Appointment of Slovenian commissioner rife with legal problems

Opinion by Peter Ekcij

I have been following EU Reporter's articles regarding the process of appointing the Slovenian commissioner.  Having had a bad experience the first time with former prime minister Alenka Bratušek, I really wouldn’t want that this situation happens again with the next candidate, Violeta Bulc (pictured), but unfortunately, as has been seen, we (Slovenia) appear not to have learned anything so far.

Why do I say that?

As you’ve been following how the Slovenian government conducted a selection procedure (correspondence session) and how the voting turned out, I already guessed that the start is pretty much the same as in Bratušek’s case. Both coalition parties are opposed, the opposition is completely opposed. In addition, the prime minister has nominated a person with basically no political experience for one of the most important positions in the EU. This is already known.

But where is the problem?

The main problem is the legality of the process and I would not want that Slovenian courts decided upon that after the appointment of Slovenian commissioner. At the press conference held after the government’s correspondence session, Prime Minister Miro Cerar assured that ALL members of government have voted on this matter (expect Bulc who has excluded herself from voting process due to conflict of interest).  This would mean that 16 ministers have submitted their vote. But ,as it turned out, this was not the case.

-          Seven ministers of coalition parties have voted AGAINST Cerar’s proposition;
-         six ministers voted IN FAVOUR of Cerar’s proposition, and;
-          three ministers (finance, interior affairs and justice) DID NOT VOTE.

At that time, they were abroad – the minister of finance was in Washington D.C., minister of interior affairs and minister of justice were in Luxembourg.  All three ministers formally did NOT CAST their vote through the voting system intended for Government’s correspondence sessions.

The bottom line of this voting is that seven ministers voted against and six voted in favour, which means the majority has not been provided.

But the prime minister said that nine minister voted in favour? What happened?

According to rules of procedure of the government, all votes that have not been casted, are considered as voted in favor. But the problem is in the government of the Republic of Slovenia Act, which is a superior act. Article 16 clearly states and I quote:

You can find documents at the government’s website here. 

Rajko Pirnat, one of the leading legal experts in Slovenia and a professor at the Faculty of Law agrees that votes not submitted cannot be considered as votes in favour, according to the law. For confirmation, you may contact him directly at [email protected].

Conclusion

Not only did Miro Cerar mislead (or lied) Slovenian public stating that 9 ministers voted in favor, but his decision to propose Bulc to Juncker was also against the government of the Republic of Slovenia Act.  The Government’s system clearly showed that three ministers did not cast their vote which means that majority have actually voted against Cerar’s proposal to nominate Bulc as commissioner. All these facts and statements are completely verifiable contacting Slovenian government, Slovenia legal experts or Slovenian journalists who cover the topic closely.

Nobody wants any problems, especially not legal problems, at the very beginning of Commission’s work. But due to these irregularities and conflicts with Slovenian legislation in the process of nominating Bulc, this is just what might happen when the Administrative Court and Superior Court will have to decide upon the matter. This could completely block the Commission’s dossier, as to whom will be appointed as Slovenian commissioner. I am not sure if Juncker or other commissioners are even aware of this. I feel that this is such an important issues which can influence their further work.

Share this article: