VZCZCXRO0131
PP RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDBU RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA
RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHNP RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHSL #0426/01 2751326
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P R 021326Z OCT 09
FM AMEMBASSY BRATISLAVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0188
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHSL/AMEMBASSY BRATISLAVA 0225

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRATISLAVA 000426 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EUR/CE, INL/C, DRL 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM LO
SUBJECT: SLOVAK JUDICIARY:  WHAT A DIFFERENCE A WEEK MAKES 
 
REF: A) BRATISLAVA 413   B) BRATISLAVA 118 
 
BRATISLAVA 00000426  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
¶1.      (U) Within a week of the Justice Ministry's suspension 
of Judge Jana Dubovcova for expressing her views (ref a), a sea 
change has taken place within the judiciary.  Prior to this 
watershed event, the number of judges willing to speak publicly 
about problems in the judiciary numbered about a dozen.  At an 
October 1 press conference, three prominent judges presented 
petitions signed by over 100 of their colleagues expressing 
grave concern about the atmosphere of fear in which they work 
and calling for public discussion and potential changes to 
address the problems.  Chief Justice Harabin and Justice 
Minister Petrikova reacted quickly, expressing a willingness to 
talk and claiming that the petitions prove that `in the 
judiciary, there is democracy and freedom of speech.'   There 
has been no reaction from other government quarters. 
 
 
 
The Proverbial Straw 
 
---------------------- 
 
 
 
¶2.      (U) Although several judges are being subject to 
seemingly endless Kafkaesque-like disciplinary proceedings 
and/or have been removed from the bench as a result of their 
views or principles, Dubovcova's case marks the first time that 
the Justice Ministry acted without even the pretext of another 
violation.   The cause of her suspension and the threat to 
remove her from the bench stemmed directly from her public 
comments against Chief Justice Harabin and about the state of 
Justice.  Within 24 hours of Dubovcova's suspension,  however, 
the Chief of her court had withdrawn it, claiming it had become 
an element in the political battle opposition parties were 
waging against the `independent judiciary.'   We can speculate 
on what actually  prompted Judge Busik's abrupt volte-face, but 
we suspect that word came down from on high that Harabin and Co. 
had gone too far this time.  Shortly after word of Dubovcova's 
suspension was made public, PM Fico's spokeswoman stated that no 
judge should be fired for expressing their views. 
 
 
 
¶3.      (U)  In September 2008, Dubovcova was the first judge to 
criticize Harabin after he lied publicly about his relationship 
with a suspected drug dealer and slurred and threatened his 
predecessor on the floor of parliament.  The charges against 
Dubovcova were Harabin's payback.  What he apparently did not 
expect was that this outrageous act would provoke a public 
rebuke from the Prime Minister's office, or that it would 
embolden so many heretofore silent judges. 
 
 
 
A Courageous Plea 
 
 
 
¶4.      (U) On October 1, three prominent Slovak judges gave a 
press conference underscoring the growing fear and concern that 
has taken hold within the judiciary.  Supreme Court Judge 
Katarina Javorcikova stated that `we have never had such a 
feeling of threat as we do today.'  Supreme Court Judge Miroslav 
Gavalec, who recently ruled against strong political and 
business interests to stop progress on a controversial dump in 
Pezinok (ref b), described how he and numerous colleagues have 
been transferred to other sections of the court after having 
made `inconvenient' rulings or expressing critical views of 
Harabin.  Gavalec is an expert in environmental law; he now 
handles pension cases. 
 
 
 
¶5.      (U)   Javorcikova presented a short declaration, in 
which 105 judges from across the country stated that:  `We 
consider the effort of competent organs to punish judges for the 
public expression of their views as a further signal that 
threatens free discussion about the state of the Slovak 
judiciary.  In this environment, it is difficult to work and the 
evident growing distrust of the public in the judiciary saddens 
us.  It is necessary to openly discuss the causes of this state, 
and the atmosphere of fear in which judges cannot express a 
controversial or provocative idea, is an offense to freedom of 
expression.  Having the freedom of expression is not only a 
right, but it is the obligation of a judge.  Having independent 
judges is the right of every citizen.' 
 
 
 
 
BRATISLAVA 00000426  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
 ¶6.      (U)  In addition to this statement, the judges issued a 
call for support from `citizens, politicians, NGOS, media, 
organs of the European Union and international judges 
association to support our effort to change the existing 
conditions in the judiciary.'  Among the priority 
recommendations:  conclude current proceedings against aimed at 
removing judges from the bench; ensure, per Slovak law, that 
recommendations for removal from the bench only be made pursuant 
to serious breaches; require disciplinary proceedings to be 
published on the internet; require the Judicial Council to 
provide justification for decisions regarding judges. 
 
 
 
¶7.  (SBU)  While it is still to early to predict what changes -- 
either in personnel or law -- might result from the fact that a 
critical mass of Slovak judges finally had the courage to speak 
out, it is clear that this week marks a milestone in what has, 
until now, been a lonely fight in which only a few participated. 
 The press is covering the story very aggressively.  The 
opposition intends to mount a recall campaign against the 
Justice Minister, and is focusing ever more intently on the 
judiciary as an election issue.  Two prominent NGOs (with 
financial support from the Embassy) will host conferences on the 
judiciary in the coming  months.  Comment:  Seemingly without a 
qualm, PM Fico recently broke the coalition agreement by 
depriving SNS of a key ministry.  SNS corruption at the 
Environment Ministry had become an embarrassment and a liability 
to Fico.  We doubt he will be willing to do the same with the 
judiciary, i.e., to wrench it from Meciar and Harbin's grasp, 
but the events of the past seven days suggest that this sector, 
too, will become an election-year vulnerability for Fico.  They 
also demonstrate that opposition to the misuse of power in the 
judiciary has finally developed some real momentum. 
BALL