiguse ülevõtmine nõutust rangemas ulatuses, mis põhjustab õiguslike nõuete killustatust ühisturul ja takistab selle tõhusat toimimist. Ühe tegevusena on Euroopa Komisjonil kavas luua tööriist, mis aitaks liikmesriikidel märgata ja ennetada Euroopa Liiku õigusakti rangemat ülevõtmist. Justiits- ja Digiministeeriumi hinnangul ei ole Eestis Euroopa Liidu õigusaktide rangem või laiem ülevõtmine sage praktika, kuid seda esineb. Üldjuhul on direktiivi ülevõtva seaduseelnõu seletuskirjas rangemat ülevõtmist põhjendatud , kuid juhul, kui info puudub, on seda eelnõu kooskõlastamise käigus keeruline tuvastada. Euroopa Komisjon käsitleb rangema ülevõtmisena igasuguseid olukordi, kus riigisiseselt laiendatakse direktiivi kohaldamisala, kehtestatakse täiendavaid või rangemaid nõudeid, kehtestatakse lühemad tähtajad või rangemad piirmäärad . Seda ka juhul, kui need jäävad direktiiviga lubatu piiridesse. Euroopa Komisjon käsitleb rangemat ülevõtmist seega äärmisel laialt. Kuigi Justiits- ja Digiministeerium nõustub, et rangem ülevõtmine võib tähendada ebavajalike kohustuste kehtestamist ettevõtjatele või riigile , mida tuleks üldjuhul vältida, siis liiga laia käsitlus ega kaasnevad omakorda murekohad. Võimalikke riske on küsimustiku vastustes käsitletud . Ülevaade küsimustest ning vastustest Esimese küsimuse ga uuritakse, kuidas liikmesriik defineerib rangemat ülevõtmist ja milliseid rangema ülevõtmise vorme ol lakse täheldanud. Vastuses toome välja Eestis kehtiva definitsiooni l ähtuvalt ametniku Euroopa Liidu käsiraamatust . Lisaks sel gitame erinevaid olukordi, mille puhul ei ole selge, kas need liigituvad praeguse käsitluse kohaselt ülereguleerimiseks või mitte. Eelkõige jääb selgusetuks, kuidas mõista rangemat ülevõtmist miinimumharmoneerivate direktiivide puhul, mis jätavad liikmesriigile laia otsustusruumi. Lisaks on rangema ülevõtmise kontekstis räägitud passiivsest ülereguleerimisest ( passiv gold-plating ), mis sisuliselt tähendab olukorda, kus riigisiseselt juba kehtib mingis valdkonnas kõrgem kaitsetase kui Euroopa Liidu õigusakt ette näeb. Passiivse ülereguleerimise käsitlus vajab selgitamist ja t õenäoliselt oleks selle rakendamine õigusloomes küsitav. Vastustes ei ole käsitletud Eestis üsna sagedast praktikat, kus Euroopa Liidu direktiivi ülevõt tev seaduseelnõu sisaldab lisaks direktiivist tulenevatele muudatustele ka riigisise seid muudatusi. On ebaselge, kas taoline praktika oleks Euroopa Komisjoni lähenemise kohaselt rangem ülevõtmine. Justiits- ja Digiministeeriumi hinnangul peaks komisjoni tööriist olema praktiline juhendmaterjal Euroopa Liidu õiguse ülevõtmise toetamiseks , mitte õiguslik ke tagajärg e kaasatoov nimekiri ülereguleerimise praktikatest. Teise küsimuse ga uuritakse võimalike põhjuste kohta, miks rangemat ülevõtmist esineb. Selgitame, et eraldi analüüsi rangema ülevõtmise põhjuste kohta Eestis läbi viidud ei ole, kuid õigusloo mega tegelevatelt ametnikelt saadud tagasiside põhjal toom e välja paar aspekti. Esineb olukordi, kus miinimumharmoneerivate direktiivide laiem ülevõtmine on põhjendatud õiguspoliitiliste kaalutlustega . Näiteks tuleb arvestada, et liiga üksikasjalike normide ülevõtmine võib tähendada võrd suspõhiõiguse riivet või õiguskindluse kahjustumist. On ka esinenud olukordi, kus rangem ülevõtmine tuleneb sellest, et Euroopa Liidu rakendusaktis – või isegi juhises – on rangemad nõuded kui õigusaktis. Sellistel juhtudel on rangem ülevõtmine olnud teadlik poliitikavalik. Kolmanda küsimusega uuritakse, kas liikmesrii k rakendab õigusakti ettevalmistamise etapis poliitikavahendeid, mille eesmärk on enneta da rangemat ülevõtmist . Vastuses toome välja, et Eesti õigusloomeprotsess näeb ette mitu nõuet, mis aitavad kaasa sellele, et rangem ülevõtmine oleks tuvastatud . Näiteks peab vastav info olema esitatud selgelt direktiivi ülevõt va eelnõu seletuskirjas . Toome välja ka vastavustabeli koostamise nõude ning praegu veel eelnõu etapis oleva Hea õigusloome ja normitehnika eeskirja muudatustega kavandatava valgusfoori põhise lähenemise. Eelnõu sid kontrollitakse eri asutuste poolt (JDM, Riigikantselei, ELAK) ja välistel huvirühmadel on võimalik anda tagasisidet – need nõuded koosmõjus suurendavad tõenäosust, et ebavajalikke nõudeid eelnõuga ei kavandata. Üheksanda küsimuse ga uuritakse, milliseid elemente võiks Euroopa Komisjoni kavandatav tööriist sisaldada, et se e aitaks ennetada