According to the Consultative Council of European Judges, judges must have the right to appeal disciplinary decisions and sanctions
The Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), as a body of the Council of Europe, confirmed in its Opinion No. 27 (2024) on the disciplinary liability of judges that judges must have the right to appeal disciplinary decisions and sanctions (point 18 of the recommendations in the Opinion). The Slovak Republic does not meet this recommendation, as appeals are only possible against a narrowly defined scope of disciplinary decisions. Introducing a two-tier disciplinary procedure for judges would therefore fulfill European standards and requirements.
“If someone publicly claims that the proposed ‘automatic’ appeal against a disciplinary decision actually strengthens the position of the proposer in the disciplinary procedure (for example, the Minister of Justice), they mislead the public, who are unaware not only of the basic status and rights of participants in judicial proceedings, including disciplinary proceedings against judges, but primarily grossly ignore European requirements. Moreover, there is nothing ‘automatic’ in judicial proceedings,” stated Marcela Kosová. She reminded that the CCJE emphasizes that the disciplinary liability of judges must not undermine the independence of the judiciary.
“As for the proposal that disciplinary panels should include not only judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic but also judges from district and regional courts, it is necessary to emphasize that the same legal requirements apply to every judge in the Slovak Republic, regardless of the judicial work they perform. A judge of the Supreme Administrative Court is therefore not by law more independent or impartial in the exercise of their function than a judge of any other court,” concluded Marcela Kosová.
“If someone publicly claims that the proposed ‘automatic’ appeal against a disciplinary decision actually strengthens the position of the proposer in the disciplinary procedure (for example, the Minister of Justice), they mislead the public, who are unaware not only of the basic status and rights of participants in judicial proceedings, including disciplinary proceedings against judges, but primarily grossly ignore European requirements. Moreover, there is nothing ‘automatic’ in judicial proceedings,” stated Marcela Kosová. She reminded that the CCJE emphasizes that the disciplinary liability of judges must not undermine the independence of the judiciary.
“As for the proposal that disciplinary panels should include not only judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic but also judges from district and regional courts, it is necessary to emphasize that the same legal requirements apply to every judge in the Slovak Republic, regardless of the judicial work they perform. A judge of the Supreme Administrative Court is therefore not by law more independent or impartial in the exercise of their function than a judge of any other court,” concluded Marcela Kosová.
