EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 20.7.2021 SWD(2021) 727 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report







Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report







The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2021) 700 final} - {SWD(2021) 701 final} - {SWD(2021) 702 final} - {SWD(2021) 703 final} - {SWD(2021) 704 final} - {SWD(2021) 705 final} - {SWD(2021) 706 final} - {SWD(2021) 707 final} - {SWD(2021) 708 final} - {SWD(2021) 709 final} - {SWD(2021) 710 final} - {SWD(2021) 711 final} - {SWD(2021) 712 final} - {SWD(2021) 713 final} - {SWD(2021) 714 final} - {SWD(2021) 715 final} - {SWD(2021) 716 final} - {SWD(2021) 717 final} - {SWD(2021) 718 final} - {SWD(2021) 719 final} - {SWD(2021) 720 final} - {SWD(2021) 721 final} - {SWD(2021) 722 final} - {SWD(2021) 723 final} - {SWD(2021) 724 final} - {SWD(2021) 725 final} - {SWD(2021) 726 final}



Abstract Important efforts to improve the independence, integrity, quality and efficiency of the Slovak justice system, already noted in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, have continued. In December 2020, the Parliament adopted an extensive reform of the Constitution and implementing legislation regarding the justice system, in particular the Constitutional Court and the Judicial Council. Authorities have also stepped-up efforts to address corruption in the judiciary. A reform of the judicial map is under preparation, involving the Council of Europe, which has generated a number of comments from stakeholders. A Supreme Administrative Court has been established. A new Prosecutor General and a Special Prosecutor were elected through a new transparent procedure. These reforms reflect efforts to improve the justice system and it is important that their implementation takes into account the relevant European standards to safeguard judicial independence. This is also important considering that the level of perceived independence of the judiciary, although it has improved among companies, remains very low among the general public. Slovakia’s efforts to repress corruption have significantly increased and show effect with a number of high-level corruption cases being investigated and prosecuted. Leading officials were also selected and appointed, including the Head of the new Whistleblower Protection Office, that will take up its functions as of 1 September 2021. The capacity to detect and investigate corruption offences can still be strengthened by investments in specialisation, dedicated analytical expertise and integrity trainings for the National Crime Agency. There is slow progress in preventing corruption. Several attempts to regulate lobbying have so far failed. However, draft legislation on lobbying, ’revolving doors’, asset declarations, conflicts of interest of members of Parliament and public procurement are planned or at the initial stage. Slovakia’s Constitution and secondary legislation provide the legal framework for the protection of freedom of expression, the right to access public information, media pluralism and press rights. A draft law under discussion and scheduled for adoption in September 2021 is expected to introduce a framework to ensure media ownership transparency. The government plans to propose legislation aimed at securing a more favorable environment for journalists have been postponed. The distribution of state advertising remains unregulated. A number of convictions were pronounced with regard to individuals involved in the assassination of investigative journalist Ján Kuciak and his fiancée in 2018. The acquittals of the alleged masterminds of the murder were annulled by the Supreme Court, which returned the case to the Specialised Criminal Court. One conviction was confirmed. No news media support scheme was introduced to counter the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. As concerns the system of checks and balances, the need remains to improve the legislative process by strengthening the involvement of stakeholders and civil society, as already noted in the 2020 Rule of Law Report. The Constitutional reform of December 2020 explicitely excludes the competence for the Constitutional Court to review Constitutional laws, which triggered the review by the Constitutional Court of this provision. The state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic lasted for most of 2020 and ended in May 2021, following a change of legislation in December 2020 to allow its extension. The Public Defender of Rights and the National Centre for Human Rights took an active role in defending fundamental rights during the pandemic. Concerns grow over financing of certain NGOs, in particular limitations for NGOs working in the field of gender-equality.

