Harabin, according to the SaS, did not act with his actions to prove the convicts.
20 November 2018 at 13:00 p.m.
Bratislava. The judge of the SR-Štefan Harabin High Court should leave his court and not his / her; court is low. This argues with the SaS challenging. TASR details for spokeswoman Róbert Buček.
"The fact is that Harabin was attacking the Assembly, of which he is a member, of a bad lawsuit in the hearing of members of the criminal group, indeed illegal in critical use "," Alojz Baranik (SaS), MP of the SOCC believes.
Harabin, according to SaS, accepted the offenders
Harabin, according to his words, which opposed their protection.
"This is not the first time its behavior is suited to the convicts," said the applicant.
The request from the High Court of Justice of the High Court, Daniela Švecová, for the Court of Disciplinary to address the & This case and decision not only on its & # 39; financial prosecution against Harabin but also when he moves to the abusive court, the Liberals do not; It is not enough because of the badness of the offense.
"It would be appropriate for Harabin's part if he had to leave his court," said Baránik. It is anticipated that the Court Court will judge in accordance with legal and ethical standards. The SaS says that it will want to implement its control process in & # 39; judgment to ensure that citizens have a huge grievance that judges who need to break their legal duties need to; to leave faith.
The Court High Court has moved
Chief Justice of the High Court (NS) of the Slovak Republic, Daniela Švecová, complained for disciplinary proceedings against a judge on the High Court of SR Štefan Harabin. The reason for this is Roberto L. et al.
He hopes to move Harabina to the courthouse and reduce his salary by 70 per cent.
According to Švecová, Harabin threatens confidence in independent court decisions, fair and fair.
Harabin had a public hearing in June 2018 in the Róbert L. et al. to challenge the legal conviction of the Shannon, to disturb the peaceful conduct of the session, and to express his thoughts publicly about the case that was judged not to be finalized legally.
According to Švecová, she acted solely against the court status and opposed the membership of the Assignee.