* * *
The
political and legal crisis in Slovenia has escalated further. The opposition
leader was taken to prison on June 20 amid public protests and harsh critique
waged by the most prominent Slovenian constitutional lawyers. The crisis is due
to have huge impact on the fairness of the election, scheduled for July
13. However, this does not seem to be of
concern to the highest Slovenian courts.
On
Monday June 16 the Constitutional Court rejected the petitioner’s
constitutional complaint as premature, for failing to fulfill extraordinary
legal remedies at the Supreme Court. The Court refused to apply Art 51 of the Constitutional
Court Act, which exceptionally allows for a constitutional complaint prior to
the exhaustion of all legal remedies if the alleged violation of human rights
is manifest and if the petitioner is to suffer unrepairable consequences.
The
Court ruled 6:3 that while the alleged violations of the petitioner’s rights
were serious, they were not manifest, within the meaning of the Court’s
judicial test, so to allow a direct review. This was opposed by three judges,
writing for the minority, who have produced extremely critical dissenting
opinions, unprecedented in the history of the Court, stressing that the
violations of human rights were not only manifest, but were patent and flagrant
and were violated in a trial that was manifestly unfair.
The
reluctance of the Court to rule on the merits of the constitutional complaint
was also heavily criticized by four former Constitutional Court justices. One
of them, self-proclaimed political opponent of Mr. Janša, stressed that the
final ruling was based on such a violation of procedural, indeed fundamental
principles of law (most notably: nemo
iudex since actore) that he entertained no doubt that the ruling would be
and shall be voided by the Supreme Court - immediately.
He was,
however, wrong. And so was the Constitutional Court. The latter justified its
reluctance to rule on the constitutional complaint prior to the exhaustion of
all legal remedies by stressing the importance of the institutional loyalty and
its trust in the Supreme Court that it will effectively protect the
petitioner’s rights, including by suspending the prison sentence until ruling
on the merits of the case. However, the Supreme Court obviously defied its
trust. What has been going on there, according to media reports, amounts to a
farce.
The
case was assigned to a judge rapporteur who wanted to recuse herself and as her
request was denied by the President of the Supreme Court, she left for vacation
that she had planned before. The President of the Court simultaneously refused
to assign the case to another judge, stressing that while the case is of a
multidimensional and absolute importance, it justifies no special treatment. Moreover,
the Supreme Court was – in its public statement - of the opinion that the
petitioner himself could have asked for the suspension of the sentence by
turning to the District court. As this has not been done, the case is estimated
to be decided by the Supreme Court in the usual period of time, that is in four
months!
It
follows from this that Slovenian judiciary is passing the hot potato from one
instance to another, blaming it on the petitioner for failing to use his legal remedies
correctly, even when, with all respect to the rule of law, the courts should
have acted ex-offo. However, while
all this can appear to formally comply with the procedural rules, this is pure
formalism. In reality, de facto, the
petitioner has no effective legal remedy at hand to defend his liberty (he is
in prison, where he can remain for a number of weeks, even months, as the
Supreme Court deliberates, patiently waiting for judges to finish their
vacation) and to defend his right to stand for election (he is anticipated to
stay in the closed or semi-closed prison ward with no or very limited access to
public).
Slovenia
has thus become a prime example of a de
facto failed constitutional democracy, whereby the orchestrated media which
filter, as much as possible, the few academic voices that have spoken out – not
in favor of the petitioner ad personam,
let alone his political party, but in favor of what law and justice require, refuse
to present to the wider public the Patria case for what it really stands for.
