{"id":85551,"date":"2026-04-29T14:19:44","date_gmt":"2026-04-29T12:19:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/?p=85551"},"modified":"2026-05-15T10:42:29","modified_gmt":"2026-05-15T08:42:29","slug":"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-o","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/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-o\/","title":{"rendered":"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"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Appellate Disciplinary Panel of the Supreme Administrative Court on April 28, 2026, by a resolution in the\u00a0<\/span>Case\u00a0<\/span>No. 42Do\/1\/2025, dismissed the appeal of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter\u00a0<\/span>referred to as the<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>‘Minister of Justice’) against the judgment in the case of the disciplinary accused judge of the\u00a0<\/span>Supreme Court\u00a0<\/span>JUDr<\/span>. 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 – Najvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed spr\u00e1vny s\u00fad Slovenskej republiky<\/a><\/span>).<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The first appeal objection of the Minister of Justice was the incorrect assessment of the expiry of the subjective\u00a0time limit for filing a disciplinary motion.\u00a0The Appellate Disciplinary Panel\u00a0disagreed with the Minister of Justice that the disciplinary court had assessed this issue solely\u00a0on the basis of\u00a0the witness’s vague statement. The Minister of Justice also contested the credibility of the\u00a0witness testimony.\u00a0The Appellate Disciplinary Panel\u00a0stated\u00a0that no close relationship had been proven between the witness and the judge that would result in the inadmissibility of the witness testimony\u00a0regarding the moment when the witness, as a person entitled to file a disciplinary motion,\u00a0learned of the act under review.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Appellate Disciplinary Panel agreed with the conclusions of the disciplinary panel regarding freedom of expression and the fact that the disciplinary accused judge\u00a0had made the statements, by which he defended himself against\u00a0criticism<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>, during his private time in the form of an interview for print media,\u00a0rather than in the performance of his duties.\u00a0According to the\u00a0Appellate Disciplinary Panel, such a statement by a judge is not\u00a0explicitly\u00a0prohibited and, since his statements did not concern\u00a0his\u00a0decision-making,\u00a0in terms of general baseline principles, not even a higher degree of restraint was\u00a0required.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Minister of Justice considered the decision of the Disciplinary\u00a0Panel\u00a0to 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\u00a0Panel, 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\u00a0Panel\u00a0assessed 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,\u00a0thereby allegedly compromising trust in the independent, impartial, and fair decision-making of the courts).\u00a0The Appellate Disciplinary Panel\u00a0stated that the\u00a0motion\u00a0itself is not unambiguous in this regard,\u00a0and the conduct of the disciplinary accused could only be assessed\u00a0from the perspective of a possible arbitrary decision,\u00a0as the legal opinion of the disciplinary accused\u2014that it was possible to decide on detention even before the final decision\u00a0on the objection of bias\u00a0was reached\u2014is embodied in the said decision of the\u00a0Panel. Therefore, the\u00a0Appellate Disciplinary Panel\u00a0did not consider the procedure of the\u00a0Disciplinary\u00a0Panel\u00a0to be an\u00a0unauthorized reclassification of the disciplinary motion.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The\u00a0Appellate Disciplinary Panel\u00a0did not consider the other objections to be well-founded either, therefore it dismissed the appeal.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

No appeal or remedy is admissible against this decision.\u00a0The decision of the\u00a0Appellate Disciplinary Panel\u00a0was adopted unanimously.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The case was decided by Panel No. 42Do of the Supreme Administrative Court, composed of:\u00a0<\/span>President\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Panel<\/span>\u00a0JUDr. Zuzana \u0160abov\u00e1, PhD. and Judges\u00a0JUDr. Katar\u00edna Benczov\u00e1,\u00a0JUDr. Petra Pr\u00edbelsk\u00e1, PhD.,\u00a0JUDr. Anita Filov\u00e1;\u00a0JUDr. Katar\u00edna Cang\u00e1rov\u00e1, PhD., LL.M.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Appellate Disciplinary Panel of the Supreme Administrative Court on April 28, 2026, by a resolution in the\u00a0Case\u00a0No. 42Do\/1\/2025, dismissed the appeal of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter\u00a0referred to as the\u00a0‘Minister of Justice’) against the judgment in the case of the disciplinary accused judge of the\u00a0Supreme Court\u00a0JUDr. Juraj Kliment (we wrote […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":103,"featured_media":35227,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[73,76],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-85551","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\/85551","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\/103"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=85551"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85551\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":85554,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85551\/revisions\/85554"}],"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=85551"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85551"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85551"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}