Statistical data
Number of decisions taken:
• Decisions on the merits by the Plenum of the Court: 14
• Decisions on the merits by the Panels of the Court: 4
• Number of other decisions by the Plenum: 11
• Number of other decisions by the Panels: 41
• Total number of cases brought to the Court: 221

Important decisions

Identification: SLK-95-1-001
a) Slovak Republic / b) Constitutional Court / с) / d) 27.01.1995 / e) PLUS 14/94 / f) Distribution of powers through differences in remuneration / g) / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
General principles - Separation of powers.
Institutions - Courts - Organisation - Members -Status.
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights - Equality - Scope of application - Employment - Public.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Judiciary, independence / Public office, salaries.

Headnotes:
The principles of the separation of powers and of the independence of the judiciary, taken together, mean that decisions of the judicial power may not be sub-stituted by decisions of bodies belonging to any other power, and that judges are not subordinate to any other public authority. The Slovak Constitution contains no provision on salaries of persons holding public office. Thus, the absence of a statute on salaries for judges may contradict the Constitution.

Summary:
The Bratislava District Court no. 1 submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court claiming that a decision of the National Council of the Slovak Republic on salaries of judges and those persons awaiting an appointment as a judge was contrary to the Slovak Constitution. It maintained that the principle of the separation of powers within a State system was violated since the position of persons in judicial power was not equal to the position of persons in the legislative and executive branches of government.
According to Article 144.3 of the Slovak Constitution "in cases where the court establishes that a generally binding rule contradicts the law, the proceedings shall be postponed and a petition filed in the Constitutional Court. The finding of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic shall be binding on the original court and all other courts". This provision of the Constitution was invoked in a petition by a judge of a district court, who requested a salary increase on the grounds that his salary was inferior to those in the ministries of the Slovak Government as well as those of the Members of the Slovak Parliament. The judge agreed that there was a violation of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers between State bodies. He also stated the reasons why the legal grounds for paying different salaries - Statute no. 420/1991 as amended by Statute no. 148/1993 - would be contrary to the Constitution. The proceedings before the District Court were accordingly postponed, and a petition to the Constitutional Court was filed.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the principle of the separation of powers leaves no possibility to substitute a decision adopted by an authorised body by a decision of another body, which is not authorised to make the decision. The constitutional principle of equality of elements of the State mechanism ensures that no branch is subordinate to another.

Languages: Slovak.

Identification: SLK-95-1-002
a) Slovak Republic / b) Constitutional Court / c) / d) 31.01.1995/e)!. US 58/94 / f) / g) / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
Institutions - Legislative bodies - Relations with executive bodies.
Institutions - Executive bodies - Composition.
Institutions - Executive bodies - Relations with legislative bodies.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Caretaker government / Conflict of powers / Vote of no-confidence.

Headnotes:
The necessity of Parliament's confidence in the Government ceases to exist when a Government resigns due to the election of a new Parliament. A caretaker government or its members cannot be subject to a vote of no-confidence by the newly-elected Parliament.

