{"id":48237,"date":"2023-01-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2023-01-22T23:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/?p=48237"},"modified":"2026-04-29T09:42:59","modified_gmt":"2026-04-29T07:42:59","slug":"a-notary-acting-in-breach-of-the-duty-to-act-with-professional-diligence-is-guilty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/a-notary-acting-in-breach-of-the-duty-to-act-with-professional-diligence-is-guilty\/","title":{"rendered":"A notary acting in breach of the duty to act with professional diligence is guilty"},"content":{"rendered":"

While performing notarial activities in Bratislava, the disciplinary defendant drew up a minute of receipt of money into notarial custody, in which she stated, among other things, that the deposited amount – representing the entire purchase price of \u20ac240 000 – would be released from custody in four parts, with the third part (approximately \u20ac180 000) to be transferred to a different account than that of the beneficiary (the seller). However, it has already stated in the next paragraph that the entire amount of \u20ac240 000 will be released to the beneficiary (the seller) immediately after the production of the title deed. However, the notary must have known that these conditions contradicted each other. She then presented the bank with an order for the amount of \u20ac240 000 to be paid into the seller’s account. At the same time, on the same day, she issued a receipt that she had released the object of the escrow from the notary’s custody in accordance with the notarial deed of receipt of the money into the notary’s custody.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thus, the disciplinary accused notary acted negligently in violation of the duty to act with professional diligence [Article 36(1) of the Notarial Code] and the duty to take care by her actions to ensure order and certainty in legal relations and the prevention of disputes, as well as in violation of the duty to ensure that the documents she draws up comply with the legal provisions and the legal requirements. By that conduct, she committed a disciplinary offence pursuant to Article 91(1) of the Notarial Code, as in force until 30 November 2021, for which the Disciplinary panel imposed a disciplinary measure on her – a fine of \u20ac1 200.<\/p>\n

The decision on the guilty verdict was unanimously adopted and the decision on the disciplinary measure was adopted by a ratio of 3:2. No appeal is admissible against the decision of the Disciplinary panel.<\/p>\n

In the disciplinary case of the President of the Chamber of Notaries of the Slovak Republic c\/a notary Jarmila Kov\u00e1\u010dov\u00e1, the Disciplinary panel No. 31 was composed of: the President of the Panel Mgr. Michal Novotn\u00fd (Judge-rapporteur), the Judges JUDr. Zdenka Reisenauerov\u00e1, Prof. JUDr. Juraj Va\u010dok, PhD. and lay judges JUDr. Juraj \u0160ikuta and JUDr. M\u00e1ria Zimanov\u00e1.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Disciplin\u00e1rny sen\u00e1t \u010d. 31 Najvy\u0161\u0161ieho spr\u00e1vneho s\u00fadu Slovenskej republiky uznal za vinn\u00fa not\u00e1rku JUDr. Jarmilu Kov\u00e1\u010dov\u00fa. T\u00e1 sp\u00edsala z\u00e1pisnicu o \u00faschove pe\u0148az\u00ed, av\u0161ak podmienky ich vydania v nej upravila rozporne. T\u00fdm postupovala v rozpore s \u00a7 36 ods. 1 Not\u00e1rskeho poriadku a s \u010das\u0165ou II \u010dl. 1 ods. 5 Etick\u00e9ho k\u00f3dexu not\u00e1ra. N\u00e1sledne v rozpore s \u00a7 68 ods. 3 Not\u00e1rskeho poriadku nevydala predmet \u00faschovy v zmysle pokynov uveden\u00fdch v z\u00e1pisnici, \u010d\u00edm sumu pribli\u017ene 180 000 \u20ac pouk\u00e1zala na in\u00fd \u00fa\u010det, ne\u017e bol uveden\u00fd medzi pr\u00edjemcom a zlo\u017eite\u013eom v k\u00fapnej zmluve. Disciplin\u00e1rny n\u00e1vrh na not\u00e1rku JUDr. Jarmilu Kov\u00e1\u010dov\u00fa podal v j\u00fani minul\u00e9ho roka prezident Not\u00e1rskej komory Slovenskej republiky (sp. zn. 31 D 13\/2022).<\/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-48237","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\/48237","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=48237"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48237\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":56614,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48237\/revisions\/56614"}],"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=48237"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48237"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48237"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}