I.Justice System The court system of the Slovak Republic consists of 54 District Courts, 8 Regional Courts, the Specialised Criminal Court, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court and the Slovak Constitutional Court . The Regional Courts function as the courts of appeal in civil, commercial and criminal cases and at the same time function as the courts of first instance in administrative matters. The Specialised Criminal Court is competent to judge serious criminal matters as enumerated in the relevant provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The Judicial Council plays a central role in the self-administration of the judiciary and in the appointment, suspension and dismissal of judges, as well as in maintaining judicial ethics. Half of its members (9 out of 18) are judges elected by their peers. Other members of the Judicial Council are appointed by the Slovak President, the Parliament and the Government . The public prosecution service of Slovakia is an independent state authority headed by the Prosecutor General . Slovakia participates in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Slovak Bar Association is an independent self-administrative professional organisation . Independence The perceived level of independence of the judiciary has improved among companies but remains low, and very low among the general public. 30% of companies perceive the level of judicial independence as ‘fairly or very good’, which is a considerable improvement compared to 2020 (15%). Conversely, there has been no such improvement in the perceptions of independence of courts and judges among the general public, with 28% perceiving judicial independence as ‘fairly or very good’ and 65% as ‘fairly or very bad’, in line with the long-term trend, noted already in the 2020 Rule of Law Report. The reasons most often invoked for the perceived lack of independence are related almost equally to interference or pressure from the Government and politicians and interference or pressure from economic or other specific interests. Authorities have taken steps to address allegations of corruption and abuse of office in the judiciary. Following high-profile police operations referred to in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, further operations were launched. Currently, 20 judges and other representatives of justice and law enforcement are subject to criminal proceedings linked to serious allegations of corruption and abuse of office, in a stepped-up effort by public authorities to reduce corruption in the justice system. One judge has been convicted. As a result of the criminal prosecution, several judges resigned from their office or were temporarily suspended from their function. The need to continue addressing specific concerns on the overall integrity of the justice system has also been raised in the context of the European Semester, and Slovakia has received a country specific recommendation to this end. A comprehensive judicial reform has been adopted, consisting of amendments to the Constitution and implementing legislation. This follows the announcement made by the Government to proceed to a reform with the aim to increase public trust in the rule of law, as explained in the 2020 Rule of Law Report. In December 2020, the amendment of the Constitution and implementing legislation has been adopted, which notably established a Supreme Administrative Court, introduced changes to the selection and appointment of judges of the Constitutional Court and amended several provisions regarding the Judicial Council. Stakeholders noted that the reform reflects efforts to improve the justice system and strengthen its independence, although some parts of the reform met with opposition (see below). While some features of the reform concerning the Judicial Council were welcomed, concerns have been raised regarding the regime for the dismissal of its members. The Constitutional reform introduced changes to the method of appointment of the members of the Judicial Council, extended the Council’s powers and amended the provision regarding the dismissal of its members. The reform has introduced a rule according to which judge-members of the Council would be elected in several electoral districts. According to the Government, the aim of the change is to increase the legitimacy of the Council by ensuring a more diverse representation of judges. This objective is consistent with Council of Europe recommendations. The reform also extends the powers of the Judicial Council. Furthermore, the reform explicitly provides that members of the Judicial Council, including its President and Vice-President, may be dismissed at any point by the authority which appointed them. According to the Explanatory memorandum, this implies that such a proposal for dismissal is not required to be based on any legally prescribed criteria and, instead, may be motivated by a lack of trust. Stakeholders have expressed concerns that this aspect of the reform may have an adverse impact on the independence of the Judicial Council. These concerns have also been reflected in an opinion of the Bureau of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) of 9 December 2020.A dismissed member may contest the decision of dismissal in front of the Constitutional Court lodging a constitutional complaint. It is important that the Judicial Council be subject to sufficient guarantees as regards its independence in relation to the legislature and the executive including as regards the way its Members can be dismissed. A retirement age of judges has been introduced to provide certainty. Following amendments to the Constitution, judges retire upon reaching the age of 67. As the reform eliminated the Judicial Council’s discretionary power to propose a retirement of a judge over the age of 65, the amendment enhances legal certainty and stability for judges. The criminal liability regime of judges has been amended. In October 2020, an amendment of the Criminal Code was adopted, followed by an amendment of the Constitutional provision on immunity of judges. According to the reforms, judges may not be held accountable for an opinion expressed during their decision-making, unless the decision-making of a judge can be qualified as a crime. In that respect, a new crime of ‘abuse of law’ was introduced into the Criminal Code. According to this provision, judges may be prosecuted for any arbitrary decision causing damage to or bestowing a favour on another person. The provision is envisaged to be used only in cases of manifestly arbitrary and incorrect decisions. Criminal proceedings are led by the Special Prosecutor and a Specialised Criminal Court. A judge accused of this crime is entitled to request the Judicial Council to express its disagreement to the continuation of the criminal prosecution, which, if granted, is tantamount to the termination of the proceedings. The prosecuted judge may be temporarily suspended only by a decision of a disciplinary court. Whereas European standards provide that subjecting judges to liability for their decision making may occur in exceptional cases of malice and gross negligence, any regime governing liability of judges must provide clearly and precisely the necessary guarantees