For an apparent abuse and instrumentalization of law, through the actions and
omissions of the judiciary, to eliminate particular political opponents and to
consolidate political, economic, legal-institutional and finally overall social
power in the hands in which it has rested so far. In the hands of the old-new
post-communist elite. Indeed, this is happening in a country, which used to be
known as the best disciple among the new Member States of the European
Union.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wobbing.eu/news/untold-yugoslavian-arms-trade-scandal
ReplyDeleteJournalists Matej Šurc and Blaž Zgaga investigated the illegal trade of arms in Slovenia during the early 1990s and chronicled their findings in the trilogy In the Name of the State. The first volume of the trilogy, Sell, published in June 2011, focused on the sale of arms and ammunition. The second volume, Resell, appeared in October 2011 and dealt with the purchase of arms abroad and subsequent resale to Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina during the UN arms embargo. The third volume, Cover-up, describes how the arms smugglers managed to keep their activities largely concealed for the last twenty years and was published in April 2012.
Why these questions are not answered?:
ReplyDeleteodprto pismo, ki ga je lani januarja Matej Šurc poslal takrat še predsedniku vlade Janezu Janši:
"Spoštovani, komisija za preprečevanje korupcije je med drugim ugotovila, da se je vaše premoženje nepojasnjeno povečalo za najmanj 210.000 evrov. Vira teh sredstev komisiji še niste razkrili, dokazno breme pa je v tem primeru na vaši strani.
Naj vas zato spomnim na prodajo od JLA prevzetega in zaseženega orožja ter preprodajo v tujini nabavljenega orožja, ki je večinoma potekala med letoma 1991 in 1993. Takrat ste bili minister za obrambo. Ko je v Sloveniji cvetelo vojno dobičkarstvo, nadzorni mehanizmi niso bili učinkoviti ali pa še niso bili vzpostavljeni. Rojstvo države in bližino vojne je bilo tako mogoče izkoristiti tudi za prodajo orožja, torej za plenjenje države in kopičenje zasebnega bogastva. Na tem mestu ne želim pogrevati sicer nikoli docela pojasnjenih orožarskih afer, niti razpravljati o etiki, še manj o kazenski odgovornosti, kajti postopki povezani z orožjem so (razen Patrie) zastarali. Nerešeno pa ostaja bistveno vprašanje: kje je denar od orožja? Odgovor si zaslužijo tudi branilci iz Hrvaške ter BiH, ki so v Sloveniji kupovali orožje – tudi po oderuških cenah.
V zadnjih petih letih sva z novinarskim kolegom temeljito preučila dokumentacijo o trgovini z orožjem, ki sem jo pridobil s pomočjo Informacijske pooblaščenke. Napisala sva tri knjige s skupnim naslovom V imenu države (Odprodaja, Preprodaja, Prikrivanje). V trilogiji so objavljeni verodostojni dokumenti in izjave prič, ki kažejo na to, da ste vi nadzorovali gotovinsko prodajo orožja in skrbeli za izkupičke. Jeseni 1994 je Uprava za logistiko Ministrstva za obrambo preštela količino in vrste na Hrvaško in v BiH prodanega orožja ter ocenila, da je bilo vredno najmanj 140 milijonov takratnih nemških mark. Ko ste vodili ministrstvo, je bil za gotovinsko prodajo orožja operativno zadolžen Varnostni organ MO (Vomo). Njegov direktor je bil Andrej Lovšin, evidence pa je vodil Franci Cimerman, vendar so te pozneje izginile.
V drugi polovici leta 1994 je na Vomu potekala notranja preiskava. Vodja protiobveščevalnega oddelka je priznal, da je Cimerman po Lovšinovem nalogu čez mejo v Avstrijo petkrat peljal poslovni kovček poln nemških mark. Vodja obveščevalnega oddelka pa je preiskovalcem povedal, da je Vomo do spomladi 1993 iztržil 60 milijonov mark. Denar, ki je ostal v Lovšinovi blagajni, je bil po njegovih besedah izročen vam. Cimerman je na zaslišanjih v Državnem zboru trdil, da je vse počel po Lovšinovem nalogu, Lovšin pa je ponavljal, da je o teh stvareh potrebno vprašati vas.
Takih in podobnih obremenilnih zadev na vaš račun je v trilogiji še veliko, vendar avtorjev niste tožili.
