Country report : non-discrimination : Slovakia 2017.
Date: 2017-09-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
Subjects: Slovakia, age discrimination, anti-discriminatory measure, discrimination based on disability, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, equal treatment, ethnic discrimination, national law, religious discrimination, report, sexual discrimination, social policy

Slovakia 

2017 

Including summaries in 
English, French and 
German 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 
Directorate D — Non-discrimination and Roma coordination 
Unit JUST/D1 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Country report  

Non-discrimination 

Slovakia 

Janka Debrecéniová, updated by Vanda Durbáková 

Reporting period 1 January 2016 – 31 December 2016 

2017 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-79-68846-1   

doi:10.2838/426978 

DS-02-17-529-3A-N 

© European Union, 2017 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Slovakia – 2017 

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 6 
RÉSUMÉ ............................................................................................................ 14 
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG ........................................................................................ 23 
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 32 
GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................. 37 
1 
THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION .................................................... 39 
2 
2.1  Grounds of unlawful discrimination explicitly covered ................................ 39 

2.1.1  Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the 

directives ................................................................................. 39 
2.1.2  Multiple discrimination ............................................................... 43 
Assumed and associated discrimination ....................................... 44 
2.1.3 
2.2  Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) ...................................................... 45 
2.2.1 
Situation testing ....................................................................... 45 
Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) ................................................... 48 
Statistical evidence ................................................................... 49 
2.3.1 
2.4  Harassment (Article 2(3)) ...................................................................... 53 
2.5 
Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) ................................................ 56 
2.6  Reasonable accommodation duties (Article 2(2)(b)(ii) and Article 5 Directive 

2.3 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 57 
PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE ............................................................ 67 
3.1  Personal scope ..................................................................................... 67 

3.1.1 

EU and non-EU nationals (Recital 13 and Article 3(2) Directive 
2000/43 and Recital 12 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/78) ........... 67 
3.1.2  Natural and legal persons (Recital 16 Directive 2000/43) ............... 67 
Private and public sector including public bodies (Article 3(1)) ........ 68 
3.1.3 
3.2  Material scope ...................................................................................... 69 
Employment, self-employment and occupation ............................. 69 

3.2.1 
3.2.2  Conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to 

3.2.3 

3.2.4 

occupation, including selection criteria, recruitment conditions and 
promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the 
professional hierarchy (Article 3(1)(a)) ........................................ 70 
Employment and working conditions, including pay and dismissals 
(Article 3(1)(c)) ........................................................................ 71 
Access to all types and to all levels of vocational guidance, vocational 
training, advanced vocational training and retraining, including 
practical work experience (Article 3(1)(b)) ................................... 72 

3.2.5  Membership of, and involvement in, an organisation of workers or 

3.2.6 

employers, or any organisation whose members carry on a particular 
profession, including the benefits provided for by such organisations 
(Article 3(1)(d)) ........................................................................ 73 
Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 
3(1)(e) Directive 2000/43) ......................................................... 73 
Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43) .................... 75 
Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43) ............................... 77 
Access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the 
public (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) .................................... 84 
3.2.10  Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) ................................. 84 
EXCEPTIONS ............................................................................................. 88 
4.1  Genuine and determining occupational requirements (Article 4) .................. 88 
4.2  Employers with an ethos based on religion or belief (Article 4(2) Directive 

3.2.7 
3.2.8 
3.2.9 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 88 

4.3  Armed forces and other specific occupations (Article 3(4) and Recital 18 

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 90 
4.4  Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) ................................................... 90 
4.5  Work-related family benefits (Recital 22 Directive 2000/78) ....................... 91 

3 

3 

4 

 
 
4.6  Health and safety (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78) .................................... 92 
4.7  Exceptions related to discrimination on the ground of age (Article 6 Directive 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 92 
4.7.1  Direct discrimination ................................................................. 92 
4.7.2 

