The bailiff was exempted from the disciplinary motion of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic

On 6 March 2025, the Disciplinary Panel of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic acquitted the bailiff JUDr. Ing. Ján Gasper, PhD. in the matter of a serious disciplinary offence under § 220 (1) in conjunction with § 220 (2), first sentence of the Execution Code, which was considered on the basis of a disciplinary proposal of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic. According to the Disciplinary Chamber, it has not been proven that the acts which were the subject of the motion both constituted the facts of the disciplinary offence and that they were committed by the disciplinary defendant.

The bailiff was accused of carrying out an activity incompatible with the function of a bailiff, since, according to the plaintiff, he was listed as a statutory body of a commercial company based in the Czech Republic. The Disciplinary Panel made it clear that such an activity can be defined as a disciplinary offence only if the bailiff continues to carry out the tasks arising from the nature of the statutory body of a commercial company despite being asked to cease the activity in question. Since there was no evidence of an unsuccessful call to terminate the activity during the evidentiary hearing, the Disciplinary Panel did not have evidence that the facts of the disciplinary offense had been fulfilled.

The next act on which the disciplinary action was laid was the failure to allow or prevent an individual to enter the bailiff’s office of the disciplinary accused. The bailiff must ensure that the bailiff’s office is open to the public without prior notice every working day of the week and the registry must be open to the public every working day of the week during normal office hours. On the basis of the evidence, it was established that the individual had visited the execution office of the disciplinary defendant and, similarly, the Disciplinary Panel had no doubt that the individual had not been granted access to the premises of the execution office. Based on the documentary evidence supplied by the bailiff, it was established that the disciplinary defendant was incapacitated for a long period of time, thus proving his absence from the execution office at the time of the denial of access to the individual seeking entry to the premises of the execution office or its registry.

Thus, there was no showing that the disciplinary defendant personally prevented or participated in the failure to allow the individual to enter the enforcement office. It is therefore not possible to assess that this was done with the bailiff’s knowledge. The Bailiffs Office was open and staffed during the absence of the disciplinary defendant. If the staff of the Bailiffs Office was at fault in not allowing the entry of the individual, this cannot be regarded as a disciplinary offence by the disciplinary defendant. Thus, it has not been proved that the act in question was committed by the disciplinary accused.

An appeal against the decision of the Disciplinary Panel is admissible.

The decision of the Disciplinary Panel was adopted by a vote of 5:0.

In the disciplinary case filed under No 33 D 11/2024, Chamber No 33 of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, composed of: the President of the Chamber, JUDr. Viola Takáčová, PhD., LL.M., Judges, prof. JUDr. Peter Potásch, PhD. and Mgr. Kristína Babiaková; Lay Judges JUDr. Peter Šimko, PhD. and JUDr. Martin Píry, PhD.