V tretji knjigi je objavljeno tudi vaše poročilo o orožju od maja 1990 do septembra 1993, kjer je zapisanih precej polresnic in zavajajočih podatkov. Prodaje orožja za gotovino pa sploh niste omenili. Nedavno mi je Informacijska pooblaščenka omogočila še vpogled v nekatera doslej zaupna poročila Komisije DZ za nadzor obveščevalnih in varnostnih služb o trgovini z orožjem in v posebno analizo dokumentov, ki sta jo spomladi 2008 za DZ pripravila strokovnjaka Mitja Klavora in Bojan Gričar. Pritrdila sta ugotovitvam, da je MO na Hrvaško prodajal orožje po nekajkrat višjih cenah, kot ste jih prikazali v svojem poročilu. Navedli ste tudi znatno manjše količine orožja od dejansko prodanih. Še vedno pa niste argumentirano pojasnili, kam je šel izkupiček, ki je bil, kljub pomanjkljivi (uničeni) dokumentaciji, ocenjen na več deset milijonov nemških mark.
...nadaljevanje
ReplyDeleteIz dokumentacije je razvidno, da je imel uslužbenec MO na Bank für Kärnten und Steiermark v Celovcu odprt račun. Z njega je vplačal nakup avtomobilov za ministrstvo, nakup pištol iz Italije in gradbene storitve podjetja SCT za specialno brigado Moris. Kriminalisti so v devetdesetih letih pozivali tožilstvo, naj pristojni organi v drugih državah omogočijo vpogled v BKS in druge banke ter na bančne račune podružnic slovenskih podjetij v Nemčiji, Švici … zaradi suma pranja denarja od prodaje orožja. Vendar tožilstvo tega ni storilo. Ampak denar je nekam moral iti? V zasebne žepe, v davčne oaze, na druge kontinente …?
Zakaj ste bili v prvih dneh leta 2007 v Avstraliji? Ali drži, da ste se takrat izmuznili varnostnikoma in obiskali banke v Sydneyu? Kakšne zadolžitve pri domnevno vaših računih v avstralskih bankah imata nekdanji častni generalni konzul Republike Slovenije na Novi Zelandiji Dušan Lajovic in častni konzul Avstralije v Sloveniji Viktor Baraga? •
Matej Šurc, Radovljica "
The above mentioned Matej Šurc and Blaž Zgaga are communist regime propagandists who have been a paid by the regime for the last 20 years to manufacture political hit pieces on opposition leaders in order to publicly discredit them and for the regime to start political, media and especially judicial harassment of more than 5 opposition leaders. hey are not journalists in the normal sense of the word but well paid propagandists.
ReplyDeleteThe above commenter verve2green is a known regime propagandist who is amongst around 200+ paid internet shills tasked to follow around news stories of opposition leaders at home and in the foreign press and to comment with state propaganda in order to whitewash the regime's political crimes in front of EU and western readers. Please pay no heed to this old and tired paid regime propaganda.
"The above commenter verve2green is a known regime propagandist.."
ReplyDeleteVery far away from truth!
Mr. Janez Janša was communist too:
http://www.mladina.si/49713/mladinait-st-744/
http://www.mladina.si/120845/kako-je-diplomiral-janez-jansa-in-kaj-je-prepisal/
Slovenian Journalists Matej Šurc and Blaž Zgaga Win CEI SEEMO Award for Outstanding Merits in Investigative Journalism 2012:
http://www.seemo.org/awards/cei/cei.html
Is Mr. Thomas B. Robertson from USA more reliable source?
ReplyDelete14. (S/NF) According to a clandestine source with direct
access to an empoloyee of Rotis, Prime Minister Jansa's SDS
received more than 2.8 million Euro from Patria "under the
table" as part of the deal for armored vehicles. The source
also noted that Sto Ravne had failed to offer a similar
contributuion to Jansa's party.
https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07LJUBLJANA337_a.html