rangemat ülevõtmist. Vastuses kordame mõtet, et kõige olulisem on ühtse arusaam a kujundamine rangemast ülevõtmisest ja mõiste piiritlemine . Komisjoni tööriist võiks olla abivahend eelkõige õigus akte ülevõtvatele ametnikele . Lisaks näeme väärtust praktilistes näidetes, mis võiksid peegeldada keerulisi ja küsimusi tekitavaid olukordi. Justiits- ja Digiministeerium leiab, et enne spetsiaalse digitaalse tööriista arendamist tuleks läbi mõelda, mi llist lisaväärtust see loob. Kümnenda küsimuse ga uuritakse, et juhul, kui tööriist sisaldab loetelu, millised tegevused liigitu ksid rangem aks ülevõtmi seks ja millised mitte („ do’s and don’t s “), siis milliseid põhimõtteid sooviks liikmesriik nimekirja lisada. Vastuses oleme taolise üldise nimekirja osas pigem skeptilised, sest see ei arvesta paljude erinevate olukordadega, mis direktiivi ülevõtmisel võivad esineda. Justiits- ja Digiministeerium näeb riski, et tavapärased ja lubatud praktikad võivad edaspidi liigituda rangemaks ülevõtmiseks. Selle asemel võiks tööriist suunata õigusloojaid hindama , milline on konkreetsel juhul tasakaal võimaliku kaitsetaseme ja ettevõtjatele või inimestele kaasneva halduskoormuse vahel. Vastuses vii tame ka üldisele vajadusele jätkuvalt korrastada Euroopa Liidu aquis -d ja leida võimalusi ebavajaliku koormuse vähendamiseks. Kolmeteistkümnenda küsimuse ga uuritakse, milline on liikmesriigi hinnangul rangema ülevõtmise mõju eelnevalt toodud poliitikavaldkondades ning küsitakse, milliseid rangemast ülevõtmisest tulenevaid kulusid oleks võimalik kvantifitseerida. Justiits- ja Digiministeeriumi hinnangul ei oleks rangema ülevõtmisega kaasneva kulu (saamatajäänud tulu, vastavuskulud) arvuline hindamine praegu põhjendatud. Seetõttu ei tooda välja ka võimalikke kululiike, mida teoreetiliselt oleks ehk võimalik arvulisel t hinnata. Piiratud ressursside tingimustes oleks esmalt olulisem analüüsida õigusloomelisi praktikaid, mis tingivad Euroopa Liidu õiguse rangema ülevõtmise. Vastused k üsimustele 4 - 8 , 11, 12 ja 14 on lühivastused , kus täiendavaid seisukohti ei esitata. Kaaskirja on koostanud: Pilleriin Lindsalu , JDM. Eesti vastuste projekt Subject: EU Questionnaire to Member States on gold-plating The EU Single Market Strategy adopted in May 2025, identified the “ Lack of Single Market ownership by Member States: Gold-plating” as barrier no. 2 among the Terrible Ten barriers. T he European Council in its conclusions of 19 March 2026 “calls on Member States to avoid gold-plating and disproportionate national requirements when transposing and implementing EU rules”. More recently, t he European Council conclusions of 18 and 19 June 2026 continue calling on advancing the simplification agenda, including on gold-plating, to support competitiveness . According to t he Communication A Simpler, Clearer and Better Enforced EU Rulebook COM(2026) 380 final , gold-plating occurs “ where a Member State, when transposing or implementing EU law in a given policy area, introduces a wider scope, stricter rules or obligations that go beyond the requirements set by the EU legal act. Creating more burdensome procedures than what is necessary to implement the EU law can also be considered gold-plating .” Th is Communication in its chapter 4 foresees a number of actions . In particular, i t indicates that “ the Commission will work on a toolkit of best practices and criteria to help Member States identify and avoid gold-plating in the national transposition and implementation of EU legislation ”. To prepare the Toolkit, t he EU s urvey invites Member States to share their views on and experience in both creating and avoiding gold-plating in the s ingle m arket . National approaches On the (typology of) practices commonly considered as gold-plating (e.g. in the areas of reporting obligations , registration obligations, labelling, thresholds, digitalisation , market placement , enforcement measures etc ) ; and the processes , guidelines and institutional mechanisms set in your Member State to prevent and address gold-plating ; Scope of the Toolkit On the type of elements (best practices, digital tools, “do’s & don’ts” rulebook, etc . ) the future toolkit should contain to be meaningful and effec tive. Sectorial evidence Which Single Market areas are most affected by gold-plating, and why. E xamples identified and eventually addressed including lessons learned