Petková: Disciplinary proposal for Lipšica can only be the culmination of tension – SME.sk

BRATISLAVA. Disciplinary motion to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a special prosecutor Daniel Lipšicfiled by the Attorney General Maroš Žilinka, can only be the culmination of tensions between the General Prosecutor ‘s Office (GP) of the Slovak Republic and the Office of the Special Prosecutor’ s Office (ÚŠP), said Zuzana Petková, director of the Stop Corruption Foundation.

“I don’t know the content of Žilinka’s proposal, but from what I read in the media I don’t think it’s right. I don’t want to speculate about the motivation why Maroš Žilinka submitted it, but I have been perceiving a certain tension between GP and ÚŠP for several weeks. his culmination, “she stressed, adding that if Lipsic was telling the truth, it was inappropriate to prosecute him for violating the principle of restraint.

“Although he commented on the case, which is supervised by the regional prosecutor’s office, the influence of witnesses is closely related to corruption cases under the supervision of the ÚŠP,” Petková says. He argues that prosecutors should not remain silent if false information is divulged to the public.

Related article Loose wheels on a car or camera in the office. The dispute between the police is escalating Read

“On the contrary, I would expect several ‘guardians of justice’ to respond and stand up for investigators and colleagues dealing with corruption cases and under enormous pressure, especially from politicians,” she said, expecting more support in this regard. parties GP SR.

“Instead, a disciplinary proposal came for the only chief prosecutor to publicly support them. It could also be seen as intimidating others, let them be quiet,” Petková emphasized.

The Prosecutor General’s Office had previously informed that Lipšic should have committed a disciplinary offense by arguing on 28 July, without knowledge of the file, publicly speculative and misleadingly arguing the investigators’ specialized team of the Office of the Inspection Service in a legally unfinished criminal case that did not fall within the Office’s jurisdiction.

This is after the supervisory prosecutor of the Bratislava Regional Prosecutor’s Office, as well as the judge for the preparatory proceedings of the Bratislava III District Court, who took the accused Cs. D. in custody, stated the merits and legality of the allegations.