Protecting human rights and pursuing them worldwide is one of the aims of nearly every democratic government. In the case of the Slovak Government however, this effort is conditioned by the question whether the violation of such a rights has occurred in Slovakia or somewhere abroad and if it is just Slovak Government who has to face such a violation.
Sometimes happens that we find ourselves in front of a court. Sometimes we are in the position of a suitor, as a defendant at another time. Once we are saying whole truth, once something we would like to believe to. The main task of a court is to open up the truth and take the decision, while moral and ethical questions rising out of presented standpoints and attitudes are up to each participant of such a suit.
At some conditions when all available domestic remedies have been exhausted with no avail, the law-suit can be submitted to European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. In such a case the accused government is somehow naturally expected to participate in solving the problem honestly and truly. Especially due to the fact that in previous stages on domestic levels the government usually does not have the power to interfere the case as the judicial independency of the court has to be respected. Therefore the attitude of the government to the case submitted to ECHR can be considered to be a basic mirror reflecting government’s real will to accord basic rights to its citizen – the same rights which are pursued by the government in foreign countries. Thus the government is expected to confirm to the Court such prospectively found out and proven violation of human rights and basic freedoms. In the case of the Slovak Government such expectations are just a reflection of improper and naive optimism.
In 1996 the unnominated bank brought several actions against the Slovak company KAVEKO International s.r.o. claiming that it was in default of payment of bank credit. The proceedings have still not been resolved. In 1998 the bank petitioned for insolvency order against the company. Notwithstanding the fact that the above proceedings have still not been resolved and the order was not dated (the strict requirements of Slovak Insolvency Code), the Košice Regional Court made the order. In 1999 the Slovak Supreme Court upheld the order despite having found that there had been errors of form on the part of Regional Court as well as, that the order had suffered of lack of reasoning.
The company, in the conviction that the insolvency proceeding had been just an act of domestic courts´ arbitrary behavior, petitioned the Slovak Ministry of Justice, asking to audit the legality of the insolvency order. The Ministry confirmed in written form its positive findings proving that the insolvency order had been unlawful act of the independent court.
In 2006, based on the KAVEKO International’s application, the ECHR invited the Government of the Slovak Republic to submit written observations on merits and admissibility of the case. The Government’s written standpoint to the Court had been almost unbelievable, stating, that in any event, the insolvency order was lawful, duly reasoned and well justified.
If the Government did not lie to the Court in its written observations to the application, then the Slovak Ministry of Justice seems to be unqualified. If, however, the positive findings of the Ministry, coming from the Košice Regional Court’s audit, are correct then the Slovak Government consciously lied to ECHR to block out the Slovak courts´ mistaken decisions. In such a case the upshot of such the Government’s behavior is just one – the Slovak Government has consciously victimized basic rights, human rights as well as basic freedoms of the company established and undertaking in the territory of Slovakia.
The Slovak Government did not find a courage and moral respectability enough to accept its liability for the authorities´ mistakes and to admit to the company of the same rights which the Government is trying to pursue worldwide vehemently. The Slovak Government has decreased from its moral standpoint to the level of local profiteer, thus loosing its face and loosing its moral right to criticize the human rights violations in other countries. Providing, the human rights abroad are not of higher importance than the ones in Slovakia, of course.
And the opening question? Let anybody tries to find the answer himself.