Ombudswoman Jana Dubovcová proposed to scrutinise the constitutionality of the law on the stay of foreigners in Slovakia, but at its March 5 plenary session the Constitutional Court declined to hear her proposal on the grounds that it was not filed by an authorised person.
The Košice-based court, however, also noted that justices Ľudmila Gajdošíková, Ladislav Orosz and Lajos Mészáros differed with the decision, Martina Demčáková of the court’s press department told the SITA newswire.
Dubovcová opines that some clauses on the stay of foreigners and of the law on asylum breach not only the constitution, but also several international treaties and agreement. Thus, she filed the proposal to the Constitutional Court to judge on the discrepancies. She thinks that the questionable clauses enable police units and the Migration Office at the Interior Ministry to base decisions on the vague argument that “... it is in the security interest of the Slovak Republic”; which is not in line with the requirement for both sides to have equal position before court, other state bodies or public administration bodies.
“This clause does not enable the people involved to deny the facts that form the base of the decision of the police for the Migration Office,” she argued.
Dubovcová argued in her filing that the law expects her to be allowed to file proposals with the Constitutional Court and take the initiative, without citizens having addressed her previously, the TASR newswire wrote.
(Source: SITA, TASR)
Compiled by Zuzana Vilikovská from press reports
The Slovak Spectator cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information presented in its Flash News postings.
