31. January 2019 at 14:10

Demanding security clearance of judges is unconstitutional

The Constitutional amendment from 2014 introduced by the second Robert Fico government is unconstitutional.

Compiled by Spectator staff , TASR ,

Editorial , Newswire

Building of Constitutional Court in Košice Building of Constitutional Court in Košice (source: TASR)
Font size: A - | A +
Comments disabled

Across-the-board security clearances of judges as introduced in 2014 is not in accordance with the Constitution.

That is the verdict of the Constitutional Court about the amendment on the second government of Robert Fico passed in 2014. Based on the provision that it inserted in the Constitution, clearances for judges via the National Security Authority (NBÚ) were implemented.

SkryťTurn off ads
SkryťTurn off ads
Article continues after video advertisement
SkryťTurn off ads
Article continues after video advertisement

Part of the law contradicts the“implicit material core of Constitution of the Slovak Republic” stemming from the principles of democracy, rule of law and the principle of power distribution linked to the independence of the judiciary.

Who will go to Court? Why the upcoming vote matters
Read also:
Who will go to Court? Why the upcoming vote matters

“Constitutional laws cannot contradict the implicit material core of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic,” declared the Constitutional Court, as quoted by the TASR newswire.

The Constitutional Court also sees a contradiction with the principle of power distribution and independence of judiciary power concerning the security clearances of already-appointed judges.

SkryťTurn off ads

Slovakia faces an important vote: How will the country look in the next 12 years?
Read also:
Slovakia faces an important vote: How will the country look in the next 12 years?

The amendment was meant to change attitudes in the judiciary. All current judges and candidates for the posts of judges were to go through security clearances conducted by NBÚ.

Many judges criticised it, saying that the information could be used against them. They also objected the retroactive character of the amendment and the threat to the independence of the judiciary.

Jana Bajánková, former chair of the Judiciary Council, filed a motion against the law with the Constitutional Court after the amendment was passed.

Comments disabled
SkryťClose ad