ECHR: Harabin Wins EUR 3,000 in Case Against Slovakia

Lawsuit expert and head of the Supreme Court Stefan Harabin has lost out in his latest claim, this time against the Slovak Republic itself, from which he was claiming over EUR 151,000 in damages.

European Court of Human Rights (c) Alfredovic

The European Court of Human Rights to which Harabin turned with his claim, judged that Slovakia had in fact infringed on his rights, but that it only had to pay EUR 3,000 in damages plus around EUR 500 in legal costs instead of the EUR 100,00 claimed by Harabin in non-pecuniary damages and over 51,000 in pecuniary damages over the disciplinary proceedings brought against him by former justice minister Lucia Zitnanska (SDKU) due to his refusal to allow an audit at the Constitutional Court.

Harabin, chairman of the Supreme Court and of the Judicial Council, recently pushed through a lawsuit against the Attorney General’s office worth EUR 187,000 (being appealed). He also has a long string of successful lawsuits behind him against various media, including EUR 100,000 for a caricature from daily Pravda, and he is currently demanding EUR 400,000 from RTVS  over a programme making allegations against him.

The latest ruling might not please Harabin in terms of amount, but every penny counts, and is better off in his pocket than in the state coffers.


  1. A veritable cuckoo in the nest …

  2. The European Court for Human rights has degenerated into an instrument that every crank has access to. It does not fulfill it’s original purpose anymore and should be scrapped. A more appropriate, for the times, institution set up with competences agreed by the participating states.

  3. Only in Slovakia can a state employee seek damages from his employer for being disciplined for not complying with the employers wishes. His failure to allow govt. auditors check the finances of his department would have meant instant dismissal in most countries. Then again, he seems to make a decent living bringing court action against all and sundry whenever he feels inclined. The ECHR appears to have used a bit a sense but they should have awarded less, like one cent. I presume he pursues his private legal matters in his own time or has he being getting paid by the state for his personal gains?
    It’s quite clear to any observer that this person’s continued employment is questionable to say the least.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.