Short answer
Yes. Riigikogu matter 613 SE provides a verifiable example. The introduced bill proposed new wording for § 710¹(2) of the Estonian Law of Obligations Act (Võlaõigusseadus, VÕS). The current consolidated VÕS contains the same wording and identifies its legal provenance as RT I, 08.07.2025, 4, effective from 15 July 2025.
The evidence must nevertheless be kept in two distinct layers:
- the and its show what the Government proposed on 7 April 2025; and
- the shows the binding provision and its commencement marker.
Legalcode's production Trace now supplies a structured AMENDS relationship between 613 SE and the VÕS law family. That relationship is useful, but it is not a paragraph-level citation. The specific link to § 710¹(2) is proved by comparing the authenticated introduced-bill text with the authenticated Riigi Teataja text and checking the provision's amendment marker.
What was 613 SE?
The matter is titled “Võlaõigusseaduse muutmise ja sellest tulenevalt teiste seaduste muutmise seadus”—an act amending the Law of Obligations Act and, consequently, other acts. The Government was the proposer. The flow was enacted by the Riigikogu on 18 June 2025.
It is a financial-services bill rather than a bill devoted exclusively to consumer lending. Its VÕS amendments concern access to basic payment services and the duties of credit institutions. It also proposed new penalty wording for breaches of consumer-creditworthiness assessment and responsible-lending duties in § 99 of the Creditors and Credit Intermediaries Act. Those subjects make it a suitable credit-sector legislative-history example, but they must not be conflated: the provision examined below is the basic-payment-services rule in VÕS § 710¹(2).
The MCP flow has a stable identity:
- matter number:
613 SE; - legislative session: 15;
- flow UUID:
df525000-64a2-4980-bc87-476f9ed614b7; - status:
ENACTED; - enacted date: 18 June 2025; and
- official matter page: the Riigikogu link above.
Matter number alone is not a sufficient identifier because numbers can recur in different Riigikogu compositions. A reliable citation should retain the title, session or composition, and permanent flow UUID.
What did the introduced bill propose?
The original-bill PDF indexed for 613 SE is dated 7 April 2025 and labelled EELNÕU—draft bill. Section 1, item 4 proposed that VÕS § 710¹(2) be replaced with wording that would require a credit institution, unless another rule applied, to provide the statutory basic payment services to a consumer legally resident in the European Union and, where the consumer had a justified interest, conclude a basic payment-services contract. It also said that the institution must make the services available through different channels, including an internet application.
That is evidence of the proposal at introduction. It was not, merely because it appeared in the bill PDF, binding law. A bill can be amended, rejected, lapse or enter into force in different wording or on a different date. The draft therefore answers “what was proposed?”, not “what rule applies?”.
The introduced bill also proposed a new § 710¹(2¹): proving the justified interest must not be unreasonably burdensome for the consumer. Again, the document records proposed wording at the initiation stage.
What does the enacted Riigi Teataja provision say?
The current consolidated VÕS § 710¹(2) contains the same substantive wording. It requires the credit institution to:
- serve a consumer legally resident in the European Union, subject to contrary statutory rules;
- provide the basic payment services listed in VÕS § 709(15¹);
- conclude a basic payment-services contract where the consumer has a justified interest; and
- make the services usable through different channels, including an internet application.
Immediately beneath the paragraph, Riigi Teataja gives the amendment and commencement marker:
RT I, 08.07.2025, 4 — jõust. 15.07.2025.
The current consolidated text also contains § 710¹(2¹), stating that proving the justified interest must not be unreasonably burdensome for the consumer, with the same amendment and commencement marker.
That marker is crucial. It shows when this wording became part of the operative law. The current consolidated act as a whole is versioned as effective from 1 September 2026, but that does not mean § 710¹(2) first took effect on that date. The paragraph-level marker shows that the relevant amendment took effect on 15 July 2025.
How is the bill-to-law link established?
The link has three components.
