BRATISLAVA, November 25, (WEBNOVINY) — Justice Minister Lucia Zitnanska lodged the second proposal to the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic to start disciplinary action against Supreme Court President Stefan Harabin. Zitnanska explained that in her opinion, Harabin “seriously violated the duty of a judicial official, which seriously compromises the trustworthiness of the judiciary in connection with changes in the work schedule at the Supreme Court and disrespecting the principle of random assignment of cases to individual judges”. She again proposes the strictest sanction of reducing Harabin’s salary by seventy percent for one year.
Zitnanska lodged the proposal to start disciplinary action against the Supreme Court president due to three cases. She said that the political fairness watchdog Fair Play Alliance pointed out one of the cases that are foundations for the proposal, but also others which the Justice Ministry has not yet been fully examined.
The justice minister insists on respecting the principle of random assignment of cases to judges. According to her, people who are to appear in court must be sure that no one can influence in advance which judge will handle their case.
Minister of Justice Zitnanska submitted the first proposal to the Constitutional Court to start disciplinary action against Supreme Court President Stefan Harabin earlier in November. The reason is repeated unsuccessful attempts of the Ministry of Finance to audit the Supreme Court, which its President Harabin continues to block.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic filed a motion against Justice Minister Lucia Zitnanska on suspicion that she may have misused her powers and interfered in independence of the court and defamation, as well as unauthorized use of personal data. According to the Supreme Court, the justice minister committed these deeds when she lodged a proposal to start disciplinary action against Supreme Court President Stefan Harabin and its announcement to the public, in which, according to the motion, she stated untrue information, made personal data public, interfered in the independence of the court and violated the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence, including international protocols on the protection of judges.
SITA