BRATISLAVA, August 7, (WEBNOVINY) — The Cabinet will pull the brake on the possibility of distraint of state property as a form of settling claims. This topic was partly opened by the recent decision of the Constitutional Court, which declared unconstitutional some provisions of the law on administration of state property and the law on the state treasury, which guarantee immunity against distraint to the state. „This left the state naked, there are no barriers that would prevent boundless distraint of state property. Executors, said in Slovak, could immediately after the decision is published in the Collection of Laws, thrust themselves on state property,” Prime Minister Robert Fico said after an emergency Cabinet meeting on Tuesday that dealt with the new situation.
At Tuesday’s extraordinary meeting, the Cabinet agreed to a countermeasure – a modification to the Execution Order, which it wants Parliament to discuss the shortened legislative proceedings. The Ministry of Justice will draw up for the amendment a list to state property, which would be exempt from distraint. Fico said he would consult Speaker of Parliament Pavel Paska over the possibility for including the draft amendment on the agenda of the current session of Parliament.
According to the draft, excluded from distraint will be property under state administration, interim state administration, state budget revenue, funds in current accounts of state budgetary organizations and receivables from legal relationships founding the basis for this revenue. Exempt from distraint will also be securities in state ownership and in ownership of state’s legal entities, funds intended to cover the state budget deficit and national debt coverage or other state property, which will be defined by law.
Such state property will have relative immunity from distraint that will be confirmed by a court. First, however, the public body will have to indicate that such state property is necessary to fulfill its tasks and prove it in court. „We were looking for, and in my opinion, we have found the right balance between the need for the state to be protected on the one hand because of its irreplaceable functions, and on the other hand, that also those who have legitimate claims against the state to have those claims satisfied,“ said Justice Tomas Borec.
In its decision, the Constitutional Court did not question the state’s immunity against distraint as such. It only contested its extent and its treatment in the currently applicable legislation. The Court accepts that there is public interest in maintaining state property to meet the unique and irreplaceable public tasks of the state. But it is unconstitutional, if the anchored legal interest restricts the fundamental rights of individuals or legal entities to the extent that they cannot reasonably be applied. They thus become illusory rights.
Inappropriate protection of state property against execution of a decision, according to the Constitutional Court, is in that a creditor of the state, after a court stops distraint proceedings, loses an effective legal means to force collection of a debt. The Constitutional Court issued its decision based on a motion of the District Court Bratislava I.
SITA