My name is Péter Szepesházi, I am a judge at the Central District Court of Budapest. I have been a judge since July 2003.
I have watched the Budapest Beacon's interview series with great interest and can say I agree with the vast majority of what my colleagues have said.
There are minor differences in where to put the emphasis, but none of these are to the benefit of those responsible for administering the court system.
I am not speaking here as an official representative of court's opinion, I am speaking here as Péter Szepesházi.
There isn't a single law or regulation that would require me to seek permission, or obtain approval, to do this interview.
Now, there is a tinkering around with this issue on behalf of the court administrators.
Allow me to just quickly point out that I'm not referring to my local or regional court leadership — I have not personally experienced such anomalies from them.
But there have been such issues from higher authorities.
But why should a press person's rules apply to a judge who is not speaking in the name of the judiciary?
Often times, simply out of self-censorship, even in professional legal issues – that is, not even [political issues],
Judges who want to express an opinion inform their superiors, sometimes even ask for permission
Even when there is no law requiring them to do so, and that shows the fear that dominates the judiciary.
Have your superiors ever prevented you from addressing the press?
Yes
I was once invited to the Magyarul Balóval show. The National Office of the Judiciary found out that I would be interviewed.
My regional court president – and I assume he did this in my best interest because he wanted to protect me, but I'm sure he did so under pressure – restricted me from taking part in the show.
I had to accept this because had I not, only the labor court could have ruled that order to be unlawful had I taken it to court, and by that point the interview would have passed.
And I have indisputable evidence which proves that my employer was contacted by the National Office of the Judiciary.
Has the National Office of the Judiciary president Tünde Handó's integrity code ever been used to punish judges?
[Handó's] integrity code – which was found later to be unconstitutional – was rarely used in specific cases. It was useful enough as a threat.
At the same time, there were instances, and the Budapest Beacon wrote about these too, when the integrity code was used in the most absurd cases as a tool to apply pressure on judges.
In one such case, a judge's relative brought the judge lunch to her office for years, and this bothered no one at the court office.
At one point, the relative was left alone in the judge's office for a couple minutes, and all of a sudden the court's leadership took issue with this.
When the judge started defending herself in a procedure determine whether she was fit for duty, this suddenly started to bother her superiors.
We should point out that the issue was resolved on the level of the regional court president, but that experience left a scar [on this judge].
In its substance, the integrity code – even if the Constitutional Court would not have found it unconstitutional – was a perfectly useful tool for muting critical voices in the judiciary.
In fact, I can show some documents that prove this.
I was shocked to learn that on October 9th, 2017,
A secret meeting was held – to which I was not invited – by judiciary leaders, an appellate court president, an appellate court deputy president, and so on,
In which the group adopted a resolution which established that I probably violated ethical and morally disciplinary rules.
In other words, judicial leadership held an unlawful proceeding to [generate paperwork] for the purpose of proving – which I do not agree with – my ethical and disciplinary culpability.
This is especially interesting in light of the Zalaegerszeg Regional Court's response to former judge Gábor Székely's allegation that this, the [unscrupulous generating of paperwork] happens.
To conduct a secret meeting in a rule of law country, in a case like this, where there is no law allowing the Judicial Integrity Workgroup to do so,
For the purpose of passing judgement on me — I think it is shocking that this could happen.
I am fortunate that an unknown good samaritan, someone who was obviously upset by the move,
Forwarded me a copy of the paperwork of this unlawful ruling against me made by an unlawful separate court.
How does the judiciary try to silence or obstruct individual judges from making critical statement of the judiciary?
They really do not like critical voices. They do not like the critical outside voices and they really do not like the critical voices from inside the judiciary.
There are many signs of this, just as this document shows.
I read the appalling Zalaegerszeg Regional Court's response to former judge Gábor Székely's statements.
I should add here that I am prohibited from commenting on ongoing lawsuits.
That said, it is completely absurd for the Zalaegerszeg Regional Court to state that the reason why so few judges speak up is 'because the court is just fine.'
How would the Zalaegerszeg Regional Court explain that public trust in the courts, which was already unacceptably low during the Lomnici-Baka era, is now, according to certain polls, at around 40 percent?
This is for a court which, in a rule of law state ought to be the last bastion, and is unacceptably low in comparison to the police, the public prosecutor, and state agencies.
The most optimistic research puts the public's trust in the judiciary at around 60 percent —
And that number was the lowest it was under the accursed Lomnici-Baka era!
That the judiciary wants to curtail the freedom of speech of judges – not promote it – is best shown by the case of former judge László Ravasz,
Who the Constitutional Court reinstated after his own colleagues fired him because he wrote an article back then in the Magyar Hírlap.
What purpose does the judge's fit-for-duty review serve?
Those judges whose decisions, statements or criticisms are not viewed favorably by their superiors – including their superiors' superiors – can have very difficult judicial reviews,
This is proceeding which decides whether a judge is unfit for the position.
In these reviews, the superiors review the judges cases and this can result in judges losing their jobs if they are found to be unfit for the position.
The rules that regulate these proceedings are very ambiguous, to put it lightly,
And it does happen that those few rules meant to protect judges that are clear are violated during the proceeding.
We know of instances in which the cases selected during the review were not chosen in accordance with the rules.
Without there being any evidence to prove this, one fears that these cases are chosen specifically by the superiors because they've been keeping tabs.
We can only hope that this is not the case because we are no longer in a post-Soviet country where this would be commonplace.
But why not avoid even the perception that this could happen if judges are evaluated objectively?
Do you think there is any validity to the statements made to us concerning the material vulnerability of judges by a judge who asked to remain anonymous?
Based on my own situation, I can say that yes, judges ought to be afraid if they express criticism of the public administration or Tünde Handó.
For instance, this is what happened to me when I spoke up.
My statements were used against me by Tünde Handó to determine whether I am fit for duty.
Applying pressure in this manner is systemic, and I am not the only judge affected by this.
Therefore, I think that the judge certain had reason to believe he or she is probably better off speaking up with their appearance altered and their voice changed.
I saw that video that [the National Office of the Judiciary] made in response to that interview.
If someone in the National Office of the Judiciary thought that that response – with so much manipulation and factual errors – was funny, then we have very serious problems.
And we are well aware that there are serious problems.
What do you think about the political attacks on judges?
Those disgusting statements accusing judges of being Soros' mercenaries dressed in judges robes, and of being communist,
Ought to be rejected by the judiciary's leadership,
And not individual judges who are afraid and whose job doesn't necessarily entail rejecting such statements.
It should be the job of the leadership to reject such statements.
They could further protect the freedom of speech of judges if they listened and considered the critical voices coming from inside the judiciary.
Why is the public's trust in the judiciary so low?
Citizens who do not necessarily understand the intricacies of the constitution feel as though they are not receiving fast, effective and real justice.
Obviously, many judges do deliver this service, but this system does not promote good judicial practices, but that's what it ought to be doing.
It should help turn poor judges into average judges, mediocre judges into good judges, and good judges into great judges.
The people did not get fast and effective justice before 2011 either, when there was a multi-centered autocratic system.
Back then, the coalition of most influential county judges ruled the judiciary and always gave an undue advantage to the local elite in lawsuits.
This change, but the characteristics remained: Tünde Handó turned these negative anomalies to her advantage.
Now, this autocratic system has fewer centers of power. There is only a single center of power. Citizens feel something isn't right.
Perhaps they can't explain in detail what they feel, but they are either not getting true justice or it takes a long time for it to finally come.
If this trend continues, what little trust in the judiciary remains will evaporate,
And this means that judges can even be targeted by completely baseless accusations in instances
Where they render good decisions in complex cases that are difficult for society to understand.
Citizens will not trust them because they have had so many bad experiences.
This also means that the scandals involving leaders of the judiciary will unfortunately play out in the courtroom and will be pinned on lower-level judges.
It is especially painful to see that in cases that the media calls political – cases that affecting public life or political battles – there is a mix of good and brave and less brave rulings.
We should not be satisfied with this because there are types of cases where the judicial practice is committing massive serious problems and the Curia is not giving acceptable guidelines.
These cases are eroding the public's trust in the good faith of the courts.
Are judges affected by public sentiments?
A brave and independent judge can separate himself from public sentiment, even media generated public sentiment, and render good decisions.
Today, however, it appears as though this does not work in all types of cases, whether or not this is the case is something different, this is what it looks like.
And the leadership of the judiciary is responsible for this appearance.
As long as the pay of judges remains at this level, this bad situation and poor appearance will remain and we cannot talk about the material independence of judges.
And this extends to the pay of those employees who assist judges. This situation, with the cane-like disciplinary proceedings, will continue.
What do you think about the increased media attention on the judiciary?
It is very significant and fills a void.
More and more Hungarian media outlets – not just the Budapest Beacon – are dealing with the crisis in the judiciary.
It fills a void because we do not have any internal, democratic means for discourse within the judiciary.
It is important because the judiciary is too important for only the judges to want to resolve this crisis.
For more infomation >> Kim says visit to China is his 'solemn duty' – N. Korea news agency - Duration: 1:30. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét