Key Points
- Piia Schults, with over 30 years of experience as a parliamentary adviser in Estonia, lost her position following a legislative drafting mistake
- The error, approved in December, inadvertently eliminated taxation on online casinos for the 2026 fiscal year
- The oversight has created a €4 million shortfall in anticipated government revenue
- Schults intends to pursue legal action, asserting her termination was unjustified and based on inaccurate statements
- Chancellery Director Antero Habicht maintains the termination was both “unavoidable and necessary”
A veteran legislative adviser in Estonia is gearing up for a courtroom battle following her termination over an error in the nation’s gambling tax legislation.
Piia Schults dedicated more than 30 years to the Riigikogu Chancellery before her employment was suddenly terminated. The dismissal followed a drafting mistake under her purview that successfully passed through parliamentary approval.
The problematic language appeared in the Gambling Tax Act approved by lawmakers in December. The error unintentionally eliminated taxation requirements for online casino operations during 2026.
This legislative mishap has created a substantial €4 million deficit in Estonia’s projected tax revenues. Government officials must now address the financial consequences of this parliamentary oversight.
While Schults acknowledges the error occurred, she shared with Estonian public broadcaster ERR that the mistake was “indeed terrible” and left her “very shaken.”
Nevertheless, she emphasized this represented the sole mistake of this magnitude throughout her extensive career. She characterized her professional life not merely as employment but as a “mission.”
Former Adviser Claims Inaccurate Statements Forced Public Response
Schults contends her termination resulted partially from her decision to engage with media outlets. She indicates damage to reputation was presented as the primary justification for her dismissal.
In her conversation with ERR, she explained that media engagement wasn’t her initial preference. However, she felt compelled to respond publicly after Chancellery Director Antero Habicht made statements she characterizes as factually incorrect.
“There were claims there that simply were not correct,” she stated. She confirmed she has already engaged legal counsel to prepare her case.
Schults indicated she will likely proceed through the court system rather than utilizing Estonia’s labor dispute committee. She views this case as an opportunity to establish legal precedent regarding how government officials are handled when errors occur.
“I think this is quite an important case,” she conveyed to ERR. She anticipates her legal challenge may provide support to colleagues who encounter comparable circumstances.
She voiced appreciation for the widespread public backing she has experienced. “People have written and called me, and I truly appreciate it,” she remarked.
Chancellery Leadership Stands Behind Termination Decision
Habicht addressed the controversy with a concise public statement. He characterized the termination as “unavoidable and necessary,” asserting that the confidence required for continued collaboration had deteriorated.
He refused to elaborate further, referencing the anticipated legal proceedings. He also clarified that elected officials played no role in the dismissal decision.
When questioned about whether Schults had received previous warnings or experienced past difficulties, Habicht noted that workplace issues are typically addressed verbally and kept confidential. He neither confirmed nor refuted any previous incidents.
He verified that disciplinary measures adhered to protocols established in Estonia’s Civil Service Act. According to these regulations, employees receive an opportunity to present explanations and objections prior to any final determination.
Schults maintains she considers pursuing litigation not just a personal choice but an 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 declared.
