Judicial Council reacts to the Constitutional Court’s decision on disciplinary proceedings against judges

Despite a demanding two-day session of the Judicial Council, its members took note of the fact that, at a closed plenary session held on 9 September 2026, the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic granted a part of an application submitted by a group of Members of Parliament concerning the composition of disciplinary panels. 

In this context, it is important to recall a key fact that has been overlooked in public discourse concerning the role of the Judicial Council in the process of constituting disciplinary panels. The Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic did not grant the application to suspend the effect of the contested provisions. As one of its reasons, the Constitutional Court stated that: “The involvement in the decision-making process in disciplinary matters of judges serving as members of disciplinary panels who are not permanent judges of the Supreme Administrative Court is indicative of, and is generally understood under the applicable legal framework as, a benefit and a safeguard for judges subject to disciplinary proceedings, bringing to the proceedings practical experience relevant from the perspective of disciplinary sanctions.” The Court also concluded that there were no grounds for suspending the effect of the contested provisions, noting that the applicants had not demonstrated that their concerns regarding a threat to fundamental rights and freedoms in the exercise of judicial office were substantiated. 

“The Judicial Council has no powers to declare on its own, that any legal provision is incompatible with the Constitution or to ignore any law. Therefore, in accordance with the legislation currently in force and effect, it elected the members of the disciplinary panels,” recalled Marcela Kosová, the President of the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic. 

By acting in accordance with the law, which the Constitutional Court itself described as “favorable to judges”, the Judicial Council fulfilled its role as a body of judicial legitimacy. This also counters public attacks on the Judicial Council, a body tasked with safeguarding the independence of the judiciary itself, is directly contributing to its weaking. 

“If certain individuals, some of whom are or have been judges, claim that the Judicial Council bears full responsibility for an unconstitutional situation on the grounds that it “unconstitutionally” appointed members of disciplinary panels, this cannot be regarded as respect for the principles of the rule of law, but rather as a call for anarchy. This is a deeply concerning signal,” Marcela Kosová concluded.