First, Legalcode Trace starts from the current VÕS source reference, law/EE/EE_RT:120062026018, normalizes it to the canonical law family EE|LAW|RT-153569, and returns 613 SE as an enacted flow related to that family. The relation is an AMENDS relation derived from the enacted matter.
Second, the authenticated original-bill document identifies VÕS § 710¹(2) and gives the proposed replacement wording.
Third, the authenticated current VÕS contains that wording under the same provision number and attributes it to the July 2025 Riigi Teataja amendment.
Together these establish a defensible chain:
613 SE enacted flow → AMENDS VÕS law family → original bill § 1 item 4 → current VÕS § 710¹(2) → RT I, 08.07.2025, 4, effective 15.07.2025
The structured relation establishes the law-family connection. The provision number, wording and amendment marker establish the narrower documentary connection. A system should not describe Trace alone as proving that a particular draft paragraph was enacted unchanged.
Why must draft and binding wording remain separate?
The two texts have different legal functions and dates.
In this example, the introduced and current wording match. That is a finding after comparison, not a reason to collapse the sources. A later case may reveal changes between initiation, committee stages, the adopted text, promulgation and a later consolidated version.
For time-specific legal work, the current consolidation may also be insufficient. The researcher should select the Riigi Teataja version effective on the event date and then use the legislative materials only to explain provenance or purpose.
A reproducible legislative-history method
For an Estonian credit or personal-data question, use the following sequence:
- Identify the current or historical Riigi Teataja law and retain its exact version source reference.
- Trace from the version to the canonical law family and inspect the returned Riigikogu relations.
- Identify the flow by permanent UUID, title, matter number and Riigikogu composition—not matter number alone.
- Fetch the introduced bill and, where available, later parliamentary and enacted-text documents.
- Locate the exact amending item and record that it is draft wording.
- Open the Riigi Teataja version applicable on the relevant date.
- Match the provision number and text, then verify its amendment and commencement marker.
- Report changes between the draft and operative text instead of silently selecting one.
This method also prevents a common error: citing the effective date of the latest consolidated act as though it were the commencement date of every paragraph in it.
MCP and source audit findings
The production audit used two Discover calls, a current-law Search, a weighted Trace, an exact flow-document Search and an exact current-law Fetch, reaching the seven-weighted-call cap. Every accepted call used the configured production bypass token and charged zero. The exact original-bill and VÕS downloads returned by the MCP were authenticated and reviewed.
The core bill-to-law relation worked. Production Trace resolved the current version to the VÕS family and returned 613 SE with seven related amended laws. This confirms the production repair previously documented in ; the older missing-relation finding should no longer be repeated as current fact.
The three original-bill format variants were represented transparently: PDF was fetched and its full text was usable, while ASICE and DOCX were marked as unsupported. The usable parallel PDF meant there was no substantive document gap for this comparison.
One new metadata defect was found. The enacted 613 SE result simultaneously reports status: ENACTED, enacted: true, enactedAt: 2025-06-18 and currentStage: OPINION. The projection appears to derive “current stage” from the highest-ranked attached-document stage rather than the flow's actual procedural state. This can cause a consumer to describe completed legislation as still being at an opinion stage. The Estonia reproduction and suggested source-wide audit are recorded in .
That stage defect does not undermine the authenticated bill text, the enacted status, the live AMENDS relation or the current Riigi Teataja provision. It does mean that currentStage should not be used to characterize an Estonian flow until its semantics are repaired or clarified.
Conclusion
Riigikogu bill 613 SE can be linked to an enacted Riigi Teataja provision. Production Legalcode supplies the structured link from the enacted flow to the VÕS law family; the original-bill text and current VÕS then establish the narrower connection to § 710¹(2). The proposal dated 7 April 2025 and the binding provision effective from 15 July 2025 must still be cited separately.
The disciplined conclusion is therefore: the draft proposed the wording; the enacted, date-specific Riigi Teataja text supplies the law. Even when the two match word for word, their authority and temporal role are different.
Sources and audit issue
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific matter. Laws, facts and procedural deadlines may change the result. Follow the linked primary sources and obtain local advice before acting.