to prevent any risk of it being used as instrument of pressure on judicial activity or a system of political control of the content of judicial decisions. It is important that when applying these new provisions in practice, these safeguards are duly observed in line with European standards. Certain stakeholders have expressed concerns about the constitutional amendment on the immunity of judges, noting that its broad and vague wording could entail a potential risk of abuse. The recent constitutional reform amended the regime of transfer of judges without their consent. The recent constitutional reform provided that judges may be transferred, without their consent, in case of a change of the judicial map, if such transfer is necessary to secure the proper functioning of the judiciary. Pursuant to European standards, it is possible, in exceptional cases, to transfer judges without their consent, provided that sufficient safeguards are in place. These safeguards include a requirement that the judge may not be transferred to a court of a lower instance and that he or she has recourse to judicial review. It will be important that the implementing law provides sufficient safeguards taking into account European standards. A draft reform of the judicial map is being prepared. Following recommendations from a report from the Council of Europe Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) to, among others, reflect on enhancing specialisation of judges and on a change of the judicial map, in particular on decreasing the number of district courts, the Ministry of Justice has organised working groups, composed among others of judges, to prepare a draft reform of the judicial map. The aim of the reform is to increase public trust in the judiciary and improve its efficiency and quality. The draft map is based on the need for a sufficient size of courts in order to allow for greater specialisation of judges at each court, for respect for cultural and regional identities and for accessibility of justice. Based on data regarding the workload of current courts, as well as infrastructure and courts’ accessibility, the draft reform proposed to decrease the number of district and regional courts from 54 to 30 and from 8 to 3 respectively. Judges, judicial staff and cases from the dissolved courts would be moved to remaining successor courts. From September to December 2020, the draft reform was presented to judges and other stakeholders; discussions continued in January and February 2021. The Ministry of Justice is now evaluating the comments submitted in the public consultation, which took place from mid-December 2020 until the beginning of March 2021. The draft reform was met with criticism from several stakeholders, who reported among others on a lack of involvement during the drafting process and expressed concerns regarding the accessibility of courts. Following the criticism, the Ministry of Justice decided to continue consultations with judges until September 2021, after which a redrafted proposal for a reform of the judicial map will again be subject to a public consultation procedure. As the reform will involve transfer of judges, it should be noted that according to European standards, judges who would be transferred in the course of the reform without their consent should benefit from procedural safeguards in order to ensure that their independence is not jeopardised (see above). A CEPEJ review of the draft reform concluded that the methodology used is in line with its guidelines and its assessment report and highlighted the evidence-based approach adopted by Slovak authorities. It also issued further recommendations, such as reflecting on a postponement of its implementation. A Supreme Administrative Court has been established and administrative courts are envisaged. The new system of administrative courts is expected to consist of three administrative courts, the establishment of which is proposed by the draft reform of the judicial map, and a Supreme Administrative Court, which has been created by the recent Constitutional reform and is expected to become operational in August 2021. The President of the Supreme Administrative Court was appointed in May 2020 and the process of selection of the judges is ongoing. Judges of the Court will be selected by the Judicial Council. The draft reform of the judicial map (see above) foresees the creation of three separate administrative courts. It is envisaged that the presidents of these new administrative courts will be selected by a committee of five members, which should be chosen by the Minister of Justice, two of which from candidates nominated by the Judicial Council. As regards the selection of judges to the administrative courts, it is proposed that the Minister of Justice determines which posts will be filled by a transfer of judges and which through a selection procedure. It will be important that the setting up of these courts and the regime applicable to them take into account European standards. A Prosecutor General and a Special Prosecutor were elected through a new procedure. In September 2020, the Parliament adopted a law which introduced several changes to the process of election of the Prosecutor General and Special Prosecutor. The law expanded the list of persons with the right to propose a candidate for the office of Prosecutor General, opened the candidacy to this office also to non-prosecutors, and introduced a requirement that candidates for both the Prosecutor General and the Special Prosecutor undergo a public hearing in Parliament. The new rules were applied in December 2020 and February 2021 during the election of the candidates for Prosecutor General and Special Prosecutor. Both elections were closely followed by the media and stakeholders noted the increase of transparency of the process. Quality

Efforts to advance digitalisation are showing results but weaknesses appear in practice. Active engagement to advance the digitalisation of the justice system from the past years has started showing results. Slovakia is well equipped in terms of procedural rules allowing digital technology in courts, as well as a range of tools and infrastructure allowing distance communication and secure remote access to the workplace, secure electronic communication between courts services and legal professionals and institutions or possibilities for users to initiate and follow proceedings in civil, commercial and administrative cases. Gaps appear in particular as regards the prosecution service and digital solutions for court proceedings in criminal cases. However, there are signs that while tools and infrastructures are in place, their use in practice might be hindered, including by obstacles such as low user-friendliness, incompatibility of different information systems used or lack of skills of users. While the COVID-19 pandemic has overall contributed to the momentum in the digitalisation process, it has also revealed some of these practical shortcomings. Several projects to address the needs of the justice system are ongoing under the lead of a new IT department in the Ministry of Justice, including the development of a new Case Management System and a new commercial register, which were also included in the Slovak