The Disciplinary Panel decides on the temporary suspension of a judge

The Disciplinary Panel of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic in its closed hearing decided on the merits of the action of the President of the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic and temporarily suspended Milan Chalupka, a judge of the Regional Court in Bratislava (Case No. 32 D 9/2024).

The application for temporary suspension of the performance of the function of a judge was filed by the President of the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic after the Disciplinary Panel of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, by its decision of 2 October 2024, found the disciplinary defendant Milan Chalupka guilty of committing a serious disciplinary offence incompatible with the performance of the function of a judge and imposed on him a disciplinary measure – dismissal from the function of a judge (Case No. 32 D 3/2023).

According to the above-mentioned decision, the disciplinary defendant raised and failed to remove reasonable doubts as to the bravery of the origin of his assets before the Control Commission of the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic and before the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic concerning the justification of the origin and the reason for the transfer of the funds to his children’s accounts and the funds for the payment of living expenses, thus he was not able to credibly prove the bravery of the origin of his assets.

The disciplinary proceedings have not yet been legally concluded, as the disciplinary decision of the first instance is subject to appeal by the disciplinary defendant.

In its decision, the Disciplinary Panel justified the suspension of the disciplinary defendant, in particular by reference to the seriousness of the act allegedly committed by the disciplinary defendant. The conduct of which the disciplinary defendant is alleged to have been guilty has fundamentally called into question his moral standards and reliability, which are capable of undermining not only the public’s confidence in the independent, impartial and fair administration of justice but also the confidence of the parties to the proceedings in the fair administration of justice by the disciplinary defendant.

“By pointing to suspicion of serious disciplinary misconduct by a disciplinary defendant, the confidence of the parties in his decision-making may be objectively called into question. Suspension of a judge’s office will ensure the right of citizens to have decisions made only by judges in relation to whom there is no doubt that they meet all the legal and ethical prerequisites for exercising the office of judge,” said Anita Filová, the president of the Panel, in the decision.

The temporary suspension of a judge is effective until the final conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings or until the President decides to remove the judge from office. The decision to suspend a judge temporarily may also be revoked by the disciplinary panel which issued it in the course of the disciplinary proceedings, without delay, on the application of the person who proposed the suspension or on the application of the judge who has been disciplined, or even without an application.

No appeal shall be admissible against a decision on the temporary suspension of a judge.

The decision of the Disciplinary Panel was adopted by 5 votes to 0.

On the proposal of the President of the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic to temporarily suspend JUDr. Milan Chalupka, the Disciplinary Panel 32D of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic was composed of: the President of the Panel, JUDr. Anita Filová (Judge-rapporteur); judges JUDr. Michal Matulník, PhD. and JUDr. Michal Dzurdzík, PhD.; lay judges Mgr. Marianna Leontiev and JUDr. Stanislav Gaňa, PhD.