President of the Judicial Council Marcela Kosová responds to the statements of MP Maria Kolíková
Marcela Kosová, the President of the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic calls on member of Slovak Parliament Maria Kolíková not to repeatedly involve the Judicial Council in political shootouts and not to abuse it to score political points.
The Judicial Council had decided and voted on all judges who became judges when the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic was established, as well as on all current lay- judges of the disciplinary panels. This is because the legal regulation was set by the government, in which current MP Mária Kolíková, was the Minister of Justice and was approved by the Parliament at that time. At the time, former Minister of Justice had no problem with this. The amendment being prepared by the current Minister of Justice only "allows" judges from courts other than the Supreme Administrative Court to be members of disciplinary panels. The introduction of a two-stage disciplinary procedure also reflects the requirements of the Venice Commission. The same is happening in the neighbouring Czech Republic.
Marcela Kosová recalls that the detention of former judge Richard Molnar was not challenged by the Vice President of the Judicial Council, but by the Constitutional Court in its decision.
If Maria Kolíková is disturbed by the fact that judges and members of the Judicial Council are interested in the judicial map, she will have to deal with it herself. The members of the Judicial Council have no influence on how the persons who appear before the Judicial Council answer their questions. If Maria Kolíková is saying that 'and when those future judges dared to say that this could have a positive effect, they (the members of the Council) were obviously making it clear that this view did not correspond with their own view', she should look at the results of the vote. All the future judges who appeared before the Judicial Council at the February meeting were "approved" by the Judicial Council.
The Judicial Council had decided and voted on all judges who became judges when the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic was established, as well as on all current lay- judges of the disciplinary panels. This is because the legal regulation was set by the government, in which current MP Mária Kolíková, was the Minister of Justice and was approved by the Parliament at that time. At the time, former Minister of Justice had no problem with this. The amendment being prepared by the current Minister of Justice only "allows" judges from courts other than the Supreme Administrative Court to be members of disciplinary panels. The introduction of a two-stage disciplinary procedure also reflects the requirements of the Venice Commission. The same is happening in the neighbouring Czech Republic.
Marcela Kosová recalls that the detention of former judge Richard Molnar was not challenged by the Vice President of the Judicial Council, but by the Constitutional Court in its decision.
If Maria Kolíková is disturbed by the fact that judges and members of the Judicial Council are interested in the judicial map, she will have to deal with it herself. The members of the Judicial Council have no influence on how the persons who appear before the Judicial Council answer their questions. If Maria Kolíková is saying that 'and when those future judges dared to say that this could have a positive effect, they (the members of the Council) were obviously making it clear that this view did not correspond with their own view', she should look at the results of the vote. All the future judges who appeared before the Judicial Council at the February meeting were "approved" by the Judicial Council.
