The sensationalist questioning of judicial decisions by judges without substantive arguments is unacceptable and must be firmly rejected
The President of the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic, Marcela Kosová, points out that the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic not only presents its opinions publicly, always arguing objectively and within the limits of the law but also takes the necessary steps to protect the reputation not only of judicial institutions but also of its members.
"A judge is not an ordinary participant in public discourse, but a qualified and privileged participant. The special position of a judge in public discourse stems from the fact that a judge is a public official and a person knowledgeable in law. As a public official and a person who wields power, a judge attracts public attention. When a judge makes a public statement or expresses his or her opinion in public, that opinion acquires a certain weight and legitimacy simply because it was expressed by a judge. The public statements of judges are undoubtedly associated in the minds of the general public with the presumption that an expert is speaking and expressing an opinion on issues about which he or she has appropriate and detailed knowledge. An important element in consideration regarding the freedom of expression of judges is also the impact of their public statements on the authority and integrity of the judiciary. Through their public statements, judges not only express their opinions but also shape the image of judges and the judiciary as such.“ This fundamental statement and reminder of the role of judges is contained in the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic of October 27, 2022, ref. No. 32D/16/2021.
ZOJ, an informal small group of judges without internal structures or establishment in European and international judicial organizations, in connection with the process of electing the President of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic by the Judicial Council, claims that there are public doubts about delays in proceedings or false statements by František Mozner. Such public statements show complete disregard for the legally binding acquittal by the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic. Moreover, they were made directly by judges from that court to discredit a fellow judge and the members of the Judicial Council, nine of whom were elected by the judges themselves.
This is a very dangerous phenomenon in the public sphere, which also creates a false impression in the eyes of the public that if a judge has spoken, it is an expert opinion of a qualified person who knows what he is doing and has the authority to do so by virtue of his judicial robe. It creates the impression that if a judge can question a court decision without restraint, anyone can do so.
Here you can read the response in more detail
"A judge is not an ordinary participant in public discourse, but a qualified and privileged participant. The special position of a judge in public discourse stems from the fact that a judge is a public official and a person knowledgeable in law. As a public official and a person who wields power, a judge attracts public attention. When a judge makes a public statement or expresses his or her opinion in public, that opinion acquires a certain weight and legitimacy simply because it was expressed by a judge. The public statements of judges are undoubtedly associated in the minds of the general public with the presumption that an expert is speaking and expressing an opinion on issues about which he or she has appropriate and detailed knowledge. An important element in consideration regarding the freedom of expression of judges is also the impact of their public statements on the authority and integrity of the judiciary. Through their public statements, judges not only express their opinions but also shape the image of judges and the judiciary as such.“ This fundamental statement and reminder of the role of judges is contained in the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic of October 27, 2022, ref. No. 32D/16/2021.
ZOJ, an informal small group of judges without internal structures or establishment in European and international judicial organizations, in connection with the process of electing the President of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic by the Judicial Council, claims that there are public doubts about delays in proceedings or false statements by František Mozner. Such public statements show complete disregard for the legally binding acquittal by the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic. Moreover, they were made directly by judges from that court to discredit a fellow judge and the members of the Judicial Council, nine of whom were elected by the judges themselves.
This is a very dangerous phenomenon in the public sphere, which also creates a false impression in the eyes of the public that if a judge has spoken, it is an expert opinion of a qualified person who knows what he is doing and has the authority to do so by virtue of his judicial robe. It creates the impression that if a judge can question a court decision without restraint, anyone can do so.
Here you can read the response in more detail