for transposition guidance . Suggestions to measure impact of gold-plating practices . T his mapping builds on the responses provided in 2025 for the Presidency Report on national burden reduction initiatives . There i s no need to replicate answers that relate to the broader scope of Better Regulation and burden reduction initiatives. ANNEX : EU Survey question naire for Member States on Gold-Plating G old-plating involves exceeding EU legislation requirements or administrative practices during national law transposition and implementation, adding unnecessary complexity, costs, and burdens to stakeholders without necessarily infringing EU law (often referred to as over-implementation). Gold-plating in Member States can take different forms, such as: More s tringent norms (higher standards, expanded scope of application of EU act, language and safety demands, reporting obligations, additional labelling requirements, thresholds, removal of exemptions, etc); Administrative procedures ( authorisation , notification or permitting requirements, parallel or multiple procedures at different levels (local, regional, national), new document obligations); Interpretative guidance (stringent or divergent legal interpretations of EU definitions); Enforcement measures (stringent penalties, burdensome information injuctions , frequent inspections). Others . National a pproach to prevention of gold-plating How does your Member State define / scope gold-plating? Which categories of gold-plating practices have you noticed? Note that the following options offer an initial suggestion of possible gold-plating practices, it does not aim to offer an exclusive list. More stringent norms: higher standards , e.g. supplementary substantive rules (on the characteristics of the product and/or service provision in question) beyond those required by an EU Act More stringent norms: expanded scope of application of EU legislation as transposed or implemented at national, regional or local level More stringent norms: stricter deadlines More stringent norms: additional language and safety demands More stringent norms: reporting obligations More stringent norms: additional labelling requirements More stringent norms: authorisation , notification , registration or permitting requirements not required by an EU Act More stringent norms: different thresholds (size, turnover, emissions, etc.) More stringent norms: removal of exemptions allowed by the EU Act Administrative procedures: new document obligations incl. authorisations , notifications, information requests Administrative procedures: parallel or multiple procedures at different levels (local, regional, national) Interpretative guidance: stringent or divergent legal interpretations of EU definitions; Enforcement measures: stricter penalties, burdensome information inju n ctions, frequent inspections Other [please explain below] . P lease specify which category of gold-plating you noticed in your Member State. To answer the first question, i n Estonia, during the transposition of an EU directive, gold-plating refers to the introduction of requirements , obligations or standards that are more stringent than those required under the directive. In general, gold-plating is not considered a widespread practice in Estonian legislation. However, over the years there have likely been several examples of requirements or regulatory choices that go beyond the minimum standards required by EU law. Therefore, i t is important to establish a shared understanding of the concept of gold-plating and to agree on a baseline definition . Definition should be applicable to legislators and provide guidance on what is regarded as gold-plating and what i s not. For example, it should address whether passive gold-plating falls within the definition , and whether extending the scope of a directive should be regarded as gold-plating when it broadens access to benefits or opportunities for a larger target group without imposing additional requirements or compliance costs . One key question that requires clarifi cation is whether regulatory measures that go beyond the minimum standards established by a minimum harmonisation directive /provision should be regarded as gold-plating. The definition should also take into account situations where a directive sets out only the desired outcome and leaves significant discretion to