Member of the Hungarian national community, Ferenc Horvath, has been illegally on the board chairman of the Minta company for a few months while still sitting in the presidential chair of the Pomurje municipality. Members of the parliamentary election committee did not want to discuss the incompatibility of their functions.
The two laws – about members and integrity – are clear: members cannot be both company directors and chairmen of councils of different communities. Because he is a member of the Hungarian community Ferenc Horvath did not remove the incompatibility of positions within the deadline, his deputy mandate expired eight months ago. And Horvath is still in parliament, receives a salary, and MPs dare not take up the mandate.
Since the member could not remove the incompatibility of his functions within three months of the start of his term of office, the chairman of the CCP Boris Štefanec remembers: "Since September 23, 2018, this member has no legitimacy to participate in the work of the National Assembly."
Levica wanted to include the discussion about the findings of the end of his mandate in the election committee for the parliamentary mandate. And without success.
During today's session, members of the parliamentary election committee did not support Levica's proposal to extend the agenda with a point where the committee would assess the reasons for the incompatibility of the functions of the deputy of the Hungarian national community Horvath. The result of the vote was six votes in favor and 10 against. In addition to Levice, they also voted for discussion in SMC, SAB and NSi.
The chairman of the mandate election committee (MVK) Ivan Hršak (DeSUS) initially did not even allow a vote on Levica's proposal on the incompatibility of the functions of Horvath, which he justified with the opinion of the parliamentary legislative and legal service (ZPS). Head of the ZPS Natasa Voršič she pointed out that the inclusion of an item on the agenda of the session would have already begun the procedure for the termination of the Horvath parliamentary mandate, for which there is no legal basis.
Voršič explained that there is no specific legislative act that could initiate the initiation of the Horvat procedure and that therefore a violation of the Constitution would have occurred. He disputes this Matej T. Vatovec (Levica), because in his opinion the debate at the IGC conference would not have led to the introduction of the procedure for the end of the parliamentary term. He also did not agree that in the Horvath case there was no legal basis for initiating the proceedings.
The opinion of the Legal Service is incorrect and it is a mistake, according to the lawyer Saša Zagorc, who wonders whether it is an attempt by delegates to put themselves above the electorate and ignore their right to vote because they do not want to blame their colleague.
Vatovec estimated that the non-classification of a point at the MVK would mean a political decision and an explosion of the problem under the carpet. In his opinion, the ZPS does not have the authority to explain the Rules of Order of the National Assembly and therefore cannot assess the (inadequate) adequacy of the extension of the agenda. They were also extradited to the SMC, SAB and NSi, but were not uniform in assessing the legal basis for initiating proceedings against Horvath.
Lidija Divjak Mirnik (LMŠ) expressed the conviction that Horvath had violated legislation on the incompatibility of the parliamentary function and should decide on the dismissal because of the ethical attitude. It is obvious that in this case the National Assembly demonstrated a legal vacuum and would therefore follow in LMŠ the advice of the ZPS that the inclusion of the item on the agenda of the meeting would entail the initiation of the procedure.
Masha Kociper (SAB) has expressed support for Levica's proposal to expand the agenda. She added that the Corruption Prevention Committee (CCP) did not do its job in this case, since it must immediately point out the incompatibility of its functions immediately after the expiry of three months from the Horvath mandate. He also spoke about the extension of the agenda Blair Pavlin (SNS).
The CCP found that the simultaneous execution of functions was incompatible
Otherwise, the MVK called a CCP a month ago to assess the facts that could form the basis for the MVK's decision in cases of determining the incompatibility of the parliamentary function. The CCP found that Horvath's simultaneous performance of the parliamentary function and representation of the Pomursko Hungarian self-governing national community was incompatible.
For incompatibility, the CCP also assessed Horvath's director post in Minta, which he left just a month ago.
After today's session, the president of the MVR Hršak said in a statement to the media that the rejection of Levica & # 39; s proposal to expand the agenda with the Horvath case was justified and in favor of the reputation of the National Assembly. In his words, the audience got the right message with such a & # 39; n decision.
Brane Golubović (LMŠ) explained that they did not have unanimous advice about Levica's proposal in their substitute group, but the opinion of the ZPS was overwhelmingly overwhelming that the inclusion of a point in the session would mean that there would be a procedure against the substitute initiated. In his words, however, he disagrees with LMŠ's opinion that "a member can be a director at the same time".
He expressed the conviction that Horvath had violated the legal provisions on the incompatibility of the parliamentary function and therefore expects the CCP to initiate the procedure. He also announced that LMŠ would propose an amendment to the law on members, since the inconsistency of Article 12 has been demonstrated in this case.
"I don't know what to do in this case," however, commented on the events during the MVK meeting Matjaž Han (SD), adding that due to unclear legislation he abstained from voting on the Levice proposal. He criticized the CCP, which in his opinion did not perform the task, "the Horvath representative made use of the legal vacuum".