Recovery and Resilience Plan. Although the pandemic had a notable impact on the judicial system, overall courts and lawyers were able to continue their work. The number of hearings conducted by district and regional courts decreased. When taking place, hearings were held via videoconference or, if necessary, in person observing safety measures. The Supreme Court has been less affected, including because most of its proceedings are written. Lawyers were also affected by the pandemic, but reported no major obstacles in exercise of their work. The Judicial Council has been closely monitoring the situation at courts. The Ministry of Justice has published guidelines and information regarding the restrictions, which has been appreciated by the courts. Efficiency Efficiency of proceedings in administrative cases has further deteriorated. Being comparably lengthy in EU perspective, the trend of the growing length of proceedings in administrative cases continued in 2019, reaching 518 days compared to 157 days in 2018. At the same time, the clearance rate has also continued to fall, down to 81.4 % in 2019 (compared to 96.1 % in 2018). This suggests that the system does not manage to deal efficiently with the workload in administrative cases. As regards civil and commercial cases, the estimated length of proceedings in litigious civil and commercial cases increased in 2019 compared to 2018, reaching 170 days (compared to 157 in 2018). Several groups of cases concerning excessive length of civil proceedings have been examined by the Council of Europe. II.Anti-Corruption Framework In Slovakia, the competences for the prevention, detection and prosecution of corruption are shared between several authorities. The Office of the Government is the central body for the coordination of the prevention of corruption, reporting directly to the Prime Minister’s Office. The National Crime Agency of the Presidium of the Police Force is in charge of the detection and investigation of corruption offences with the exception of corruption crimes committed by members of the police itself and certain law enforcement agencies falling under the remit of the Bureau of Inspection Service. The Special Prosecutor’s Office has exclusive jurisdiction over the investigation of criminal offences under the substantive jurisdiction of the Specialised Criminal Court, including corruption offences. The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in the public sector remains high. In the 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International, Slovakia scores 49/100 and ranks 17th in the European Union and 60th globally . This perception has been relatively stable over the past five years . The strategic framework for anti-corruption is provided by the Anti-Corruption Policy for 2019-2023. The Policy focuses mostly on prevention through soft measures and is accompanied by an action plan, the National Anti-Corruption Programme , and several sectoral programmes . Being essentially identical to the policy document, the current action plan does not put forward concrete operational steps to facilitate the implementation of the policy priorities. The National Anti-Corruption Programme is currently in the process of being updated . The Corruption Prevention Department of the Government Office oversees the implementation of the policy and action plan. Oversight over the implementation of the sectoral programmes is the competence of the relevant central state administration bodies . The criminal legal framework has been complemented with the entering into force of a new law on asset seizure. Among others, the law on asset seizure , which entered into force in January 2021, prevents the legalisation of criminal assets through transfers to third persons and amends the criminal code introducing new offences, such as the crime of accepting or offering unjustified benefits or undue advantages, and the crime of indirect corruption . In addition, the act introduces a definition of proceeds of crime. Notably, the act establishes a new Office for the Management of Seized Property . Legislative shortcomings exist with regard to the police’s authorisation to request financial information of suspects from banks at the investigatory stage of these crimes , as well as with regard to the criminalisation of trading of supposed influence . Measures to increase the resources of the Special Prosecutor’s Office with a view to strengthening its capacities are being implemented. On 10 February 2021, the Government approved a proposal to increase the resources and number of specialised staff for the Special Prosecutor’s office . Overall the number of prosecutors increased from 35 to 38 in 2021. With the aim to address concerns about limited resources and capacities to prosecute high-level corruption , the division dealing specifically with corruption and corruption-related crimes has doubled its staff increasing from five to now ten prosecutors in the Special Prosecutor’s Office . The reorganisation took place in the course of 2021 . A significant increase in budgetary resources for the Special Prosecutor’s Office was also agreed . Concerns remain regarding the level of trust in, as well as the specialisation and the digitalisation of, the police, affecting the cooperation of the Prosecution Service with the police and the detection of corruption and corruption-related crimes . In particular, as stated in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, strengthened forensic and analytical capacities of the National Crime Agency would contribute to more effective financial investigations. A comprehensive police reform is planned to modernise the police in this regard by June 2022 . Efforts to fight high-level corruption have significantly increased in Slovakia in the course of the reporting period. The ability to investigate and prosecute high-level corruption has considerably improved following the public mass demonstrations against the perceived impunity for high-level corruption based on revelations made in the context of the murder of journalist Ján Kuciak and his fiancée Martina Kušnírová in 2018. As of October 2020, a number of former high-ranking representatives from the police, the prosecution service and the judiciary as well as from the private sector have been charged with corruption and corruption-related offences . In 2020, the National Crime Agency initiated proceedings in 158 cases of corruption . The number of individuals convicted for corruption offences more than doubled from 2019 (62 convictions) to 2020 (128 convictions) . More recently, in May 2021, the National Crime Agency also detained several high-ranking officials of the Land Fund allegedly involved in corruption schemes between 2016 and 2020 . In this context, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) had already raised concerns in 2020 following three administrative investigations into agriculture payments about shortcomings in the Land Fund with regard to transparency, equal treatment of lease applicants and legal certainty in internal procedures . However, cooperation between the National Crime Agency, the National Security Office, the Supreme Audit Office and the Financial Intelligence Unit could still improve and become closer in order