Member States regarding the means of implementation. This is particularly relevant for provisions such as “Member States shall ensure…”, which often require national legislators to design the specific regulatory framework necessary to achieve the directive’s objectives. The purpose of defining gold-plating should be to provide practical guidance for the transposition of EU directives, rather than to serve as a le gally binging definition . If you have conducted an analysis of reasons for gold-plating, what kind of reasons (unvoluntary , policy choice , other ) do you attribute gold-plating to? No dedicated analysis has been carried out to identify the root causes of gold-plating. Nevertheless, feedback from legislators implies to several recurring factors. One important factor relates to constitutional principles and the need to ensure consistency with the national legal framework . When transposing EU legislation, Member States must ensure compliance with national constitutional principles. In some cases, introducing special rules that apply only within the narrow scope of a directive may result in comparable situations being treated differently without sufficient justification, thereby raising concerns regarding the principle of equal treatment. Likewise, creating parallel regulatory regimes solely because of the boundaries of EU legislation may increase legal complexity and undermine legal certainty. Thus, in certain cases, limiting the implementation strictly to the directive’s scope could itself create legal problems. In such cases, exceeding the minimum requirements set out in the minimum harmonisation directive may be a deliberate policy choice. Second , legislators have highlighted concerns about situations in which EU implementing acts, delegated acts, or even guid elines appear to go beyond the requirements laid down in the underlying EU legal act. This can create pressure on Member States to adopt more stringent national measures in order to ensure compliance with the expectations set out in subordinate legislation or guidance. This concern was mentioned regarding rules on public procurement (guidelines C(2019)3452) . Third, there have been instances where the scope of a directive is so broad or unclear that determining how to transpose and apply it in national law becomes challenging ( e.g. NIS2 directive). Furthermore , Estonia has encountered cases of so-called passive gold-plating, where existing national standards are already more stringent than those required by a new EU legal act. Such situations raise the question of whether maintaining higher pre-existing national standards should be regarded as gold-plating, given that no additional requirements are introduced during the transposition process itself. Principles of legal certainty and regulatory stability may also weigh against lowering pre-existing standards . Examples of so-called passive gold-plating can be found in the field of consumer protection. We would also like to point out that a directive may explicitly state that its implementation should not be used to justify any reduction in the level of protection already existing in a m ember s tate (e.g. (EU) 2024/1069). More generally, awareness of gold-plating and regulatory complexity has increased among legislators in recent years, particularly with regard to reporting and information obligations. As a general principle, EU legislation should be transposed or implemented only to the extent necessary to comply with EU requirements. Where a more extensive approach is considered justified, the reasons for doing so should be clearly explained in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the draft legislation. Do you have dedicated measures or policy in place to prevent or address gold-plating at a legislative / regulatory level (e.g . dedicated “watch dog” authority, correlation table s, impact assessments, parliamentary scrutiny , stakeholder consultation ) ? If yes, please provide a de scription of this initiative and links if available . Yes (valikvastus) The Estonian legislative process contains several features that can help identify gold-plating and unnecessary regulatory complexity. At the same time, identifying gold-plating is inherently challenging, as it requires a thorough understanding of both the EU legal act and the national regulatory framework in the relevant policy