BRATISLAVA, July 30, (WEBNOVINY) — Inspectors of the Ministry of Finance on Thursday tried to start an approved audit at the Supreme Court, but its President Stefan Harabin prevented them from doing so, claims Finance Minister Ivan Miklos who also called the actions of Supreme Court President willful. „It could also mean an abuse of judicial independence,“ Miklos said at a specially convened news conference, and added he does not know what the President of the Supreme Court is afraid of. Neither the Supreme Court nor its president is using their own money but taxpayers‘ money, Miklos pointed out. „It is undisputed that the Finance Ministry is entitled to review the legality and effectiveness of the use of that money,“ said Miklos who documented this claim by the fact that the Finance Ministry had already audited finances at the Supreme Court in the past, particularly in the years 2007 and 2009.
The Finance Minster said he signed a mandate for the government audit on July 21, which states that it should start on July 27. Subsequently, people from the Ministry of Finance informed the Supreme Court that the audit would begin at 13:00 on July 27. However, according to the Miklos, the Supreme Court’s administration director Jan Hurban has asked to postpone the proposed date by two days, to July 29 at 15:00. „We have accepted their request and when we came at a time they requested…and eventually, the Supreme Court President personally prevented the audit in that he had questioned validity of the mandate for the audit,“ said Miklos. Harabin argued that the mandate referred to the audit starting date on July 27 and not July 29, which is when the auditors arrived. „I consider this to be absurd,“ said Miklos and added that he sees this as „a clear and obvious obstruction“ to prevent the audit.
Miklos said the audit will take place and will be very thorough. The situation that has now arisen is unprecedented, according to Miklos. „If anything similar happened in any other public institution, I personally, but also the Cabinet, would consider personnel consequences,“ said Miklos. Therefore, he explains, as no personnel consequences can be drawn against the President of the Supreme Court, he believes this case could represent a misuse of judicial independence.
SITA