Were you surprised that the committee only recommended Jan Wintr?
It was surprising. I considered that the first three are composed of very competent and widely known candidates who are not associated with any scandals and doubts. I didn’t feel like they should clash.
Committee chairman Tomáš Goláň (ODS) blames the trio for not being diverse. He does not like that both Baxa and Zemanová come from the administrative judiciary, as this represents only four percent of court agendas.
In my opinion, the diversity of the Constitutional Court should be assessed as a whole, or the thirteen people that the president will gradually propose. It is not realistic to want the trinity to include all the possible elements that a fifteen-judge court is supposed to include.
The Supreme Administrative Court is a typical court of public law, from which members should transfer to the Constitutional Court. It is logical that there cannot be too many of them, because on the one hand you would empty the NSS, on the other hand you would let them dominate the Constitutional Court.
In addition, Mrs. Zemanová has been judging in the general judiciary for almost five years. It is not correct to lead her as an administrative judge.
If we return to the thesis about diversity, Mr. Baxa is in his sixties, Mrs. Zemanova is fifty, Mr. Wintra is forty, there are two men and one woman. Judge of the administrative court, general court and academician. One deals with civil law, the second with administrative law and the third with constitutional law. The trio seems diverse enough to me.
And it says nothing about what the next ten will look like. The criteria that have been discussed repeatedly will be taken into account. They are related to professions, expertise, representation of men and women and so on. To say with the first three that it is already clear that it is not the same seems to me rather premature.
It’s a message to Pavlo, he says about the rejection of the nomination of Zemanová and Baxa, a political scientist
Homemade
Do you think the real motives of the senators were different?
I do not know. There could be a number of things behind this. The committee began by meeting with Professor Winter. An academic deeply immersed in constitutional law has written a textbook and continuously comments on the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. Compared to his great performance, the others may not have looked so great.
But if the central requirement is that the court be diverse, then you can’t want “only Wintry,” in the sense of legal theory professors, because you have to want those judges and lawyers too. And you can’t expect them to delve into the hundreds of ÚS findings to the same degree as Wintr. If you were to evaluate the ability to work with the file, then again Professor Wintr would fail, because his ability with the file will be low compared to the judges.
Another candidate for constitutional judge is Professor Jan Wintr
Homemade
Do you think the committee’s opinion will play a big role in the decision-making process of the full Senate?
The President of the Republic will also speak in the Senate. I’d be surprised if the committee’s result was replicated, but it’s obviously a significant thing. I don’t know how to grasp it. As a reproach? An appeal? For it to be a reproach, we would have to guess what was wrong. And if an appeal, then for what? It is difficult for both the candidates and the president to interpret this.
How do you rate the senators’ questions to the candidates?
I don’t remember such level of detailed and numerous questions. In the past, it was common for senators not to doubt their expertise and just ask questions or make sure. The hearing of Mr. Professor Wintro lasted almost an hour, there were many questions and they were very professional. The professor is, among other things, a member of the Legislative Council of the Government and thanks to that he knows a lot of things. But if you put a judge of the general court or a lawyer in his place, who, because of his experience, you consider to be a reinforcement of the Ús, I am not sure that he will have a strong opinion on such type of questions.
| Pavel was surprised by the senators | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The fact that the constitutional and legal committee of the Senate did not recommend Josef Baxa and Daniela Zemanová as constitutional judges surprised President Petr Pavel. He will wait for the Senate vote on May 31. “It is too early to talk about success or failure. So far, a hearing has taken place in one committee, others will follow. The plenum will be decisive. I have no doubt that the Senate shares a common interest with me in filling the ÚS with quality experts who will ensure the speedy and impartial functioning of the highest institution in our country,” Pavel told journalists yesterday. “I was a little surprised that two of the candidates, who I consider to be of very high quality and who have not yet been challenged by anyone, received so little support in the committee. I will wait for further results,” he added. |
As head of the President’s panel of experts, will you change the selection of nominees?
We will see on Wednesday, when the plenum will vote, what will happen and with what verbal accompaniment.
When will the Castle propose another name? The mandate of the next judge ends at the end of June.
According to my information, it should be that Mr. President will meet with other candidates and, based on that, he will announce the name to the Senate in the coming days. By the time the Senate should vote next week, it should already be clear who is on the waiting list, so that by the time Professor Sládeček’s seat is vacated, the name or names will already be officially in the Senate.
Senator Goláň: We are under pressure, but I don’t want a monochromatic ÚS
Homemade
