The College of Presidents of Courts Councils of the Bratislava Regional Court expresses full support for the President of the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic and its members
Following repeated statements by Mária Kolíková directed at representatives – members of the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic elected by judges, the College of Presidents of the Courts Councils at the Bratislava Regional Court adopted a resolution on December 16, 2025. The resolution states that it considers it necessary to unequivocally and firmly reject the statements and repeated attacks by former Minister of Justice Mária Kolíková against the members of the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic elected by judges, whom she describes as a “disgrace” and at the same time claims that the majority of judges are “ashamed” of them. Such statements are deeply inappropriate, overly generalizing, and go beyond not only the boundaries of political culture, but also respect for the judiciary.
According to the College, it is extremely alarming that Maria Kolíková, as an active politician, arrogates to herself the right to speak on behalf of judges, attributing to them collective feelings or even shame. If, given her legal education and political experience, she calls into question the legitimacy of elections or respect for elected judges, then she is not attacking only individual persons, but the very principle of judicial self-governance.
The College emphasized that judges elect their representatives themselves, freely and in accordance with rules laid down by law. To speak of a “disgrace of the judiciary” merely because the judge-elected members of the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic express independent positions that do not coincide with Kolíkova´s personal or political views is an expression of arrogance and a misunderstanding of the constitutional role of this institution as a constitutional body of judicial legitimacy. The Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic has no duty to confirm political narratives, nor to “look” the way politicians imagine.
“I fully agree with what the representatives of Bratislava judges have stated, namely that a member of the Judicial Council, regardless of whether elected by judges, elected by the National Council of the Slovak Republic, or appointed by the President of the Slovak Republic and the Government of the Slovak Republic, acquires a legitimate mandate to perform his or her function and the right to comment on matters concerning the judiciary as well as on the competences of the Judicial Council. Questioning a mandate of duly appointed members of the Judicial Council and publicly presenting personal opinions and feelings by a politician and a legally educated person is unacceptable,” stated the President of the Judicial Council, Marcela Kosová.
The College notes that it is unacceptable for M. Kolíková, without any supporting basis, to claim that the majority of judges are “ashamed” of their representatives. These value judgments are not supported by any relevant survey, any statement by professional associations, or any official position of the judiciary. Judges do not need a political spokesperson. They have their own voice, their own bodies, and their own responsibility. If they have criticism, they can formulate it themselves – without anyone from outside suggesting what they should think, feel, or what they should be ashamed of.
Statements of this kind ultimately do not contribute to the protection of the independence of the judiciary. On the contrary, they weaken trust in its autonomy by politically and purposefully interpreting the “reality of the judiciary”. Such an approach does not create pressure for improvement but rather fosters an atmosphere of suspicion and collective guilt.
Particularly alarming are also the statements by M. Kolíková in which she openly urges judges to “consider recalling” their elected representatives in the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic and to replace them with those who “will not be a disgrace” and who will meet her ideas of the correct stance. Judging by her words, she is not satisfied with a discussion about the direction of the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic, but demands the replacement of those who are not “sufficiently loyal” to her own worldview. Judges elect representatives not to meet the personal expectations of M. Kolíková, but to represent a plurality of views and to preserve the independence of the judiciary’s internal voice.
These statements go beyond the scope of legitimate criticism. They constitute interference and unacceptable pressure on judges to alter the democratic outcome of their own elections according to the criteria of the former minister. The chosen tone sets a dangerous precedent. Judicial independence does not begin only in the courtroom; it begins with respect for judges’ choices and for their professional integrity. Therefore, we unequivocally reject these statements by M. Kolíková as inappropriate, unprofessional, and unsuitable.
The College of Presidents of Courts Councils of the Bratislava Regional Court has firmly rejected such expressions by Mária Kolíková and politicians in general.
According to the College, it is extremely alarming that Maria Kolíková, as an active politician, arrogates to herself the right to speak on behalf of judges, attributing to them collective feelings or even shame. If, given her legal education and political experience, she calls into question the legitimacy of elections or respect for elected judges, then she is not attacking only individual persons, but the very principle of judicial self-governance.
The College emphasized that judges elect their representatives themselves, freely and in accordance with rules laid down by law. To speak of a “disgrace of the judiciary” merely because the judge-elected members of the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic express independent positions that do not coincide with Kolíkova´s personal or political views is an expression of arrogance and a misunderstanding of the constitutional role of this institution as a constitutional body of judicial legitimacy. The Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic has no duty to confirm political narratives, nor to “look” the way politicians imagine.
“I fully agree with what the representatives of Bratislava judges have stated, namely that a member of the Judicial Council, regardless of whether elected by judges, elected by the National Council of the Slovak Republic, or appointed by the President of the Slovak Republic and the Government of the Slovak Republic, acquires a legitimate mandate to perform his or her function and the right to comment on matters concerning the judiciary as well as on the competences of the Judicial Council. Questioning a mandate of duly appointed members of the Judicial Council and publicly presenting personal opinions and feelings by a politician and a legally educated person is unacceptable,” stated the President of the Judicial Council, Marcela Kosová.
The College notes that it is unacceptable for M. Kolíková, without any supporting basis, to claim that the majority of judges are “ashamed” of their representatives. These value judgments are not supported by any relevant survey, any statement by professional associations, or any official position of the judiciary. Judges do not need a political spokesperson. They have their own voice, their own bodies, and their own responsibility. If they have criticism, they can formulate it themselves – without anyone from outside suggesting what they should think, feel, or what they should be ashamed of.
Statements of this kind ultimately do not contribute to the protection of the independence of the judiciary. On the contrary, they weaken trust in its autonomy by politically and purposefully interpreting the “reality of the judiciary”. Such an approach does not create pressure for improvement but rather fosters an atmosphere of suspicion and collective guilt.
Particularly alarming are also the statements by M. Kolíková in which she openly urges judges to “consider recalling” their elected representatives in the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic and to replace them with those who “will not be a disgrace” and who will meet her ideas of the correct stance. Judging by her words, she is not satisfied with a discussion about the direction of the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic, but demands the replacement of those who are not “sufficiently loyal” to her own worldview. Judges elect representatives not to meet the personal expectations of M. Kolíková, but to represent a plurality of views and to preserve the independence of the judiciary’s internal voice.
These statements go beyond the scope of legitimate criticism. They constitute interference and unacceptable pressure on judges to alter the democratic outcome of their own elections according to the criteria of the former minister. The chosen tone sets a dangerous precedent. Judicial independence does not begin only in the courtroom; it begins with respect for judges’ choices and for their professional integrity. Therefore, we unequivocally reject these statements by M. Kolíková as inappropriate, unprofessional, and unsuitable.
The College of Presidents of Courts Councils of the Bratislava Regional Court has firmly rejected such expressions by Mária Kolíková and politicians in general.
