National Criminal Agency investigator Ján Čurilla. (source: SME - Peter Kováč)
The decisions of courts in regards to the suspended National Crime Agency (NAKA) investigators centred around investigator Ján Čurilla ended with a final score of 4 to 3.
The judges ruled that four of the police investigators, taken off duty by Interior Minister Matúš Šutaj Eštok (Hlas), can return to work, while three yet cannot.
The tight ratio of the opinions of seven different judges of the City Court of Bratislava IV reflects the short experience with the protection of whistleblowers in Slovakia. At the same time, it shows that even judges do not yet have a unified opinion on whether police officers can also be protected for reporting possible anti-social activity.
The Regional Court in Bratislava, where all seven cases are now being transferred, could unify the opinions. Disgruntled police officers and the ministry appealed.
The Sme daily analysed all of the seven decisions of the city court.
Nobody said that the minister did not break the law
The seven decisions in regards to the police officers speak only about whether the court issued or refused to issue an interim measure suspending Šutaj Eštok's decision. It is a kind of preventive intervention, intended to prevent the possible adverse consequences of the challenged decision.
The interim measure was issued in regards to former first police vice-president Branko Kišš and police officers Milan Sabota, Štefan Mašin and Branislav Dunček. On the other hand, the court refused to issue it in the case of Čurilla himself, as well as Pavol Ďurka and Róbert Magula.
However, the three decisions against the police officers do not mean that Šutaj Eštok could take them off duty.
In Magula's case, the judge herself directly said that she did not judge the actions of the minister.
"The court does not have the authority to assess the correctness, or the legality of the decision of another public authority (Interior Minister - Ed. note)," wrote judge Oxana Kovalová Báreková, stating that, in her opinion, this is in the competence of the administrative court.
Therefore, she rejected the proposal for an interim measure without dealing with the merits of the matter. Judges Beata Bizoňová and Zuzana Husová, who ruled on Ďurka and Čurilla, argued similarly. Both rejected the proposals based on formal or competence reasons.
