This week has brought a new milestone in Slovenian parliamentarianism. At a meeting of the Committee on Justice of the National Assembly, coalition MPs voted to silence the Slovenian Democratic Party (Slovenska demokratska stranka – SDS) MP, Zvone Černač. They were very bothered by his criticism of the judiciary, which (according to their political folklore) should not be criticised at all. The fact that this is far from being the case was pointed out by Supreme Court Judge Jan Zobec, while the former Speaker of the National Assembly, France Cukjati, compared the recent developments to a slide into anarchy.
The 24th extraordinary meeting of the Committee on Justice was held on the topic of “discrediting of the judiciary”. At least, that is how the coalition, which wanted to take the opposition to task at the session, interpreted the criticism of the judiciary. Lena Grgurevič of the ruling Freedom Movement party (Gibanje Svoboda), the Chairwoman of the Justice Committee, conducted the meeting in a forceful, one might even say judicial manner. She issued several clearly undeserved reprimands and, in a degraded debate, called the other side liars. The shocking events culminated in the coalition’s decision to vote for MP Zvone Černač to be silenced. As the SDS party President Janez Janša said, this is a precedent in Slovenian parliamentary history.
We asked the former Speaker of the National Assembly and President of the Assembly of the Republic (Zbor za republiko), France Cukjati, whether such a decision, which would deprive a Member of the National Assembly of the floor, could even be voted on. “Of course not. This is unacceptable and outrageous. As a Member of Parliament, he has the right to speak, the debate can only be limited in time. The content of the debate itself is, simply put, his business,” Cukjati explained.
“This is becoming increasingly common – that they vote on decisions that go against the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly. This is a fall over the edge into anarchy. The law and the Constitution no longer apply, only dictatorship, albeit currently only in the form of a parliamentary majority,” Cukjati argues.
He believes that this kind of behaviour in the National Assembly requires a strong response. “If I were in the National Assembly, I would turn to the Constitutional Court. If this current behaviour were to be legalised, then such a decision would have to be internationalised,” the former Speaker of the National Assembly believes.
He claims that it would even be necessary to organise a boycott of parliamentary bodies when they are led by Lena Grgurevič or Urška Klakočar Zupančič. “When they take their seats, the MPs should quietly get up and leave,” he said.
Supreme Court Judge says criticism of judiciary is “absolutely allowed”
Criticism of the judiciary was at the heart of the debate at the meeting of the Committee on Justice. The coalition interpreted the criticism as attacks and attempts to discredit the judiciary. The opposition, on the contrary, saw it as legitimate criticism of one of the country’s key institutions. We asked the Supreme Court Judge Jan Zobec about the permissibility and impermissibility of criticism of the judiciary, or whether it is even permissible to criticise the judiciary.
“It is absolutely allowed! Without criticism of the authorities, there is no democracy. The judiciary is one of the branches of government and must, therefore, be criticised in a democracy. It must be constantly criticised and constantly monitored. We judges have a permanent mandate; we are not elected every four years like the other branches of government. That makes it all the more necessary to monitor our work. It is all the more right to point out any slip-ups, any inconsistencies,” said Zobec.
Zobec then added that the content of criticism should also be judged in the light of who is making it. In his opinion, the academy and the profession should limit their criticism to legal arguments, while politics should approach it with the necessary restraint so that it cannot be interpreted as pressure on the judiciary or as spreading mistrust. The widest range of criticism belongs to ordinary citizens, who cannot be classified in any of the above categories, he explained.
“The judiciary must be aware that its reputation and trust depend above all on itself. Independence is not given to them so that they can do whatever they want. It was given to them to judge independently, to judge impartially and without pressure. However, when processes take place that are manifestly incompatible with fundamental postulates of the rule of law, such as the principle of equality before the law, they must accept such criticism. They must expect that both politicians and other people will react harshly. Above all, I miss this responsibility of the judiciary and the ability to self-reflect,” said the Supreme Court Judge.
Our interlocutor then compared two completely different responses from the judiciary. When threats were made against retired judges, or in the case of the protests in Celje, they reacted violently, even with anger. However, a completely different reaction could be observed in the case of Zoran Janković, the mayor of Ljubljana, who freely stated on Croatian television that he would never be punished in Slovenian courts, simply due to being an opponent of Janez Janša. He believes that the judiciary should have indignantly denied Janković’s allegations, but did not. As Zobec noted, there was only silence.
“But then, on the other hand, there is such indignation when someone who is, let’s say, a victim of this system, says something critical of the judiciary. It may be harsh, but the situation is also very harsh. What should this person expect, what should he or she think of the judiciary? […] What can Janez Janša expect in this court?”
Zobec says that at this point, so many inconsistencies and incomprehensible actions by the judiciary have accumulated that he understands “the anger and harsh criticism of this behaviour.”
Finally, Zobec was asked to comment on what had happened at the meeting of the Committee on Justice, where such criticism had led to the vote to deprive an opposition MP of his right to speak. Zobec did not comment on what was happening in the Chamber, but he said the following about the decision taken to deprive the opposition MP of the floor: “It is difficult for me to understand that a Member of Parliament has been deprived of the floor. After all, Parliament is meant for Members to speak.”
Žiga Korsika