to better detect and document corruption . The effective enforcement of foreign bribery also remains a concern . Slovakia’s Parliament has appointed the Head of Office for the Protection of Whistleblowers in February 2021. Following this appointment , the Office will become operational and take up its functions within six months . The term of office of the Head of Office is seven years. The Office is independent from any other department . The Office’s mandate will focus on breaches of law and the protection against retaliatory measures undertaken by the notified entity based on the principles of confidentiality and anonymity . The role of the Office is to provide advice, training, methodological guidance and public awareness-raising on whistleblowing, including on corruption cases. The Office is accountable to the Parliament and will provide an annual report. The target audience for the Office is both the public and the private sector. Slovakia committed to submit a draft law on lobbying in November 2021. The process led by the Government Office is in the initial preparatory stage . There have been several attempts to adopt legislation but so far lobbying remains unregulated in Slovakia. As a result, there are no legal definitions of lobbyists, lobbying activities and lobbying targets, nor effective sanctions for undue lobbying or a legislative footprint in place . However, related legislation and tools allow for the tracking of stakeholder comments and of the extent to which they found entry into a legislative draft . A Code of Ethics for members of Parliament and the introduction of a legislative regulation on post-employment rules (‘revolving doors’) is also planned for 2021 . Amendments to the Law on the Protection of the Public Interest have entered into force providing for the obligation to declare gifts or other benefits and the use of movable or immovable property . The Government intends to create a new, centralised office for the monitoring and verification of assets, including of top executive officials. The Government Office in cooperation with the Parliament is at an initial stage in the conceptualisation of a legislative proposal to establish a unified office . So far, the system of asset declarations for members of Parliament, judges, prosecutors, public officials and civil servants is decentralised. At the outset of 2021, major delays were reported in the publication of the 2019 asset declarations of members of Parliament due in August 2020, for reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing processes to impose fines for non-compliance . Political party finances are transparent, yet oversight could be strengthened. The main law regulating the financing of political parties in Slovakia is the Act on Political Parties and Movements . Donations to political parties are limited to EUR 5,000 in cash per calendar year, while no such limit exists during election periods. Donations from foreign entities and anonymous donors are banned. Failure to comply can result in a fine by the State Commission on Election and Control of the Financing of Political Parties in the amount of double the income from the donation or the gratuitous service. Parties are required to report on their finances annually to the State Commission. Financial reports are made publicly available. The reports are overseen by the National Council of the Slovak Republic and must reveal financial information in relation to election campaigns and the identity of donors . The human capacities of oversight bodies are limited and concerns have been raised as to political nominations within them . A bill adopted within two days tightening the campaign financing rules for the 2020 elections by limiting donations has affected newly established parties in particular and therefore raised concerns among new parties, civil society and media as to the fair competition between parties. The COVID-19 pandemic had reportedly no specific impact on corruption occurrence, detection of corruption or on the efforts to combat corruption in Slovakia, according to the Prosecution Service. Some trials have been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic contributing to a backlog of cases . High-risk sectors that were prone to corruption before the pandemic largely remained prone to corruption during the pandemic, including public procurement and the health care sector, with an increased risk and occurrence of pandemic-related subsidy fraud schemes in the latter sector . Under the sectoral anti-corruption programme of the Ministry of Health , a specific working group was created to assess corruption risks in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, finding two risk areas relating to ineligible cost requests and duplication of reimbursement requests . In an effort to reduce the period needed for procuring goods, services and construction work during the pandemic, the Government prepared a legislative proposal amending its public procurement law. However, the proposal was revised in May 2021 following a public petition and criticism for excluding the Office for Public Procurement from the initially envisaged review procedure and thus excluding public control overhigh-value commissions . According to civil society, the revised legislative proposal addresses the concerns raised in the petition increasing transparency and public control and thus reducing corruption risks . III.Media Pluralism And Media Freedom The Slovak Constitution enshrines the right to express opinions in words, print, image or by other means, the right to search for, receive and disseminate ideas and information as well as the right of access to information. The right to access information finds legal expression in the Freedom of Information Act . The Broadcasting and Retransmission Act is aimed at ensuring plurality of information, while the Press Act establishes rules relating to the press and to journalists. Legislation is pending to align the Broadcasting and Retransmission Act with the AVMS Directive. The Council for Broadcasting and Retransmission operates autonomously. Given that the Broadcasting Council disposes of its own budget, resources allotted are considered adequate for the accomplishment of its tasks and clear rules on appointment and dismissal of the Council’s members are established by law , the Media Pluralism Monitor 2021 confirms that the independence of the Council is overall guaranteed, though occasional political nominations remain an issue. A bill amending the Broadcasting and Retransmission Act is expected to introduce a framework to ensure transparency of media ownership. While awaiting enactment of that bill, scheduled for adoption by the end of 2021, which is expected to introduce provisions on transparency of ownership structure and beneficial ownership as foreseen in the AVMS Directive, the MPM 2021 once more considers that the lack of regulation means that this remains an area of high risk. The Broadcasting and Retransmission Act includes ceilings and limitations to prevent a high degree of horizontal ownership concentration in the television and radio markets. However a lack of data with regard to revenues and audience market shares makes the assessment of the actual situation difficult.

