Understand your legal situation — with grounds.

Õigusküsimus: Under the Act on the Prohibition of Unfair Trading Practices in the Agricultural and Food Supply Chain, what injunctions may the Competition Authority issue in respect of consignment arrangements — that is, where the goods remain in the supplier's ownership until resale? [TEISINIS_PAGRUNDAS]: The source material does not contain an explicit statutory provision, and I therefore rely on the logic of the court judgment reported in the news item and on a general principle of law: the supervisory authority's power to intervene is a competence conferred by statute and must not be applied more broadly than the statute's scope of application permits (a fundamental-rights-derived requirement that state interference with private property requires a clear statutory basis). In its judgment of 23 October 2026, the Tallinn Administrative Court concluded that the Act governs sale and purchase relationships but not consignment, in which a wholesaler stores and handles goods that remain in the supplier's ownership; moreover, goods with a shelf life of less than three months do not constitute "wasted goods", so an agreement on the return of such goods is not prohibited by the Act. [PRAKTIKA]: The source material does not include a broader extract of case law, but the Tallinn Administrative Court's judgment of 23 October 2026 in the cases concerning the complaints of Allium UPI OÜ and Magnum Medical OÜ is the leading decision on this question; it quashed the Competition Authority's injunctions of July 2025. The case law on this issue rests so far on a single decision, and the appellate stage may still change it. [PRAKTILINE_REIKSME]: Parties to consignment contracts now have a specific, court-confirmed argument: where the goods remain in the supplier's ownership until resale, requiring return from the supplier or prohibiting return falls outside the regulation of unfair trading practices, and the authority's injunction lacks a legal basis. At the same time, the wording of the contract must be examined — if the contract in fact provides for transfer of ownership upon delivery and the consignment arrangement is merely nominal, the authority can turn the same argument to its own advantage (the court's analysis is based on the actual nature of the relationship, not the contract's title). It is worth monitoring whether the Competition Authority challenges the judgment, and whether the review of the Act under discussion in the Riigikogu's Rural Affairs Committee and the proposed amendment to the EU directive will introduce an express regulation of consignment, which is currently absent from the Act.

[ESMĖ] The animal shelter licensing obligation, which enters into force from 2028, will make animal keeping facilities state-regulated business activities, but does not close down voluntary animal rescue. The news item concerns the Animal Protection Act and Veterinary Act Amendment Act passed by the Riigikogu on 21 October (899 SE), regarding which the public debate centres on the future licensing and requirements system for shelters. Legally, shelters and foster homes face differentiated liability: a shelter requires an activity licence, while a foster home does not, because a foster home operates on the basis of an agreement concluded with a shelter and the organising body of the foster home network bears responsibility. The Veterinary Act's activity licence system (including the specific provisions of § 28 on the suspension and revocation of activity licences) provides the framework under which the granting of a licence is tied to veterinary inspection and liability for violations of veterinary requirements. Under the Animal Protection Act, the protection of animals against diseases is regulated by the Veterinary Act, so that shelter requirements sit at the intersection of the two statutes. [VERTINIMAS] In applying the activity licence system, a distinction must be drawn between activities for which applying for a licence is mandatory and activities for which the law excludes the need for a licence — the visible portion of the Veterinary Act provisions stipulates that an activity licence need not be obtained for the activity referred to in Article 176(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/429. When operating a shelter, a veterinarian must be designated who has an overview of the animals' state of health, but the law does not impose an obligation to employ a full-time veterinarian. The procedure for the capture, keeping and euthanasia of stray animals obliges the local authority to arrange for the placement of stray animals in a shelter and provides that animals placed in a shelter must be examined by a veterinarian without delay, and that animals of different sexes, different species, and sick or injured animals must be housed separately. The amendments adopted under the Animal Protection Act — the gradual prohibition of keeping dogs permanently on chains, the prohibition of zoophilia and of the production and distribution of material depicting it, strengthened supervision and increased penalties — remain in force irrespective of the dispute over shelters. Administrative proceedings under the licensing system are governed by the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, taking into account the specific provisions of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 on official controls. Case law is not among the sources provided, and accordingly no reference can be made to judicial resolution of similar disputes. The six-cat limit, the number of litter boxes and the requirements for partitions are not established by the Riigikogu's statute, but belong to a draft implementing regulation that is still being discussed with veterinarians and animal rescuers. [PASEKMĖS] In practice, small animal rescue organisations and volunteers will be most affected by the changes, as their activities must, by 2028, either fall within the activity licence model or the foster home model. Local authorities must resolve the issue of financing the care of stray animals and covering the costs of longer-term maintenance, which, in the author's assessment, requires a separate solution. Before 2028, the implementing requirements must be worked through, including a review of the wording of the obligation to implement disease control measures, which may be too broad. [CITATA] - Animals arriving at shelters often have an unknown state of health, and therefore a veterinarian with an overview of the animals' state of health must be designated at the shelter, although there is no obligation to employ a full-time veterinarian. - Under the stray animal capture procedure, the local authority must arrange for the placement of stray animals in a shelter; the animals must be examined by a veterinarian without delay, and animals of different sexes, different species and sick animals must be housed separately.

