His successor Daniela Švecová has submitted the third proposal to launch a disciplinary proceeding against him, asking for his debenching as a judge, the Denník N daily wrote. Harabin may even lose his post before the definitive decision of the disciplinary court, as Švecová had already asked to have his mandate suspended due to a serious disciplinary transgression incompatible with the role of a judge, as reported by the TASR newswire.
“At the moment, neither the date of the disciplinary proceedings nor the presiding senate are known yet,” said Supreme Court spokesperson Boris Urbančík, as quoted by TASR.
Denník N, however, reported that the committee needs to decide about suspending Harabin by November 30.Read more
The disciplinary motions concern the decisions of the already dissolved panel led by Harabin, with which he freed police officers convicted of corruption. The panel had ruled that the police inspectorate had been established at odds with the law.
Harabin called the disciplinary motion “an attack” that also violates “UN norms”.
“This is a punishment over the fact that I protect the independence of Slovak judges from politicians,” he said, as quoted by TASR. “In this manner, Ms Švecová erodes the independence of Slovak courts and defends the violations of laws perpetrated by [Interior Minister Robert] Kaliňák’s private police.”
He warned that Slovakia might wind up paying millions of euros in compensation, if “the private police of Mr Kaliňák is not dissolved”. He also conveyed his hope that if he fights back in the legal battle and wins, Švecová and Kaliňák “will pay the costs from their own pockets”.Read more
The first disciplinary motion related to releasing a sexual deviant. In this case, Švecová wants to punish another two members of the panel, Viliam Dohňanský and Gabriela Šimonová. Dohňanský has responded by turning to Ombudswoman Jana Dubovcová, asking her to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against Švecová, the daily wrote.
The second proposal pertains to Harabin’s decision not to convene a session of the penal college of the Supreme Court, when he was leading it, though he knew there were two different opinions pertaining to the legality of the police inspectorate, according to Denník N.
25. Nov 2015 at 6:22 | Compiled by Spectator staff