A judge who fails to credibly prove the lawful origin of his assets will lose his position

The Appellate Disciplinary Panel of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic dismissed the appeal of Judge JUDr. Milan Chalupka of the Regional Court in Bratislava against the decision of the first-instance disciplinary panel to remove him from judicial office. This was done by decision Case No. 41Do/1/2025 dated July 8th, 2025.

By decision Case No. 32D/3/2024 dated October 2nd, 2024, the first-instance disciplinary panel found the judge guilty of committing a serious disciplinary offense. As a judge, he deliberately provided incomplete information about his financial situation in the judicial asset declaration for the year 2020, failing to disclose deposits in bank accounts, even though he was either the owner or the founder of those accounts for his minor children. The deposits individually exceeded €6,600, with a total value of €16,600. He was also found guilty of additional misconduct and was imposed a cumulative disciplinary sanction in the form of removal from judicial office. (Press release here: The judge breached the obligation to be able to prove the bravery of the origin of his property in a credible manner)

The appellate panel upheld the first-instance decision.

According to the opinion of the appellate disciplinary panel, the defense of the disciplinary defendant—that he had made only formal errors when completing the asset declaration—was misleading. The defendant was a judge with many years of experience, having worked in the judiciary for 30 years, and had been completing asset declarations since 2001. Given his education, the content, format, and method of completing such declarations must have been clear to him. It is therefore highly unlikely that the judge was incapable of properly completing the asset declaration.

The disciplinary defendant also failed to take advantage of several opportunities to refute or sufficiently clarify the identified misunderstandings. His statements were inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading. According to the disciplinary panel, he had many chances to dispel doubts and convince the relevant authorities of the lawful acquisition of his assets, but he did not do so.

The appellate panel emphasized: ‘A judge reaches the moral standard when they are of integrity, honesty, fairness, humanity, and justice. To have integrity means to do things correctly, reliably, morally, and without failing in responsibility. … It is generally understood that, by the nature of the judicial office, judges must not lie in communication with public authorities. This is also related to the requirement for their credibility and honesty.’

The appellate panel did not consider Judge Chalupka’s other objections to be justified and found the first-instance panel’s decision to be well-reasoned and factually correct.

No legal remedy is admissible against this decision.

The decision of the disciplinary panel was adopted unanimously, with a vote of 5:0.

In the disciplinary case of the Chair of the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic v. JUDr. Milan Chalupka, Judge, the panel No. 41D of the Supreme Administrative Court ruled, composed of: President of the Panel JUDr. Monika Valašiková, PhD., LL.M. and members of the Panel JUDr. Zuzana Šabová, PhD., JUDr. Katarína Benczová, JUDr. Rastislav Dlugoš, PhD. and JUDr. Viola Takáčová, PhD., LL.M