Summary:
The President of the Slovak Republic submitted a petition requesting an interpretation of Article 117 of the Constitution in the light of Article 116 of the Con-stitution. The President asked for a decision on whether the National Council of the Slovak Republic is vested with the power to pass a vote of no-confidence in an individual member of the Government of the Slovak Republic even after acceptance of the resignation of the entire government by the President of the Republic, and on whether this power is also vested in Parliament against the whole caretaker Government holding office in accordance with the Constitution.
According to Article 114.1 of the Constitution, the Government shall be collectively responsible for the exercise of governmental powers to the National Council of the Slovak Republic which may take a vote of confidence at any time. According to Article 116 of the Constitution: "Members of the Government shall be individually accountable to the National Council of the Slovak Republic". According to Article 116.3, 'The National Council of the Slovak Republic may also pass a vote of no-confidence in an individual Member of the Government; in such a case the Member shall be dismissed." According to Article 116.7, in a case where the President has dismissed a Member of the Government, he shall designate another Member to be temporarily responsible for fulfilling the duties of the dismissed Member. According to Article 117, 'The incumbent government shall submit its resignation after the opening session of the newly-elected National Council of the Slovak Republic. The former Government shall, however, remain in office until the new government is formed."
During a plenary session of the National Council on 4 November 1994, which was the very first session of a new Parliament established following general elections held on 30 September and 1 October 1994, a constitu-tional dispute arose. The old Government established before the election had submitted its resignation, and the newly-elected Parliament passed a vote of no-confidence in two members of the recently resigned Government. Parliament asked the President of the Republic to dismiss both Ministers. However, as the President of the Republic was of the opinion that Parliament is not vested with the authority to control an ex-Member of the Government, he brought the case before the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court decided that the National Council is vested with the authority to pass a vote of confidence in a Government or one of its Members, but solely during that Government's term of office. The Constitution contains no provision on "inheritance of confidence", and there is no regulation according to which confidence vested in one Government could be transferred to a future Government. The newly-elected National Council has no right to express its confidence in a former Government because the constitutional ground for the existence of the confidence notion relates solely to the Government and Parliament issuing from the same election. In Article 117, the Constitution provides for the manner of terminating the activity of a Government established by former elec-tions by means of resignation of the Government. As the newly-elected National Council is vested neither with the authority to pass a vote of no-confidence nor the right to build a mutual relationship between itself and a Government or one of its Members approved by a Parliament established by a previous election, this new Parliament may not exercise the authority under Article 114.1 of the Constitution against a caretaker Government. Thus the President of the Republic is not obliged to dismiss a Member of a Government established by a previous election, after this Govern-ment has submitted its resignation.
Languages: Slovak.

Identification: SLK-95/1-003
a) Slovak Republic / b) Constitutional Court / с) / d) 28.03.1995 / e) II. US 10/95 / f) Right of access to courts of persons with restricted legal capacity / g) / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
Constitutional Justice - Types of claim - Claim by a private body or individual - Natural person.
Constitutional justice - Procedure - Parties - Locus stand.
Fundamental rights - General questions - Entitle-ment to rights - Natural persons - Incapacitated.
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights -Procedural safeguards - Access to courts.

Keywords of the alphabetical index:
Legal capacity, restricted. Headnotes:
To deal with public authorities, persons of either restricted legal capacity or no legal capacity, may institute proceedings before the Constitutional Court. They cannot be regarded as persons who are evident-ly unauthorised to present their case before the Constitutional Court.

Summary:
A person whose legal capacity had been restricted through verdicts rendered by district and regional courts petitioned the Constitutional Court to restore his full legal capacity.
According to Article 130.3 of the Slovak Constitution, the Constitutional Court may commence proceedings upon receipt of a petition presented by an individual claiming to have his rights violated. According to Article 25.2 of Statute no. 38/1993 on Proceedings before the Constitutional Court, the latter court may refuse a petition brought by "a person evidently unauthorised to present his case." A petitioner who, on account of his mental illness, was restricted in legal capacity by the ordinary courts in that he was deprived of his right to deal in person - in written as well as in oral form - with law courts, bodies of state administra-tion and other public authorities, claimed to have his rights violated through these court decisions.
The Constitutional Court ruled that if a person of either restricted legal capacity or no legal capacity claims to have had his/her fundamental rights violated, and their petition shows that the claimed right might, in fact, be threatened, then an individual either restricted in his/her legal capacity or with no legal capacity is "not a person evidently unauthorised to present his case at the Constitutional Court" as stated by Statute no. 38/1993. Such a person has the same right to initiate such proceedings as anyone else. However, this does not result in additional rights for persons who are restricted in their legal capacity.

Supplementary information:
In this case, the petition in question was judged to exceed the authority of the Constitutional Court, and the petition was dismissed.

Languages: Slovak.