A SPECIAL PROBLEM

The consequence of last week’s verdict of the Constitutional Court regarding the abolishing of the Special Court is that a few murders and fraudulent people sentenced by this court will be able to demand a retrial. The Constitutional Court’s decision makes one think that not only constitutional arguments were demonstrated in the decision, but also the judges‘ effort to be legislators. It’s not the Constitutional Court who is supposed to make decisions regarding which laws or what courts constitute the judicial system, but according to the constitution it’s Parliament. Despite that, the key arguments of constitutional judges to abolish institutions are worth mentioning. And they point out that for the current problems related to the Special Court’s abolishment, partially responsible are also those who were for the establishment of the Special Court in the previous administration. To establish a court with jurisdiction over Slovakia for political crimes, corruption, and organized crime, was past Minister of Justice Daniel Lipšic’s idea in 2003. The argument was the threat that smaller, local courts might be more easily influenced by politicians or local mafia. Lipšic got his way: the special judges were supposed to undergo inspection by the National Security Authority so that they wouldn’t be susceptible to extortion. The judges are thus investigated to see if there’s any underworld connections. Their families, friendships, financial status, and personal lives are scrutinized as well. It was the inspection by NSA which was one of the key arguments of the Constitutional Court for the abolishing of the Special Court. That is, if the NSA, as an organ of executive power, retracted the judges‘ inspection pass, they would have to immediately step down from the Special Court. And that is, according to the most constitutional judges, not in compliance with judiciary independence. There is a threat that a state power could, via the possiblity to retract inspection passes, enforce verdicts.