Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Special Procedures
Default title
18 December 2000
Share
18 December 2000
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy, today expressed grave concern about the process in the Slovak National Council to remove the President of the Supreme Court of Slovakia, saying it will be seen domestically and internationally as a political and not legal measure. In the circumstances, the judiciary of Slovakia may not be perceived as independent, said the Special Rapporteur.
Mr. Cumaraswamy said he had received information that the process to remove Stefan Harabin, the President of the Supreme Court of Slovakia, had begun in a plenary session of the National Council after the Minister of Justice, Jan Carnogursky, had formally moved in parliament the Government's motion for such removal on 15 December.
The Minister was alleged to have indicated that the Government would not wait for delivery of the Special Rapporteur's report on his mission to the Slovak Republic last month. Parliament was expected to continue its deliberation on this motion on 18 and 19 December when a vote was likely to be taken.
Mr. Cumaraswamy said that in the light of the Government's persistence in going through the process of removing Mr. Harabin from office - after being constitutionally elected by Parliament from among Supreme Court judges, before his five-year constitutional security of tenure as President expired and without extending to him due process as provided both under the Constitution, the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as applied in the 1998 Budapest Statement of Conclusions for the Guarantees of the Independence of Judges - this would be seen both domestically and internationally as a political and not legal measure.
To treat the president of the highest court of Slovakia as a mere administrative functionary of the executive arm of the government as distinct from his office as a judge was to violate the very essence of the separation of powers, which was the bedrock of democracy and a just rule of law and which appeared to be the basis of the Constitution of Slovakia. In the circumstances, the judiciary of Slovakia may not be perceived as independent, the Special Rapporteur underlined.
The Special Rapporteur emphasized that he was not attempting to interfere with the processes of the national legislature of a sovereign State in any way. His request for an adjournment of the debate on the removal issue arose because of the serious ramifications of such a removal on the independence of the judiciary and democracy generally in Slovakia. Mr. Cumaraswamy said his methodology was to try and prevent any damage rather than to move in to control damage.
Mr. Cumaraswamy said that at his meeting with the Vice-Speaker of the National Council on 29 November, the Vice-Speaker had indicated that it was not necessary for the Special Rapporteur to address Parliament on the issue as requested by a majority of deputies. It was agreed that the Special Rapporteur’s report would be sufficient for consideration by the deputies. When the Special Rapporteur had enquired when the National Council was likely to make a decision, the Vice-Speaker had indicated that the motion to remove the President was not significant at the present session, as the main issue before the session was the debate on the budget.
The Vice-Speaker had indicated that if the debate on the budget was not completed by the end of the session, then the removal motion may be adjourned. When the Special Rapporteur enquired whether the removal motion could be postponed to the next session in January 2000, to enable him to submit his report, the Vice-President replied that it was not for him to say, as this required a vote of the Deputies to adjourn the matter.
The Special Rapporteur said he had also met with representatives of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee on 29 November. The Chairman had indicated to him, amongst others, that the Committee had requested that his correspondence with the Government on the issue and his report on the mission be included in the background material to be considered by parliament. He had also assured the Special Rapporteur that the Committee would place his request to the plenary session of parliament to adjourn the debate on the issue at this session.
In the light of what the Special Rapporteur was told by these high-ranking personalities of the National Council, he was surprised that the Government's motion to remove the President of the Supreme Court was in process at this session without his report. He suggested that the Minister of Justice might not have been aware of the discussions he had had with the Vice-Speaker and the Representatives of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee.
* *** *
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy, today expressed grave concern about the process in the Slovak National Council to remove the President of the Supreme Court of Slovakia, saying it will be seen domestically and internationally as a political and not legal measure. In the circumstances, the judiciary of Slovakia may not be perceived as independent, said the Special Rapporteur.
Mr. Cumaraswamy said he had received information that the process to remove Stefan Harabin, the President of the Supreme Court of Slovakia, had begun in a plenary session of the National Council after the Minister of Justice, Jan Carnogursky, had formally moved in parliament the Government's motion for such removal on 15 December.
The Minister was alleged to have indicated that the Government would not wait for delivery of the Special Rapporteur's report on his mission to the Slovak Republic last month. Parliament was expected to continue its deliberation on this motion on 18 and 19 December when a vote was likely to be taken.
Mr. Cumaraswamy said that in the light of the Government's persistence in going through the process of removing Mr. Harabin from office - after being constitutionally elected by Parliament from among Supreme Court judges, before his five-year constitutional security of tenure as President expired and without extending to him due process as provided both under the Constitution, the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as applied in the 1998 Budapest Statement of Conclusions for the Guarantees of the Independence of Judges - this would be seen both domestically and internationally as a political and not legal measure.
To treat the president of the highest court of Slovakia as a mere administrative functionary of the executive arm of the government as distinct from his office as a judge was to violate the very essence of the separation of powers, which was the bedrock of democracy and a just rule of law and which appeared to be the basis of the Constitution of Slovakia. In the circumstances, the judiciary of Slovakia may not be perceived as independent, the Special Rapporteur underlined.
The Special Rapporteur emphasized that he was not attempting to interfere with the processes of the national legislature of a sovereign State in any way. His request for an adjournment of the debate on the removal issue arose because of the serious ramifications of such a removal on the independence of the judiciary and democracy generally in Slovakia. Mr. Cumaraswamy said his methodology was to try and prevent any damage rather than to move in to control damage.
Mr. Cumaraswamy said that at his meeting with the Vice-Speaker of the National Council on 29 November, the Vice-Speaker had indicated that it was not necessary for the Special Rapporteur to address Parliament on the issue as requested by a majority of deputies. It was agreed that the Special Rapporteur’s report would be sufficient for consideration by the deputies. When the Special Rapporteur had enquired when the National Council was likely to make a decision, the Vice-Speaker had indicated that the motion to remove the President was not significant at the present session, as the main issue before the session was the debate on the budget.
The Vice-Speaker had indicated that if the debate on the budget was not completed by the end of the session, then the removal motion may be adjourned. When the Special Rapporteur enquired whether the removal motion could be postponed to the next session in January 2000, to enable him to submit his report, the Vice-President replied that it was not for him to say, as this required a vote of the Deputies to adjourn the matter.
The Special Rapporteur said he had also met with representatives of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee on 29 November. The Chairman had indicated to him, amongst others, that the Committee had requested that his correspondence with the Government on the issue and his report on the mission be included in the background material to be considered by parliament. He had also assured the Special Rapporteur that the Committee would place his request to the plenary session of parliament to adjourn the debate on the issue at this session.
In the light of what the Special Rapporteur was told by these high-ranking personalities of the National Council, he was surprised that the Government's motion to remove the President of the Supreme Court was in process at this session without his report. He suggested that the Minister of Justice might not have been aware of the discussions he had had with the Vice-Speaker and the Representatives of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee.
* *** *