area. Under Estonian law drafting requirements, the explanatory memorandum accompanying a draft act must include, among other things, an analysis of the discretion granted to Member States under the relevant EU directive and an explanation of the policy choices made during transposition. Moreover, the draft act implementing EU law should not contain additional provisions not related to the transposition of the directive. In case there are any , those should be clearly pointed out in the explanatory memorandum. The Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs reviews draft legislation and assesses its quality. Where potential cases of gold-plating are identified, these are brought to the attention of the responsible ministry. In addition, a dedicated parliamentary committee scrutinises draft legislation that transposes or implements EU law and may also identify instances of gold-plating. Stakeholders participating in public consultations can likewise raise concerns regarding unnecessary regulatory burdens or overly stringent implementation choices. Each draft law transposing a directive must include a correlation table demonstrating which provisions of the directive have been transposed through which national legal provisions. Estonia is currently reviewing and updating certain legislative drafting requirements. Among other amendments , t he Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs is planning to introduce a traffic-light system into the correlation tables used for the transposition of EU law. This system is intended to improve transparency in the transposition process and facilitate the identification of provisions where national implementation may exceed the minimum requirements of EU law Consequently, the legislative process includes several safeguards designed to identify gold-plating, with the aim of preventing it at the earliest possible stage. Nevertheless, distinguishing between necessary implementation measures and requirements that go beyond what is required by EU law remains a complex task. Do you have dedicated measures or policy in place to prevent or address gold-plating derived from administrative practice? If yes, please provide a description of this initiative and links if available. No ( valikvastus ) Are there ex-ante checks in place during the lawmaking process to flag instances where to-be-adopted act is gold-plated? If yes, please explain th e mechanism. Yes ( valikvastus ) . Answer provided for Q3 applies. Are there ex-post review or transparency mechanisms (e.g., regulatory fitness checks, sunset clauses , public information on whether obligations stem from EU law or national policy choices ) to assess whether gold-plating provisions remain necessary? If yes, please provide examples. No ( valikvastus ) Which institution s / team s are in charge of implementing your anti-gold-plating initiative s (e.g. independent body) ? Who can we contact for more details? The main contact point is Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs ( Legislative Quality Division ) . Reviewing the quality of draft laws transposing EU directives , including the identif ication of over-regulation , is also carried out by The Government Office ( European Union Secretariat) and Chance llery of the Parliament ( European Union Affairs Committee). How have you measured impact, success or workability of this policy? If available, please pr ovide indication of number of cases reviewed, number of gold-plating provisions /practices removed, estimated burden reduction , estimated costs, etc. No empirical data has been collected. In Estonia, the identification of gold-plating is embedded in the legal drafting process as a general principle rather than implemented as a separate policy or standalone tool. Scope of the Toolkit What type of elements (such as identification of typology of gold-plating practices, best practices to prevent it , digital tools to detect , other ) would you consider useful in the future toolkit so that it support s your efforts to prevent gold-plating? The scope of the toolkit should be determined by its objective and intended target group . The primary focus should be on developing a usable definition of gold-plating and establishing a shared and commonly accepted understanding of the concept. As explained in previous answers , one of the key questions that the toolkit