although the topic of justice is professionally demanding, it is important that we at least partially know it, including us young people, because it is decisive in many ways. The rule of law is the basic pillar of a functioning democracy, as it conditions its fairness, determines its guards and guarantees equality before the law. If, for various reasons, it degrades and does not guarantee justice, the groups clinging to power will begin to decide on it. Of course, they do so for their own benefit at the expense of the state, that is, de facto, at the expense of all citizens. The consequences of this can be seen not only in the level of corruption or weak law enforcement, but also in the overall distrust of democratic institutions and the subsequent questioning of democracy itself.
In order to prevent such abuse and subsequent self-destruction, the system of power, of which the president is an important part, is divided into mutually controlling and complementary institutions. According to the constitution, the head of state has significant competences towards the Constitutional Court and the Judicial Council, thereby indirectly participating in the administration of justice.
judicial council
The Judicial Council is an institution that assesses the suitability of candidates for judicial service. Before the president receives a proposal for their appointment, it must be verified whether the candidates meet the requirements for their position. The Judicial Council further supervises the functioning of the courts themselves and also judges, who can even be temporarily suspended from service (you can find more about the functioning here). In a word, it controls the independence and competence of the judiciary, which implies that its representatives must be maximally autonomous in their activities, uninfluenced by outsiders and sufficiently educated.
The president also participates in the appointment of the Judicial Council, as he appoints three of the eighteen judges. According to the law (another three are elected by the parliament, another three by the government, and the remaining nine are elected by the judges of the Constitutional and Supreme Administrative Courts. The Judicial Council decides by majority vote, i.e. by the consensus of at least ten of its judges. So if the government, in addition to the majority in the parliament, gets a loyal and an uncritical ally even in the presidential palace, he can elect half of the Council, which can potentially significantly influence his entire operation and thus distort the performance of justice he did not become, he will perhaps be able to exercise his undeniable qualities and experience (those with the dismantling of the rule of law) in the Judicial Council.
constitutional court
As the article of the constitution dealing with the Constitutional Court says: “The Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic is an independent judicial body for the protection of constitutionality.” (more here). In addition, it also protects the freedom and basic rights of every person against unconstitutional laws or other decisions and interventions of state authorities. If the Constitutional Court declares a law or other regulation to be unconstitutional, it will be annulled after the publication of the ruling, or it will lose its effectiveness. This is the necessity and at the same time the importance of the role of the Court of Justice in the justice system. As a “last brake”, it does not allow the government to act outside the framework of constitutionality, which often puts it in direct conflict. It is enough to recall the amendment to the criminal law, in which the prime minister can stand on his head, but he is powerless against the verdict of the Constitutional Court. And we all know how he hates being helpless.
The exceptionality of the president’s position lies in the fact that, in case of doubt, before signing a law from the NRSR, he may turn to the Constitutional Court. Therefore, it is important that an independent and free-thinking person sits in the palace, ready at any time to defend first and foremost the constitutionality, not the governing coalition. Otherwise, there is a risk that the last brake in the form of the ÚS will be deliberately omitted from the entire process, and the power “roller”, however unconstitutional, will hardly be stopped.
However, the role of the president is even more important. In other words, if the Constitutional Court is key as far as the rule of law is concerned, the person responsible for its staffing is no less important. Parliament elects twice as many candidates as there are vacant judicial positions, so that half of them are subsequently appointed by the president.
“There is a danger that the last brake in the form of the ÚS will be deliberately omitted from the entire process, and we will barely be able to stop the roller of power, no matter how unconstitutional.”
The fact that the head of state is also involved in the process significantly narrows the scope for purposefully filling the Court with judges connected to government power. In this way, the President is able to guarantee the independence of the Constitutional Court, without which it would not be able to consistently and uncompromisingly defend constitutionality, that is, to carry out its work.
just a question mark again
Of course, no matter how perfect a system of counterbalances may exist, which, by the way, is not our case, there is always a risk of a situation in which one party (in our case, rather, the Jánošík party) occupies key positions in the state. It can even happen in the most democratic way – by direct election by the citizens. Today we observe that the government, the parliament and the future president represent one and the same interest group. In the entire system, justice is guaranteed by the still independent Constitutional Court, courageous judges and prosecutors, and the stance of the European Union. Although it can put pressure on our government in the matter of the rule of law by freezing European funds, as it did in the past in the case of Poland and Hungary, it does not have a mechanism directly preventing the adoption of problematic legislation. No matter how great the EU’s interest in justice in Slovakia is, if our leaders do not show interest in it, a big question mark will hang over the rule of law. But that is already our custom.
After the presidential elections, it is clear that the rule of law will not find support in the new president. The appointment of new independent judges of the ÚS, members of the Judicial Council, or the willingness to turn to the Constitutional Court will be passé. The justice system, and with it the whole democracy, is facing a test that may not necessarily be lost in advance, but it will certainly be a turning point.
The author is a member of the newly established young editorial staff of the week and a student at the Jura Hronac Gymnasium.
If you found an error, write to [email protected].