The suspension of the abolition of the Office for the Protection of Whistleblowers (ÚOO) and its replacement by a new office partially confirmed the reservations of the President of the Slovak Republic, Petr Pellegrini. The head of state stated this on Tuesday. According to Pellegrini, the Constitutional Court confirmed that the adopted law raises doubts.
- The Constitutional Court suspended the law on the replacement of the Office for the Protection of Whistleblowers.
- President Pellegrini confirmed doubts about the adopted law.
- Both the coalition and the opposition criticized the president’s veto of the law.
- The Constitutional Court can mark only some parts of the law as unconstitutional.
- The opposition objected to the possible inconsistency of the law with the Constitution and EU law.
“But that does not mean that it automatically means that the Constitutional Court will reject the law in the same way, for example, it rejected the law on non-profit organizations. Remember that even with the major amendment of the Penal Code and the Penal Code, the Constitutional Court first suspended the effectiveness of these laws, but then decided that 95 percent of all those provisions did not conflict with the Constitution and the laws began to apply“, said the president.
According to him, it is not possible to prejudge how the court decides. He added that can mark only part of the provisions as unconstitutional. Pellegrini also pointed out that he was criticized by the opposition and the coalition for his veto of the law. The opposition did not like that the law was returned to parliament a few days after its initial adoption. The coalition criticized the president’s veto itself.
The Act on the Office for the Protection of Victims of Crimes and Whistleblowers of Anti-Social Activities, which was supposed to replace the current ÚOO from January 1, was approved by parliament in December despite Pellegrini’s veto. After breaking the veto, the president pointed out that his decision is not based on the wishes or expectations of the coalition or the opposition. He justified the return of the law by the absence of reasons for abbreviated legislative proceedings, serious material comments on the insufficient protection of victims of crimes and unresolved reservations from the European Commission.
The Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic suspended the effectiveness of the law on Wednesday (December 17). He accepted the proposal of a group of opposition MPs for further proceedings in its entirety. In the submission, the opposition objected to the possible inconsistency of the law with the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and with EU law, as well as the process of its adoption in abbreviated legislative proceedings.
