The Ministry of the Interior (MV) of the Slovak Republic It dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal in case of alleged interference in the election campaign before the presidential election by the Minister of the Interior Matúš Šutaj Eštok (Voice-SD) Social network posts. Matej Neumann, a spokesman for the resort, confirmed this for TASR. According to the Public Administration Section of the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic, this was not an election campaign. By decision, the section confirmed the previous decisions of the District Office in Bratislava.
“Social network contributions dated 24 and 25 March 2024 have been shared records from discussion sessions on TA3 television, whose broadcasting was made in accordance with the law. The Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic did not find that it would have been attached to the overworked records from the discussion session, which would no longer be mentioned, ” He said Neumann.
The contribution from 26 March 2024, according to the ministry, was the answer to the politician. “The events he affects are well known and discussed in the public several times. From the very content of the post/video, it does not directly or indirectly show that it is an election campaign or anti -campaign against the presidential candidate, ” claims the resort.
The Ministry claims that the prosecutor only expresses his opinion in the appeal why he thinks that the administrative body arguments are not sufficient. According to the department, the prosecutor does not deduct the facts found. He did not spare it in the prosecutor’s previous protest. “Nor does it even point to evidence that would clearly show that the activity has led to the active formation of the voter’s opinion, So its active influence, ”said the ministry.
In the past, the Bratislava District Office has decided that Šutaj Eštok did not break the law by paid social contribution on one of the candidates before the presidential election in which he had a negative comment on it. In December, the Bratislava I District Prosecutor’s Office filed a protest against the decision. The District Office did not meet this. The prosecutor therefore appealed to the superior body, which is MV.
