The Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic has ruled on the appeal filed by the Minister of Justice against the judgment in the case of a disciplinary accused judge of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic JUDr. Juraj Kliment

The Appellate Disciplinary Panel of the Supreme Administrative Court on April 28, 2026, by a resolution in the Case No. 42Do/1/2025, dismissed the appeal of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Minister of Justice’) against the judgment in the case of the disciplinary accused judge of the Supreme Court JUDr. Juraj Kliment (we wrote about the judgment in the press release The Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic has decided in the case of the disciplinary accused judge of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, JUDr. Juraj Kliment – Najvyšší správny súd Slovenskej republiky). 

The first appeal objection of the Minister of Justice was the incorrect assessment of the expiry of the subjective time limit for filing a disciplinary motion. The Appellate Disciplinary Panel disagreed with the Minister of Justice that the disciplinary court had assessed this issue solely on the basis of the witness’s vague statement. The Minister of Justice also contested the credibility of the witness testimony. The Appellate Disciplinary Panel stated that no close relationship had been proven between the witness and the judge that would result in the inadmissibility of the witness testimony regarding the moment when the witness, as a person entitled to file a disciplinary motion, learned of the act under review. 

The Appellate Disciplinary Panel agreed with the conclusions of the disciplinary panel regarding freedom of expression and the fact that the disciplinary accused judge had made the statements, by which he defended himself against criticism , during his private time in the form of an interview for print media, rather than in the performance of his duties. According to the Appellate Disciplinary Panel, such a statement by a judge is not explicitly prohibited and, since his statements did not concern his decision-making, in terms of general baseline principles, not even a higher degree of restraint was required. 

The Minister of Justice considered the decision of the Disciplinary Panel to be confusing in the part of acquitting the disciplinary accused from the disciplinary motion for the act of voting by the disciplinary accused, as a member of the Panel, for a decision on detention before a decision was made on the objection of bias against him. According to the Minister of Justice, the Disciplinary Panel assessed a different act (issuing an arbitrary decision) than the one for which the disciplinary accused judge was held guilty (issuing a decision on detention before a final decision was made on the objection of bias against the disciplinary accused, thereby allegedly compromising trust in the independent, impartial, and fair decision-making of the courts). The Appellate Disciplinary Panel stated that the motion itself is not unambiguous in this regard, and the conduct of the disciplinary accused could only be assessed from the perspective of a possible arbitrary decision, as the legal opinion of the disciplinary accused—that it was possible to decide on detention even before the final decision on the objection of bias was reached—is embodied in the said decision of the Panel. Therefore, the Appellate Disciplinary Panel did not consider the procedure of the Disciplinary Panel to be an unauthorized reclassification of the disciplinary motion. 

The Appellate Disciplinary Panel did not consider the other objections to be well-founded either, therefore it dismissed the appeal. 

No appeal or remedy is admissible against this decision. The decision of the Appellate Disciplinary Panel was adopted unanimously. 

The case was decided by Panel No. 42Do of the Supreme Administrative Court, composed of: President of the Panel JUDr. Zuzana Šabová, PhD. and Judges JUDr. Katarína Benczová, JUDr. Petra Príbelská, PhD., JUDr. Anita Filová; JUDr. Katarína Cangárová, PhD., LL.M.