{"id":48195,"date":"2022-11-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2022-11-06T23:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/?p=48195"},"modified":"2026-04-29T09:22:12","modified_gmt":"2026-04-29T07:22:12","slug":"the-disciplinary-panel-acquitted-the-judges-of-the-regional-court-in-bratislava","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/the-disciplinary-panel-acquitted-the-judges-of-the-regional-court-in-bratislava\/","title":{"rendered":"The Disciplinary panel acquitted the judges of the Regional Court in Bratislava"},"content":{"rendered":"

The disciplinary motion was filed by the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic after the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic found in 2020 that the ruling of the Regional Court in Bratislava violated the fundamental right of the commercial company Mark\u00edza<\/span> – Slovakia<\/span>, spol. s r.o. to judicial protection and the right to a fair trial. At the same time, it annulled the order of the Regional Court in Bratislava and referred the case back to it for further proceedings.<\/strong><\/p>\n

“The Disciplinary panel first of all states that it does not dispute the conclusions of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic expressed in its ruling of 28 April 2020, by which it decided that the order of the Regional Court in Bratislava of 21 December 2018 violated the fundamental right of the commercial company MARK\u00cdZA – SLOVAKIA, spol. s r.o. to judicial protection (Article 46(1) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic) and the right to a fair trial (Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms). However, the Disciplinary panel emphasises that the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic does not and cannot assess a specific court decision in the context of the complaint procedure in terms of the disciplinary liability of the judge who issued the decision. It assesses the contested decision only from the point of view of whether the court’s decision violated fundamental rights or freedoms,” said Anita Filov\u00e1, the President of the Panel, at Monday’s hearing.<\/p>\n

The Disciplinary panel respects the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, however, for the purpose of imposing disciplinary liability on the disciplinarily accused judges, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic itself defined the criteria on the basis of which it evaluated whether the disputed resolution was an arbitrary decision. “The Panel believes that arbitrariness for the purposes of a disciplinary offence constitutes one of the most serious defects in a decision. These are decisions that are absolutely incomprehensible and untenable in the eyes of the law… The Disciplinary panel does not claim that the interpretation of the submissions of the 2nd Respondent by the Panel, whose members were the disciplinary accused, was correct, but it does claim that it was one of its several possible interpretations,” said the Panel’s President Anita Filov\u00e1.<\/p>\n

Detailed reasons for the decision will be published within 30 days.<\/p>\n

In the disciplinary case of the Minister of Justice c\/a Judges JUDr. Andrea Haitov\u00e1 and JUDr. Ivona Hr\u010dekov\u00e1, the decision was made by the Panel 32D of the Supreme Administrative Court composed of: the President of the Panel JUDr. Anita Filov\u00e1 (Judge-rapporteur), the Judges JUDr. Mari\u00e1n Fe\u010d\u00edk, JUDr. Michal Matuln\u00edk, PhD. and lay judges JUDr. Franti\u0161ek Sedla\u010dko, PhD., LL.M. and JUDr. Martina J\u00e1no\u0161\u00edkov\u00e1, PhD.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Disciplin\u00e1rny sen\u00e1t 32D Najvy\u0161\u0161ieho spr\u00e1vneho s\u00fadu Slovenskej republiky oslobodil sudkyne Krajsk\u00e9ho s\u00fadu v\u00a0Bratislave JUDr. Andreu Haitov\u00fa a\u00a0JUDr. Ivonu Hr\u010dekov\u00fa spod disciplin\u00e1rneho n\u00e1vrhu Ministerky spravodlivosti Slovenskej republiky. Disciplin\u00e1rny sen\u00e1t na dne\u0161nom \u00fastnom pojedn\u00e1van\u00ed jednomyse\u013ene rozhodol o\u00a0tom, \u017ee skutok, ktor\u00e9ho sa disciplin\u00e1rne obvinen\u00e9 dopustili, nie je disciplin\u00e1rnym previnen\u00edm (sp. zn. 32 D 13\/2021).<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":88,"featured_media":35227,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[73,76],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48195","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-press-release","category-disciplinary-decisions"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48195","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/88"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=48195"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48195\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":56392,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48195\/revisions\/56392"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/35227"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48195"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48195"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48195"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}