[ESMĖ] Tartu is facing a situation in which the manner of organising street maintenance will be decided by the council rather than by the municipal government alone, because the establishment of a maintenance unit falls within the competence of the representative body. The news report claims that the city wishes to municipalise street cleaning in order to allegedly save one million euros per year. Legally, this is an exercise of local government's right of self-organisation: under subsection 6 (1) of the Local Government Organisation Act (KOKS), the city organises public order and the upkeep of its roads, where these tasks have not been assigned by law to anyone else. The specific legal question is whether, and on what conditions, the city may establish a street-cleaning unit as an institution administered by an authority, and on what principles it must operate. The answer is found in the KOKS: under subsection 17 (4) of the KOKS, the formation of an institution administered by a municipal or city authority and the termination of its activities are decided by the council, whereas the adoption of its statutes and the approval of its structure and composition take place in the procedure established by the council. [VERTINIMAS] An institution administered by an authority is not a legal person and does not exercise public authority; the unit therefore operates within the composition of the city as a legal person governed by public law and represents the city in the manner prescribed in the city statutes or other legislation. The institution is registered in the state register of state and local government institutions, which makes its activities publicly traceable. The council's decision-making power means that the public justifications offered by representatives of the municipal government — cost savings, better understanding of costs, and crisis resilience — are not legally binding until the council has decided on the establishment. The law imposes limits on the city: under clause 4 (2) 7 of the KOKS, one principle of local government is the organisation of high-quality and accessible public services on the most favourable terms, which gives the council and residents grounds to demand that the establishment decision be justified precisely in light of that principle. At the same time, the openness and publicity of activities provided for in clause 6 supports the demand for precise calculations to be presented, because the right of self-organisation (KOKS subsection 2 (1), subsection 3 (3^1)) does not release the city from the obligation to proceed from the legitimate needs and interests of the municipality's or city's residents. Under subsection 3 (3^1) of the KOKS, in resolving matters of local life assigned to the local government unit by law, the right of self-organisation must remain, under which it independently determines the more specific content of tasks and the procedure for their performance — this means that reducing maintenance volumes and quality requirements is likewise for the city itself to decide. The sources contain no case law, so no specific court case concerning similar disputes can be cited. [PASEKMĖS] What is practically significant is that the decision rests with the council, so opposition or support voiced in public debate influences decision-makers who are accountable to the electorate. If the council establishes the unit, the costs are borne by the city budget, meaning that the tax burden is distributed among all residents of Tartu and less money remains for other tasks — this is the principal harm to the author of the news report, not unlawfulness, because the establishment of the unit is lawful. If the council decides to establish it, a resident may use participatory instruments: section 32 of the KOKS provides for the right of local popular initiative, and under clause 2 (2) 2 of the KOKS, a public opinion poll and popular initiative are also named as forms of participation in matters of local life. If the unit is not established, street maintenance remains to be organised through procurement, where competition and the procurement terms — the volume to be maintained, quality requirements, equipment and staff requirements — determine the level of costs. [CITATA] - Under subsection 17 (4) of the KOKS, the formation of an institution administered by a municipal or city authority and the termination of its activities are decided by the council; the municipal government's public justifications are therefore not binding before the council's decision. - Under clause 4 (2) 7 of the KOKS, a principle of local government is the organisation of high-quality and accessible public services on the most favourable terms, which provides grounds to demand the presentation of a calculation of the annual savings of one million euros.