STA, 17 April 2019 - Allegations of pressure made by the judge presiding over the Chemistry Institute boss murder retrial has drawn a response from his superior, who asked the judge to provide explanations, while he denied being pressured himself as alleged by the judge. Other officials joined him in supporting judicial independence.
In announcing the acquittal of Milko Novič for the December 2014 murder of Chemistry Institute director Janko Jamnik, the presiding judge Zvjezdan Radonjić said that from the start of the retrial, the court's president, Marjan Pogačnik, had been pressured to discipline him so he would judge the way he should.
Pogačnik, who heads the Ljubljana District Court, told reporters on Wednesday that no one in the country had exerted any pressure on him personally. He did ask Radonjić to provide explanations for his comments by the end of work day on Thursday.
Only then would he be able to assess whether the judge had been subject to unlawful interference in his independence, Pogačnik said, adding that he had been asked by Supreme Court President Damijan Florjančič to look into the judge's allegations and report back to him.
All our stories on the Institute of Chemistry can be found here
This was confirmed by the Supreme Court, which said that if the judge's allegations turned out to be accurate, this would require an appropriate reaction because pressure on judges was unacceptable.
Radonjić alleged as he delivered the verdict on Tuesday that one of those who suggested his disciplining was Harij Furlan, the head of the Specialised Prosecution Service. He also said that he was subject to a smear campaign in the media.
The judge said that, because he wanted to grant a fair trial to Novič, he would never get promoted and would likely face suspension: "Novič having a fair trial hinges on my decision to ruin my career," he said.
Commenting on that, Pogačnik underscored that providing a fair trial was a major postulate for any judge and acting in this way could not result in any measures. "The fear that any judge could be subject to any sanction whatsoever because of his decision in a concrete case is completely unnecessary."
Pogačnik said that to his knowledge, Radonjić was not subject to any disciplinary or criminal procedure in connection to the Novič case. As far as he knew, Radonjić had not yet turned to the Judicial Council over the alleged pressure.
He did not know whether a criminal complaint had been filed against the judge by Miha Kunič, the lawyer of Janko Jamnik's widow. "If the information is accurate, this circumstance, even if the complaint had been filed before the judgement's announcement doesn't affect the course of the procedure in any way."
Pogačnik did say that the prosecutor in charge of the case asked for Radonjić's exclusion, which he turned down because he did not think the judge's impartiality had been compromised.
He also admitted that Furlan as the head of the Specialised Prosecution Service did write to him about "certain inappropriate actions on the part of the judge" in which he detected disciplinary violations and elements of breach of judge's ethics code.
He will decide about what to do with Furlan's letter once the Novič case is concluded, as he will about Radonjić's proposal to complain against lawyer Kunič with the Bar Association. However, Pogačnik has asked the Judicial Council's ethics commission to take a position on Furlan's allegations against the judge.
The Specialised Prosecution denied Radonjić's allegations in the strongest terms, while stating that Furlan proposed Pogačnik take action against Radonjić over his inappropriate and untruthful comments about the prosecutor in the case, Blanka Žgajnar, and Furlan.
Justice Minister Andreja Katič would not comment on the concrete case, but she said that the judiciary's impartiality and independence were essential for the rule of law, so she condemned in the strongest terms any pressure on the judges' work and decisions.
"Minister Katič is of the opinion that [commenting on the judge's statement] could lead to a risky practice - political influence on concrete decisions of independent bodies, so she will, despite requests and expectations from the public, refrain from commenting on concrete cases," the ministry said.
The ministry added in a press release that it had not been acquainted with concrete circumstances of the alleged pressure, so it could only provide a general view. It pointed to options available to a judge when his or her independence may be threatened, including appealing to the Judicial Council.
"All stakeholders in court procedures need to be aware that they may be exposed to critical opinion from the public and the judge must always act in such a away as to protect impartiality and independence of judging, and apply appropriate mechanisms in defence of these values and principles," said the ministry.
The Judges' Association has not been acquainted with the pressure alleged by Radonjić, but it did term any pressure on judges unacceptable as a matter of principle, emphasizing that judges had a commitment to act by the constitution and laws alone, and never based on expectations from the public, politicians or business.
The allegations of pressure also triggered a political response, with Janez Janša, the leader of the opposition Democrats (SDS), urging the police to look into the matter, suggesting President Borut Pahor should take a stance as well. He indicated the SDS would seek an emergency parliamentary session.
While Janša responded via his Twitter account, his party's MEP Milan Zver spoke about the Novič case in the European Parliament in Strasbourg today, calling the trial yet another judicial farce after the Patria defence corruption case.
