Justice Ministry to Comment on Constitutional Court Verdict After its Delivered

Bratislava, 9 September (TASR) - The Justice Ministry has taken note of the Constitutional Court's decision concerning parts of legislation governing the composition of disciplinary panels, but seeing as it does not yet have the reasoning behind the decision, the ministry will be able to issue a comprehensive statement only after receiving and reviewing it, ministry spokesperson Barbora Skulova told TASR on Wednesday. The ministry highlighted a legislative change that was not challenged by the Constitutional Court, namely the introduction of two-instance disciplinary proceedings. "Two-instance disciplinary proceedings are crucial for fairness, credibility and legal certainty when deciding on the disciplinary liability of judges, prosecutors, notaries and bailiffs," Justice Minister Boris Susko (Smer-SD) said. He underlined that the possibility of having a decision independently reviewed at a second level is not a formality but one of the basic safeguards against error, arbitrariness or an incorrect legal assessment. "Precisely in disciplinary proceedings, which can have a fundamental impact on the professional and personal lives of judges, prosecutors, notaries and bailiffs, such a guarantee is particularly important," Susko emphasised. If disciplinary proceedings are to command public confidence, he said, they must be not only lawful but also impartial, transparent and genuinely two-instance. "That is why I am pleased that, in this matter, the Constitutional Court confirmed the constitutional conformity of this legal framework," he added. Earlier in the day, the Constitutional Court ruled that parts of the laws governing the formation and composition of disciplinary panels of the Supreme Administrative Court (NSS) are not in line with the Constitution. The provisions were introduced by a government amendment to the laws on judges and lay judges and on the NSS disciplinary code. Parliament approved the amendment last September after a group of opposition MPs challenged it before the Constitutional Court. The MPs also challenged a provision barring NSS judges who have served as judges for fewer than 10 years from serving as chair or member of a disciplinary panel. In this case too, the Constitutional Court confirmed that the provision was contrary to the Constitution. mf