should address is how gold-plating should be understood and defined in the context of transposing minimum harmonisation directives. In particular, it should clarify under what circumstances exceeding the minimum requirements established by a directive should be considered gold-plating. The toolkit should address practical examples, particularly those illustrating more complex or ambiguous cases . The toolkit should be designed to support and guide law drafters in their decision-making, rather than serve as a compliance-monitoring or scrutiny mechanism . Although a typology of gold-plating practices can provide valuable insight into the different ways gold-plating may occur, it should not be presented as a generalized list of prohibited practices. Instead, the emphasis should be on improving understanding and supporting informed decision-making during the legislative process. To ensure its continued relevance and usefulness, the toolkit should be reviewed and updated periodically in light of practical experience and feedback from m ember s tates. Before developing a dedicated digital tool, it is important to critically assess the additional value such a solution would provide. If the future toolkit was to include “ do’s & don’ts ” rulebook , what kind of principles would you like to b e included in the rulebook to prevent gold-plating in the EU Single Market area ? All of the practices listed above may be relevant when assessing gold-plating; however, they are currently framed in overly broad terms. Whether a particular practice should constitute gold-plating often depends on the nature of the EU act and the specific regulatory context. For example, extending the scope of a directive or introducing requirements that go beyond those expressly required by the directive (p 1) may reasonably be regarded as gold-plating where the directive is based on maximum harmonisation. In the case of minimum harmonisation, however, such measures may represent a legitimate policy choice that is fully consistent with the objectives and legal nature of the act. A similar consideration applies to the retention of national requirements that are more extensive than those required under a directive (so-called passive gold-plating , p 3 ). Certain directives explicitly state that their implementation must not lead to a reduction in the existing level of protection. Moreover, classifying passive gold-plating as gold-plating by default may raise practical concerns. In some situations, lowering existing protection standards could distort competition within a sector, for example by placing businesses that have already invested in compliance at a disadvantage compared with new market entrants or less compliant operators. It could also generate additional adjustment costs. Rather than relying on a list of specific “do’s and don’ts”, it may be more useful to develop guidance on how to assess the appropriate balance between achieving a desired level of protection and minimising regulatory burdens. While a “do’s and don’ts” approach is easy to understand and communicate, excessive simplification may create unintended risks and overlook important legal and policy considerations. A s a final remark, it should be noted that toolkit may not be the most effective instrument for addressing excessive regulatory burdens. Estonia considers the simplification of the regulatory environment to be of utmost importance. While the European Commission has already taken significant steps in this direction, a more comprehensive review of the existing EU acquis remains essential. The risk of gold-plating could be further reduced by ensuring that EU legislation is coherent, respects differences in national legal systems, and avoids imposing unnecessary or disproportionate burdens on individuals and businesses. Ultimately, gold-plating relates only to a relatively small part of the cumulative regulatory requirements that European businesses must comply with. Sectorial evidence Which areas of Single M arket EU acquis or EU sectoral legislation are more prone to being gold-plat ed in your Member State ? What are the main reasons for this assessment? Gold-plating cannot be considered sector-specific, as examples can be found across different legal acts. Which of the areas identified in the Single Market Strategy ( COM(2025) 500 final ) as part of the Terrible ten