A number of convictions were handed down to individuals involved in the murder of journalist Ján Kuciak and his fiancée Martina Kušnírová in 2018. Three individuals were convicted and sentenced to between 15 and 25 years imprisonment by the Specialised Criminal Court. One of the judgments has been appealed by the accused. The public prosecutor appealed the acquittals of the alleged masterminds of the assassination by the court of first instance. On 15 June 2021 the Supreme Court annulled the first instance acquittals of the Specialised Criminal Court and returned the case to this latter court. The Supreme Court also confirmed the 25-year prison sentence handed down to another of the accused. There have been reports of verbal attacks against journalists and media outlets by both government and opposition politicians. Journalists have been accused of ‘spite’ and of undermining the work of the Government during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since September 2020, the Council of Europe’s Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists published one alert for Slovakia which concerned the surveillance of a newspaper journalist by unidentified individuals. Proposed legislation aimed at strengthening the protection of journalists has been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The proposals include a definition of the status of journalists, the protection of journalistic sources as well as enhanced access to information. Furthermore, the Government is preparing amendments to Slovakia’s currently strict criminal defamation laws in order to provide safeguards for journalists. No news media support scheme was introduced to counter the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. IV.Other Institutional Issues related to Checks and Balances Slovakia is a parliamentary republic where the National Council (the Parliament) is the sole constitutional and legislative body . The right to introduce legislation belongs to the Committees of the Parliament, individual members of the Parliament, and the Government . The Constitutional Court decides on the compliance of laws with the Constitution, constitutional acts and international agreements, and ensures respect for fundamental and constitutional rights. Independent authorities also play a role in safeguarding fundamental rights. Concerns have been raised about the inclusiveness of the law making process. The recent Constitutional reform (see Section I) was announced in the governmental Program Statement of April 2020 and, following a presentation to several stakeholders and a written public consultation in July 2020, was submitted to Parliament at the beginning of October 2020 and approved in December 2020. Stakeholders raised concerns about the absence of an extensive and informed debate on the main features of the reform, as well as a lack of consultation of the Venice Commission, given the scope and significance of the reform. Stakeholders have underscored the importance that constitutional changes follow an open and timely public discussion, which involves stakeholders and civil society, in line with European standards. Stakeholders have also expressed concerns about their lack of involvement in other legislative processes and about the use of fast-track procedures in Parliament, which was also followed for legislation that was not strictly related to the pandemic. Plans announced in 2020 for improving the law-making process and strengthening transparency, efficiency and accountability of the public administration have not yet materialised. The new Government in place as of April 2021 included into its Programme Statement the commitments of its preceding Government to improve the process for preparing and enacting law, strengthen the transparency, efficiency and accountability of the public administration, expand the access to information and broaden the application of open government. It has also taken over the commitment to strengthen the competences of the Supreme Audit Office. Proposals to these ends have not yet been presented or stakeholder consultations launched. An amendment to the Act on Free Access to Information is in the preparatory phase in the Government. The Constitutional reform expressly stipulates that the Constitutional Court does not have the competence to review Constitutional laws. In the past, the Constitutional Court has asserted the power to assess the constitutionality of constitutional laws, which it used once to protect judicial independence. The recent Constitutional reform (see Section I) has changed the wording of the Constitution so as to expressly prohibit the Court from reviewing the constitutionality of such laws. The change has been criticised by stakeholders. The constitutionality of this amendment has been challenged before the Constitutional Court, where it is still pending. The Parliament amended legislation regarding the state of emergency to allow prolongation beyond 90 days. The Parliament continued its operation during the state of emergency without major disruptions. The state of emergency allows the Government to adopt ordinances that limit certain rights and freedoms, such as freedom of movement. The state of emergency may be declared by the Government for no longer than 90 days, under conditions stipulated by a Constitutional law. Following the application of the state of emergency from 16 March 2020 to 13 June 2020, the Government declared a new state of emergency as of 1 October 2020. In December 2020, the Parliament amended the relevant legislation to allow for the repeated extension of the state of emergency by the Government by 40 days with a requirement of subsequent approval by Parliament. The state of emergency ended on 15 May 2021. The Constitutional Court has the competence to review the constitutionality of a declaration and extension of the state of emergency. However, stakeholders have noted that the time limits for such review are short. The Constitutional Court was petitioned to review the constitutionality of the declaration and one of the extensions, and on both occasions pronounced its conformity with the relevant legislation. The Constitutional Court has also reviewed several measures adopted in the context of the pandemic and clarified questions regarding the competence of ordinary courts to adjudicate on such measures. However, following subsequent changes of legislation, concerns were raised that the right to judicial review of certain measures may not be sufficiently guaranteed. The Public Defender of Rights and the National Centre for Human Rights took an active role to defend citizens’ rights during the pandemic. The Public Defender of Rights is an independent body tasked with protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms in proceedings before the public administration and other public bodies, while the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights is the competent National Human Rights Institution as well as the equality body in Slovakia. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Public Defender of Rights experienced an increase of almost 50% in complaints, as well as an increase of requests from the public for guidance regarding pandemic related measures. The workload of the National Centre for Human Rights was comparable to that of last years, but the content of complaints changed, with a majority concerning the pandemic related measures. The institutions have found violations in several areas, such as regarding state mandated quarantine of persons returning from abroad, isolation of certain Roma settlements as a whole, and restrictions of access to health care and the right to education. An enabling legal framework for civil society organisations remains in place but concerns emerged over the limitation of financing of certain NGOs . The commitment to further strengthen civil society has been taken over by the new Government. A new Register of Non-Governmental Non-profit Organisations was launched in December 2020. It represents a single public register of all organisations defined by the respective Act operating in Slovakia and aims to further improve transparency. Concerns have been reported by stakeholders regarding verbal attacks from public authorities and politicians on activists and civil society organisations and the deliberate limitation of public funds for organisations that promote gender-equality. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has put the operations of a number of civil society organisations under strain and stakeholders expressed particular concerns as regards general repercussions of the pandemic on the financial situation of NGOs.



Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* * The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law report can be found at https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-law/rule-law/rule-law-mechanism/2021-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation . Aktuality.sk (2021), NAKA again detained financier Kvietik and several people from the Slovak Land Fund (NAKA opäť zadržala finančníka Kvietika aj viacero ľudí zo Slovenského pozemkového fondu) ( https://www.aktuality.sk/clanok/892385/naka-opat-zadrzala-financnika-martina-kvietika ). Bureau of Consultative Council of European Judges (2020), Opinion of 9 December 2020, CCJE-BU(2020)3. Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2021), Media pluralism monitor 2021. Civil Liberties Union for Europe (2021), Contribution for Europe for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. Communication platform of Slovak judges and the Association of Slovak judges (2021), contribution for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2010), Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. Council of Europe (2020): Recommendation of 20 May 2020 on the 2020 National Reform Programme of Slovakia and delivering a Council opinion on the 2020 Stability Programme of Slovakia, COM(2020) 525 final.

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2005), Second interim opinion on constitutional reforms in the Republic of Armenia, CDL-AD(2005)016. Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2010), Report on Constitutional Amendment, CDL-AD(2010)001. Council of Europe, Venice Commission (2013), Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Organic Law on Courts of General Jurisdiction of Georgia, CDL-AD(2013)007-e. Consultative Council of European Judges (2007), Opinion No. 10. Consultative Council of European Judges (2016), Opinion No. 19. Court of Justice of the European Union, Judgment of 25 July 2018, LM, C‑216/18 PPU. Court of Justice of the European Union, Judgment of 18 May 2021, Joined Romanian Cases, C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-291/19, C-355/19 and C-397/19. Court of Justice of the European Union, Judgment of 20 April 2021, Repubblika, C-896/19. Directorate-General for Communication (2019), Flash Eurobarometer 482: businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU. Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. European Commission (2020), Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia. European Commission (2021), EU Justice Scoreboard. European Commission (2021), Press Release No. 03/2021, OLAF closes cases on EU agricultural funds in Slovakia ( https://ec.europa.eu/anti-fraud/media-corner/news/21-01-2021/olaf-closes-cases-eu-agricultural-funds-slovakia_en ). European Commission carried out by the Council of Europe Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (2017), Efficiency and quality of the Slovak judicial system, Assessment And recommendations on the basis of CEPEJ tools, CEPEJ-COOP(2017)14. European Commission carried out by the Council of Europe Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (2020), CEPEJ Experts’ review of the Judicial Map Reform in the Slovak Republic. European Commission carried out by the Council of Europe Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, Annual Study. European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 24 July 2012, Maxian and Maxianova, 44482/09, status of execution ( http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-7711 ). European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 15 September 2015, Javor and Javorova, 42360/10, status of execution ( http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-7717 ). European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 27 June 2017, Ivan, 57405/15, status of execution ( http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-47309 ). European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of of 31 August 2018, Balogh and others, 35142/15, status of execution ( http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-51541 ).

European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 9 March 2021, Bilgen v Turkey, 1571/07. European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (2012-2013), Report on Minimum standards for the evaluation of professional performance and the irremovability of members of the judiciary. European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (2021), Contribution for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. GRECO (2019), Fourth Evaluation Round, Addendum to the Second Compliance Report, Slovak Republic. GRECO (2019), Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, Slovak Republic. GRECO (2021), Fourth Evaluation Round, Second Addendum to the Second Compliance Report, Slovak Republic. GRECO (2021), Slovakia: GRECO regrets slow progress in prevention corruption of parliamentarians, judges and prosecutors ( https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/slovakia-greco-regrets-slow-progress-in-preventing-corruption-of-parliamentarians-judges-and-prosecutors ). OECD (2012), Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, Phase 3: Slovak Republic. OECD (2014), Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, Follow-Up to the Phase 3 Report and Recommendation: Slovak Republic. OECD (2017), Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, Phase 1bis Report: Slovak Republic. Public Defender of Rights (2020), Annual report on the activities of the Public Defender of Rights (Správa o činnosti verejného ochrancu práv za obdobie roka 2020), ( https://www.vop.gov.sk/files/VOP_VS20_SK_1.pdf ). Slovak Bar Association (2021), Contribution for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. Slovak Bar Association (2021), Press release of 23 March 2021, The President of the Slovak Bar Association visited new Director General of the Prison Guard (Predseda SAK navštívil nového generálneho riaditeľa Zboru väzenskej a justičnej stráže), ( https://www.sak.sk/web/sk/cms/news/form/list/form/row/596497/_event ). Slovak Constitutional Court, Judgment of 30 January 2019, Pl ÚS 21/2014-96. Slovak Constitutional Court, Judgment of 14 October 2020, Pl ÚS 22/2020. Slovak Constitutional Court, Judgment of 31 March 2021, Pl ÚS 2/2021. Slovak Government (2018), Anti-Corruption Policy of the Slovak Republic for 2019-2023 ( https://rokovania.gov.sk/download.dat?id=588DFBA123494910A70AF18737B85A81-034BF7E75BABC88FC3A419E44DED1345 ). Slovak Government (2019), National Anti-Corruption Program of the Slovak Republic ( https://rokovania.gov.sk/download.dat?id=F75436C4AF3C4D96AE93D60FD6BCA184-99C291B1BA87B0B9BF1E773CB8DA6BA0 ). Slovak Government (2020), Annual report on the activities of the Public Defender of Rights ( https://www.vop.gov.sk/files/VOP_VS20_SK_1.pdf ). Slovak Government (2021), Input from Slovakia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report.

