By: Sara Kovač / Nova24tv.si
On February 2nd, 2023, the Minister of Justice explained to the public on her Twitter profile that the government had (for the time being) withdrawn the proposal for the Act on the Temporary Addition of Judges and State Prosecutors from the legislative process. She explained: “Sometimes it is better to take a step back to make sure we are moving forward on the right path and in the right way. And if it turns out not to be, we will adjust the route. In any case – we believe that the direction is right. We are determined to stabilise this area, which is one of the key factors for protecting independence and ensuring the efficiency, quality, and accessibility of judicial services for citizens, after a decade of undermining the judiciary in terms of material and personnel. I believe that it is difficult for the opposition to understand the difference, which during the time of its government ruled without qualms with unconstitutional and illegal decrees and which does not accept the decisions of the Constitutional Court if they do not like them (e.g., the Family Code). We react to warnings about potential constitutional disputes.”
In the same breath, Minister Dominika Švarc Pipan replied “We are working, we are working.” on her private FB profile to her FB friend’s note: “I am glad I was not wrong, it is true, everything has its limit, we have to get to the time before 1991.”
MP Dejan Kaloh addressed a written parliamentary question regarding the reasons for the withdrawal of the proposal for the Act on the Temporary Addition of Judges and State Prosecutors to the Minister of Justice, Dr Dominika Švarc Pipan.
Based on the above, I ask you the following:
- Does the Minister of Justice’s note in the form of the above-mentioned reply to her FB friend mean that the current government is working to ensure that the Republic of Slovenia, together with its state and constitutional legal system, “comes” to the time before 1991, i.e., to the period before Slovenian independence?
- If yes, in the context of the first question, how does the Minister of Justice comment on her own Twitter post that she believes in any case that “the direction is right” and that the current government is reacting to warnings about possible constitutional disputes?
- Does not acting in the direction of losing one’s own independence (time before 1991) seem constitutionally objectionable? If so, how does she comment on the above record, from which it can be understood that she is “working” on it?