obstacles o f the Single Market and discussed in the Single Market Enforcement Taskforce could in your view qualify as “gold plating” practices? If yes, which national practices have you identified within your country that could qualify as “Gold plating”? (Multi-select) Prior checks on qualifications ; Protectionist measures concerning agri-food products ; Excessive document requirements for professional qualifications ; Restrictive measures concerning non-harmonised construction products ; Streamlining permitting procedures for renewable energy (wind and solar) projects ; Streamlining administrative requirements for cross-border service providers; Tackling IBAN discrimination Facilitate the opening of bank accounts Territorial supply constraints Other Please specify which other areas identified in the Single Market Strategy have you noticed in your Member State? Other: To clarify, identifying gold-plating in sector-specific policies requires in-depth analysis and input from sector experts . Thr erefore, p roviding an evidence-based answer to this question would be a resource-intensive undertaking. How would you estimate the impact of gold-plating on the given sector? What type of costs would be subject to quantif ication , e.g. in terms of compliance cost, lost business opportunities, time-to-comply or another measure / indicator? Any other type of (direct or indirect) impact? Although gold-plating may defin i tely result in additional costs for businesses or other stakeholders, estimating such indirect costs may not always be a proportionate or effective use of resources , particularly from the perspective of smaller Member States . Aggregate cost assessments often provide limited insight into the underlying causes of gold-plating or the measures needed to address it. In many cases, a more valuable approach may be to focus on identifying the specific legislative practices that give rise to additional regulatory burdens and assessing their policy justification, rather than attempting to quantify their overall economic impact. Are you aware of any administrative complaints or court cases in your Member State , that point to instances which could qualify as “gold-plating” practices? If yes, please provide more details . No ( valikvastus ) . Resolutsiooni liik: Riigikantselei resolutsioon Viide: Justiits- ja Digiministeerium / / ; Riigikantselei / / 4-2/26-01640 Resolutsiooni teema: "Gold-plating" avalik konsultatsioon Adressaat: Justiits- ja Digiministeerium Ülesanne: Tulenevalt 19.08.2026 EL koordinatsioonikogu otsusest palun esitada seisukohad Euroopa Komisjoni poolt avaldatud avaliku konsultatsiooni kohta: Gold-plating – EU survey to Member States – Message from the Commission EISi toimiku nr: 26-0357 Viide avalikule konsultatsioonile: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/GoldplatingMemberStates Tähtaeg: 04.09.2026 Adressaat: Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium, Kaitseministeerium, Kliimaministeerium, Kultuuriministeerium, Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium, Rahandusministeerium, Regionaal- ja Põllumajandusministeerium, Siseministeerium, Sotsiaalministeerium, Välisministeerium Ülesanne: Palun esitada oma sisend Justiits- ja Digiministeeriumile seisukohtade kujundamiseks antud avaliku konsultatsiooni kohta (eelnõude infosüsteemi (EIS) kaudu). Tähtaeg: Lisainfo: Eesti seisukohad avaliku konsultatsiooni kohta on kavas heaks kiita kirjalikus menetluses 09.09.2026 EL koordinatsioonikogu istungil. Esialgsed materjalid EL koordinatsioonikoguks palume esitada hiljemalt 04.09.2026. Kinnitaja: Merli Vahar, Euroopa Liidu asjade direktori asetäitja Kinnitamise kuupäev: 26.08.2026 Resolutsiooni koostaja: Sandra Metste [email protected], Eelnõude infosüsteemis (EIS) on antud täitmiseks ülesanne. Eelnõu toimik: 16.1.1/26-0357 - Gold-plating – EU survey to Member States – Message from the Commission Avalikku konsultatsiooni kohta seisukoha esitamine kirjalikus menetluses vastavalt Riigikantselei 26.08.2026 resolutsioonile. Osapooled: Justiits- ja Digiministeerium Tähtaeg: 04.09.2026 23:59 Link eelnõu toimiku vaatele: https://eelnoud.valitsus.ee/main/mount/docList/c4c9fc80-74cf-43bc-8675-578b17033f26 Link menetlusetapile: https://eelnoud.valitsus.ee/main/mount/docList/c4c9fc80-74cf-43bc-8675-578b17033f26?activity=1 Eelnõude infosüsteem (EIS) https://eelnoud.valitsus.ee/main