Key Points
Contents
- Piia Schults, who worked at Estonia’s parliament for 30 years, lost her position following a legislative drafting mistake in the Gambling Tax Act
- The error, which passed into law in December, unintentionally eliminated taxation on online casinos for the 2026 calendar year
- The blunder creates a €4 million shortfall in anticipated government revenue
- Schults intends to pursue legal remedies, arguing her termination was unjustified and based on inaccurate statements
- Antero Habicht, Director of the Riigikogu Chancellery, defended the termination as both “unavoidable and necessary”
A veteran legislative adviser in Estonia is mounting a legal challenge following her termination over an error in the nation’s gambling taxation legislation.
Piia Schults dedicated over 30 years to the Riigikogu Chancellery before her employment ended abruptly due to a drafting mistake she oversaw that progressed through the entire legislative approval process.
The error appeared in the Gambling Tax Act version approved by parliament in December. The mistake inadvertently eliminated all taxation requirements for online casino operators during 2026.
As a consequence, Estonia confronts a €4 million deficit in projected revenue. Government officials must now address the financial consequences of this legislative oversight.
Schults acknowledges the mistake occurred. In an interview with ERR, Estonia’s public broadcaster, she characterized it as “indeed terrible” and admitted feeling “very shaken by it.”
Nevertheless, she emphasized this represented the only error of such magnitude throughout her entire professional tenure. She characterized her public service not merely as employment but as a “mission.”
Disputed Statements Prompted Public Response, Former Adviser Claims
Schults contends her termination resulted partly from her choice to engage with media representatives. According to her account, damage to the institution’s reputation was presented as the primary justification for her dismissal.
She explained to ERR that initially, she preferred to remain silent. However, she felt compelled to respond after Riigikogu Chancellery Director Antero Habicht made public statements she characterizes as inaccurate.
“There were claims there that simply were not correct,” she stated. She has already retained legal counsel to prepare her case.
Schults indicated she will probably take her case directly to the court system rather than utilizing Estonia’s labor dispute resolution committee. She views this case as potentially establishing important legal precedent regarding how government officials are handled when errors occur.
“I think this is quite an important case,” she informed ERR. She anticipates her legal challenge might also provide support to colleagues who could encounter comparable circumstances.
She voiced appreciation for the public backing she has received since the controversy emerged. “People have written and called me, and I truly appreciate it,” she remarked.
Leadership Stands by Termination Decision
Habicht addressed the controversy with a concise public statement. He characterized the termination as “unavoidable and necessary” and indicated that the trust required to maintain the professional relationship had been irreparably damaged.
He refused to elaborate further, referencing the anticipated legal proceedings. He also clarified that elected officials played no role in the termination decision.
When questioned about whether Schults had received previous warnings or experienced earlier performance concerns, Habicht explained that such matters are typically addressed verbally and kept confidential. He neither confirmed nor denied any prior incidents.
He verified that the disciplinary proceedings adhered to protocols established in Estonia’s Civil Service Act. Under those procedures, employees receive an opportunity to submit explanations and objections before any final determination is reached.
Schults maintains she considers pursuing judicial action to be her obligation. “It has been a very difficult period and I am very grateful to people. But I feel it is my duty to take this matter to court,” she concluded.
