ZAGREB, 19 Feb (Hina) - At its session held on Wednesday, the Parliament House of Counties confirmed with a majority vote a decision by the State Judicial Council on relieving the President of and judge in the Supreme Court Krunislav
Olujic of his duties. The upper house rejected a request for the protection of Olujic and his defence as unfounded.
ZAGREB, 19 Feb (Hina) - At its session held on Wednesday, the
Parliament House of Counties confirmed with a majority vote a
decision by the State Judicial Council on relieving the President
of and judge in the Supreme Court Krunislav Olujic of his duties.
The upper house rejected a request for the protection of
Olujic and his defence as unfounded. #L#
After an extensive discussion about Olujic's request, the
upper house adopted a decision confirming Olujic's dismissal from
the State Judicial Council in line with Article 9 of the Law on the
State Judicial Council. The decision was adopted with 37 votes for,
16 against and two abstentions.
Explaining the decision on behalf of the Parliament Committee
for Judiciary, Election and Appointment, Djuro Panjan said that the
stance of the Committee is that the performance of Supreme Court
President duties requires a certain ethical code and way of
behaviour.
According to irrefutable facts, established in the
disciplinary procedure before the State Judicial Council, Olujic
damaged the reputation of the Supreme Court and Croatia's judicial
authorities while performing his duties as Supreme Court President.
He also violated moral principles which are attached to the
position and duties of a judge and Supreme Court President, Panjan
said.
The proposed decision has many flaws, said Marko Lapaine on
behalf of the Croatian Social-Liberal Party (HSLS) bench, adding
that the decision does not contain answers to the basic questions
Olujic posed in his objections. Lapaine presented nine objections,
stressing the question of whether witness and judge can be one
person.
No one asks that Olujic be freed from responsibility, but we
ask that the decision be annulled and that a new one be adopted in
line with law, Lapaine said.
Lapaine's proposal was supported by other Opposition
representatives who presented legal objections and criticised the
way the disciplinary procedure had been conducted.
(hina) rm mm
191529 MET feb 97