Slovak Government, Plan of Legislative Tasks of the Government of the Slovak Republic for 2021 ( https://www.slov-lex.sk/legislativne-procesy?p_p_id=processDetail_WAR_portletsel&p_p_lifecycle=2&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_cacheability=cacheLevelPage&p_p_col_id=column-2&p_p_col_count=1&_processDetail_WAR_portletsel_fileCooaddr=COO.2145.1000.3.4201465&_processDetail_WAR_portletsel_file=pl%C3%A1n-2021.pdf&_processDetail_WAR_portletsel_action=getFile ). Slovak Government, Program Statement for 2020 – 2024 ( https://www.mpsr.sk/programove-vyhlasenie-vlady-slovenskej-republiky-na-obdobie-rokov-2020-2024/800-17-800-15434/ ). Slovak Government, Program Statement for 2021 – 2024 ( https://www.nrsr.sk/web/Dynamic/DocumentPreview.aspx?DocID=494677 ). Slovak Government (2021), Recovery and Resilience Plan (Plán obnovy a odolnosti Slovenskej republiky) (https://www.planobnovy.sk/files/dokumenty/kompletny-plan_obnovy.pdf) Slovak lawyers, Open call and contribution for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, ( https://pravnystat.eu/en/ ). Slovak Ministry of Health, Sectorial anti-corruption programme ( https://www.health.gov.sk/Zdroje?/dokumenty/mzsr/rezortny-protikorupcny-program.rtf ). Slovak Ministry of Justice, Analytical Center (2020), Odporúčania pre tvorbu novej súdnej mapy ( http://web.ac-mssr.sk/wp-content/uploads/2020/sudna_mapa/nova_sudna_mapa_3_0_final.pdf ). Slovak Ministry of Justice, Analytical Center (2020), Recommendations for preparation of a new judicial map ( http://web.ac-mssr.sk/wp-content/uploads/2020/sudna_mapa/nova_sudna_mapa_3_0_final.pdf ). Slovak Ministry of Justice, Analytical Center (2020), Reform of the Judicial map ( http://web.ac-mssr.sk/wp-content/uploads/2020/sudna_mapa/Reforma_sudnej_mapy_na_citanie.pdf ). Slovak Ministry of Justice, Timeline of the drafting process of the Judicial Map Reform ( http://web.ac-mssr.sk/wp-content/uploads/2020/sudna_mapa/20210223_Casov%C3%A1_os_Sudna_mapa_v.2.pdf ). Slovak Ministry for Regional Development (2020), press release, Vice-Premier Remišová: 1.1 mil EUR for help to non-governmental organisation with fights agaist COVID-19 (Vicepremiérka Remišová: 1,1 milióna eur na pomoc mimovládnym organizáciám v boji s COVID–19) ( https://www.mirri.gov.sk/aktuality/podpredsednicka-vlady/vicepremierka-remisova-11-miliona-eur-na-pomoc-mimovladnym-organizaciam-v-boji-s-covid-19/ ). Slovak National Center for Human Rights (2019), Annual report on compliance with human rights ( http://www.snslp.sk/wp-content/uploads/Sprava-o-LP-v-SR-za-rok-2020-.pdf ). Transparency International (2020), Exporting corruption. Transparency International (2021), Corruption Perceptions Index 2020. UNCAC, Implementation Review - 1st cycle (2010-2015), Country Review Report of Slovak Republic, ( https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/CountryVisitFinalReports/2013_07_11_Slovakia_Final_Country_Report.pdf ).



Annex II: Country visit to Slovakia The Commission services held virtual meetings in April 2021 with: ·Association of Judges ·Government Office - Corruption Prevention Department

·Judges For Open Judiciary ·Judicial Council ·League of Human Rights ·Ministry of Culture ·Ministry of Health ·Ministry of Interior ·Ministry of Justice ·National Centre for Human Rights ·Police National Crime Agency ·Open Government Partnership ·Prosecutor General’s Office ·Public Defender of Rights ·Slovak Bar Association ·Slovak Council for Broadcasting ·Special Prosecutor’s Office ·Supreme Court ·Transparency International ·Via Iuris * The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:

·Amnesty International ·Center for Reproductive Rights ·CIVICUS ·Civil Liberties Union for Europe ·Civil Society Europe ·Conference of European Churches ·EuroCommerce ·European Center for Not-for-Profit Law ·European Centre for Press and Media Freedom ·European Civic Forum ·European Federation of Journalists ·European Partnership for Democracy ·European Youth Forum ·Front Line Defenders ·Human Rights House Foundation ·Human Rights Watch ·ILGA-Europe ·International Commission of Jurists ·International Federation for Human Rights ·International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN)