Introduction
Introduction
The Slovak Republic became an independent State on January 1, 1993. Before, it formed a part of the Czecho-Slovak Republic, and before that, it was included in the Hungarian part of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Up to 1948, the history of the prosecution service in the territory of the current Slovak Republic has been basically identical to the history of the prosecution service in the territory of the current Republic of Hungary.
The Prosecuting Attorney’s Office of the Czecho-Slovak Republic was established on the principle of monocracy. Apart from its main role in the penal process, it was vested with certain powers in civil and administrative proceedings as well. As for penal proceedings, the prosecuting attorney was given the power to file an appeal even in favour of the accused, and the Attorney General was empowered to file a complaint against a final judgment of a penal court in cases where that decision breached a law. The prosecuting attorney was not only one of the equal parties in judicial proceedings, but was also considered guardian of a law.
The structure of the prosecuting attorney’s service was similar to that of the courts. The principles of different attorney’s offices were named prosecutors. The Attorney General at the Supreme Court was subordinated to the Minister of Justice as well as to the chief prosecutor, who was superior over all regional prosecutors as well as over all other parts of the prosecuting attorney’s office.
The 1953 Public Prosecution Service Act changed this situation and an independent prosecution service, not subordinated to the Minister of Justice, was established. This Act, though modified and amended, applied in the ter-ritory of the current Slovak Republic until 1996.
In that year, the Public Prosecution Service Act no. 314/1996 Coll. was the first Act of the independent Slovak Republic regulating the status and tasks of the prosecution service. It has brought several important changes to the position of the prosecution service in the system as a whole, and to the internal organisation of the prosecution itself. First of all, it does not define the prosecution as a body responsible for supervision over the observance of the law any more, but as a body protecting the rights and interests guaranteed by law to individuals, legal entities and the State. Another important change was the listing of the protection of the rights of the State after the protection of the rights of individuals. It was the first time that such an Act in certain cases provided prosecutors with the possibility, even with the obligation, to refuse to follow an instruction issued by a superior prosecutor. These instructions were only allowed to be issued in writing. The Act introduced the term of Office of the General Prosecutor and has importantly improved the latter’s independence from political influences. It has enhanced the independence of other prosecutors as well, by prohibiting their dismissal and transfer, save in some specific, enumerated cases (for example, proved loss of health capacity, or becoming a member of a political party and so forth). The legal regulation of the disciplinary proceedings against prosecutors defined in a separate Act no. 274/1996 Coll., on disciplinary responsibility of prosecutors, has improved the independence and legal certainty of prosecutors as well. Until that time, disciplinary proceedings were regulated by Prosecutor’s General order only.
Currently, status and tasks of the prosecution service are defined in the Public Prosecution Service Act no. 153/2001 Coll., as well as in the Prosecutors and Trainee Prosecutors Act no. 154/2001 Coll.
By December 31, 2004 there were 673 prosecutors and 58 trainee prosecutors. Of these, there were 79 prosecutors in the Prosecutor General’s Office, 158 prosecutors in the Regional Prosecution Offices, and 436 prosecutors in the District Prosecution Offices.
The Slovak Republic became an independent State on January 1, 1993. Before, it formed a part of the Czecho-Slovak Republic, and before that, it was included in the Hungarian part of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Up to 1948, the history of the prosecution service in the territory of the current Slovak Republic has been basically identical to the history of the prosecution service in the territory of the current Republic of Hungary.
The Prosecuting Attorney’s Office of the Czecho-Slovak Republic was established on the principle of monocracy. Apart from its main role in the penal process, it was vested with certain powers in civil and administrative proceedings as well. As for penal proceedings, the prosecuting attorney was given the power to file an appeal even in favour of the accused, and the Attorney General was empowered to file a complaint against a final judgment of a penal court in cases where that decision breached a law. The prosecuting attorney was not only one of the equal parties in judicial proceedings, but was also considered guardian of a law.
The structure of the prosecuting attorney’s service was similar to that of the courts. The principles of different attorney’s offices were named prosecutors. The Attorney General at the Supreme Court was subordinated to the Minister of Justice as well as to the chief prosecutor, who was superior over all regional prosecutors as well as over all other parts of the prosecuting attorney’s office.
The 1953 Public Prosecution Service Act changed this situation and an independent prosecution service, not subordinated to the Minister of Justice, was established. This Act, though modified and amended, applied in the ter-ritory of the current Slovak Republic until 1996.
In that year, the Public Prosecution Service Act no. 314/1996 Coll. was the first Act of the independent Slovak Republic regulating the status and tasks of the prosecution service. It has brought several important changes to the position of the prosecution service in the system as a whole, and to the internal organisation of the prosecution itself. First of all, it does not define the prosecution as a body responsible for supervision over the observance of the law any more, but as a body protecting the rights and interests guaranteed by law to individuals, legal entities and the State. Another important change was the listing of the protection of the rights of the State after the protection of the rights of individuals. It was the first time that such an Act in certain cases provided prosecutors with the possibility, even with the obligation, to refuse to follow an instruction issued by a superior prosecutor. These instructions were only allowed to be issued in writing. The Act introduced the term of Office of the General Prosecutor and has importantly improved the latter’s independence from political influences. It has enhanced the independence of other prosecutors as well, by prohibiting their dismissal and transfer, save in some specific, enumerated cases (for example, proved loss of health capacity, or becoming a member of a political party and so forth). The legal regulation of the disciplinary proceedings against prosecutors defined in a separate Act no. 274/1996 Coll., on disciplinary responsibility of prosecutors, has improved the independence and legal certainty of prosecutors as well. Until that time, disciplinary proceedings were regulated by Prosecutor’s General order only.
Currently, status and tasks of the prosecution service are defined in the Public Prosecution Service Act no. 153/2001 Coll., as well as in the Prosecutors and Trainee Prosecutors Act no. 154/2001 Coll.
By December 31, 2004 there were 673 prosecutors and 58 trainee prosecutors. Of these, there were 79 prosecutors in the Prosecutor General’s Office, 158 prosecutors in the Regional Prosecution Offices, and 436 prosecutors in the District Prosecution Offices.
