Pöördumine

Tähelepanu! Tegemist on välisvõrgust saabunud kirjaga. Tundmatu saatja korral palume linke ja faile mitte avada.

Dear EMTA Team,

I am writing to provide detailed feedback regarding the ongoing difficulties I have faced with e-MTA access for Algorithmics OÜ (registry code 16680942).

1) My recent experience

Over the past three days, we have had three calls and two emails back and forth regarding my access. Yesterday, I was informed that the issue was fixed and I would have full access. Unfortunately, this was not true — in practice I only received partial access. I noticed the problem in the evening, outside EMTA’s working hours, which meant I could not resolve it until later.

This caused a very real risk: we mainly work with schools and the Ministry of Education, where one strict requirement is not to have any tax issues or defaults. Yesterday we almost missed the deadline for submitting sales VAT. Normally, the process is simple: I download the XML report from SmartAccounts and upload it to emta.ee in a few minutes. Instead, due to broken access and disrupted integrations, I spent more than an hour trying to resolve it. For July, our VAT should be over €2,000, but the system only showed around €700. 

Now even our integrations with the bank and accounting software appear broken. A single board change has triggered a chain reaction of complications.

2) The legal situation

I fully respect EMTA’s internal policies and security requirements. At the same time, your current practice conflicts with the Commercial Code, which is binding on all state institutions:

• Commercial Code § 34 (3): “An entry in the commercial register shall be deemed correct with respect to third persons unless otherwise provided by law.”
  Meaning: once Tartu County Court approved the board change and the Commercial Register shows that I may represent the company alone, every third party — including EMTA — is legally bound to accept this as correct.
• Commercial Code § 181 (1): “A member of the management board may represent the private limited company in all legal acts unless restrictions on the right of representation are prescribed by law or in the articles of association and entered in the commercial register.”
  Meaning: my representation right is full and official.

Therefore, EMTA should in principle accept my right to act without requiring anything further.

3) What EMTA is currently doing

I understand EMTA is not openly rejecting the Commercial Register. Instead, an internal procedural layer — a Power of Attorney (PoA) — is required as a technical workaround for the e-service environment. Legally, this approach is not based on the Commercial Code; it is an administrative procedure within IT access control rules.

Strictly speaking, this conflicts with the Commercial Code §§ 34 and 181, because those provisions make the Commercial Register entries final and binding. From a legal purist perspective, the extra requirement is unnecessary and inconsistent with the Commercial Code. From an administrative defense, EMTA may say it is merely a “technical access policy.” I fully respect your internal policy; however, in practice this means that even after a court-approved decision, I am still unable to exercise my rights efficiently in e-MTA. This is disproportionate and creates compliance risks that are not my fault.

Tartu County Court is copied here only for awareness, since this issue concerns the recognition of its legally binding decision in the e-MTA system.

4) Suggested solution (a very simple IT integration)

If the concern is about regulating access to the IT system, there is a simpler, efficient and secure approach: integrate directly with the Commercial Register (RIK) and validate representation rights automatically. For example:

IF (user.login_id == RIK.record.id_code AND
    user.selected_company == RIK.record.registry_code) THEN
{
    IF (RIK.record.representation == "sole") 
    {
        GRANT full_access;
        DISPLAY "Full access granted – you are sole representative in RIK."
    }
    ELSE IF (RIK.record.representation == "joint") 
    {
        REQUIRE joint_confirmation_from_other_board_member;
        DISPLAY "Access requires joint approval – request sent."
    }
    ELSE 
    {
        SEND to_manual_review;
        DISPLAY "Your representation rights require manual review. 
                 You will receive an email update within 5 business days."
    }
}
ELSE 
{
    SEND to_manual_review;
    DISPLAY "No match found in RIK. Case sent for manual review. 
             You will receive an email update within 5 business days."
}

This would:

• Grant immediate access when RIK confirms sole representation.
• Handle joint representation securely with electronic approval.
• Send only exceptional cases to manual review, with a clear automated email notice and timeline.
• Save time for both entrepreneurs and EMTA staff, reducing repeated calls and emails.

5) Conclusion and request

We fully respect EMTA’s regulations and responsibilities. At the same time, requiring a PoA despite a valid, court-approved Commercial Register entry contradicts the principles of the Commercial Code and creates unnecessary burdens.

I respectfully ask that this issue be reviewed at policy level. A direct integration between RIK and EMTA would allow representation rights to be recognised automatically, reduce duplicated procedures, and save significant time both for entrepreneurs and for EMTA staff. Estonia is rightly seen as a digital leader, and aligning EMTA’s processes with the Commercial Register would reinforce this reputation.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,