Slovakia, successfully lobbied to eliminate municipal bodies and local administrations from coming under the purview of the act. Information, such as property declarations, was rarely verified and was not made public. The oversight body, the Committee of the Parliament of the Slovak Republic (CPSR), had no mandate to refer any matter to other state bodies such as the tax authority. The inadequacies of the old law were highlighted by several high profile cases involving well-known public officials. Most notably, in 2003–04, the former Slovak premier, Vladimír Meciar, become the focus of media scrutiny and intense public speculation about the amount of property he owned, and the means with which he acquired it. Despite the public furore, Meciar refused to disclose his assets within the deadline set, bringing to widespread public attention the lack of force behind conflicts of interest legislation in Slovakia.1 A steady stream of such scandals provided a great impetus for change, and a number of civil society coalitions have developed to campaign on the issue. After several failed attempts by the government to pass stronger conflicts of interest legislation, TI Slovakia initiated the formation of the Alliance – Stop Conflict of Interest, an informal association of more than 240 NGOs who worked with Minister of Justice Daniel Lipsic to present a draft bill to parliament. Amendments to the draft bill by parliamentary committees led Lipsic to withdraw the bill in early 2004, but the initiative had generated the impetus for legal reform. Unsurprisingly, the bill eventually adopted by the Slovakia parliament in May 2004 was much weaker than that presented by Lipsic and replicated many of the failings of the existing legislation both in terms of scope and implementation. In terms of scope, the law does not apply to state representatives of the national property fund, nor does it apply to state representatives in commercial companies in which the state has a property stake lower than 100 per cent. Some sections of municipal councils are also excluded.
In terms of implementation, the decisionmaking processes are complex and heavily weighted against making a decision to impose sanctions. The threshold level for deciding to pursue a corrupt official is very high. To initiate proceedings, at least three-fifths of the respective parliamentary committee members are required to agree that the case before them constitutes a conflict of interest; a minimum of 90 members of parliament are required to decide on sanctions. On past experience, such rigorous demands render the act without effective sanction. The law has other shortcomings too. The public disclosure of the source of loans for public officials is not required, nor does the law require the public disclosure of property declarations submitted by family members of parliamentarians. The law has weak postemployment restrictions, focusing only on post-public sector employment which provides earnings that are more than 10 times the minimum wage. While the act clearly introduces some positive elements, for example, the need for members of parliament to make property declarations for family members (though not publicly) and the inclusion of more public authorities and officers under its remit (deputies of some municipal councils are still not included), its weaknesses cast some doubt on its ability to deal with the problems of conflicts of interest in Slovakia. That said, some remain optimistic and the law, and the will to implement it, is yet to be fully tested.
Detecting and prosecuting corruption The law on establishment of a special court and the office of a special prosecutor became effective in May 2004. It aims to create a centralised unit of legal experts focusing on organised crime and corruption. The central office is to be run under a special regime to isolate it from relations which often facilitate corruption.
Country reports SLOVAKIA
GC2005 02 chap06 207
207
13/1/05 4:34:27 pm