Special conditions for young people, older workers and persons with 
caring responsibilities ................................................................ 95 
4.7.3  Minimum and maximum age requirements ................................... 96 
4.7.4  Retirement ............................................................................... 97 
4.7.5  Redundancy ........................................................................... 100 
4.8  Public security, public order, criminal offences, protection of health, protection 
of the rights and freedoms of others (Article 2(5), Directive 2000/78) ....... 100 
4.9  Any other exceptions ........................................................................... 100 
POSITIVE ACTION (Article 5 Directive 2000/43, Article 7 Directive 
2000/78) ................................................................................................ 102 
REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT ............................................................... 107 
6.1 
Judicial and/or administrative procedures (Article 7 Directive 2000/43, Article 
9 Directive 2000/78) ........................................................................... 107 

6.2  Legal standing and associations (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/43, Article 9(2) 

Directive 2000/78) .............................................................................. 113 
6.3  Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78) 115 
6.4  Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) .... 117 
6.5  Sanctions and remedies (Article 15 Directive 2000/43, Article 17 Directive 

2000/78) ........................................................................................... 118 

5 

6 

7 

8 

BODIES FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUAL TREATMENT (Article 13 Directive 
2000/43) ................................................................................................ 122 
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES...................................................................... 128 
8.1  Dissemination of information, dialogue with NGOs and between social partners
 ........................................................................................................ 128 
8.2  Compliance (Article 14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78).... 131 
COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL ..................................................... 132 
9 
10  CURRENT BEST PRACTICES ..................................................................... 133 
11  SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES ................................................ 134 
11.1  Potential breaches of the directives (if any) ............................................ 134 
11.2  Other issues of concern ....................................................................... 135 
12  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2016 ............................................................ 136 
12.1  Legislative amendments ...................................................................... 136 
12.2  Case law ............................................................................................ 136 
ANNEX 1: TABLE OF KEY NATIONAL ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION ... 141 
ANNEX 2: TABLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ..................................... 148 

4 

 
 
 
 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:  

CERD – Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 
CEDAW - Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women  
CoE – Council of Europe 
CRPD – Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 
CJEU – Court of Justice of the EU 
ECHR – European Convention on Human Rights  
ECtHR – European Court of Human Rights  
EU – European Union 
OSCE – Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe 
UN – United Nations  

5 

 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  

1. Introduction 

The Slovak Republic is a country of 5.4 million people. In addition to Slovak nationals, a 
wide range of minority groups live in the country. The largest groups are Hungarians (8.5 
%) and the Roma minority. The official number of Roma in the last census (2011) was 105 
738 (2 %),1 although the Atlas of Roma Communities 2013 reveals that there are more 
than 400 000 Roma living in Slovakia, making up 7.45 % of the whole population.2 The 
other minority groups include Czechs, Ukrainians, Croatians, Germans, Poles, Bulgarians, 
Moravians  and  Jews.3  Foreigners  constitute  1.7  %  of  the  population;  in  2016  93  247 
foreigners lived in Slovakia (out of which, 41 232 were third country nationals). Ukrainians 
are the most represented group among foreigners living in Slovakia, followed by Serbians, 
Russians,  Vietnamese,  Chinese  and  Koreans.  In  2016,  2 170  foreigners  illegally  crossed 
Slovak borders.4 

In Slovakia, many individuals and groups face serious discrimination due to some of their 
traits. For example, the Roma people face widespread, deep prejudice and discrimination, 
which  exists  in  all  areas  of  life  and  is  often  segregational  in  character.  Roma  living  in 
segregated  settlements  face  an  increased  threat  of  forced  eviction.  Roma  children  are 
educated in segregated schools and/or classes and many of them are educated in schools 
for  children  with  mental  disabilities.  The  first  (and  so  far  the  only  final)  case  on  the 
segregation of Roma children in education decided by national courts, in 2011 and 2012, 
concluded  that  education  of  Roma  children  in  separate  mainstream  classes  amounts  to 
racial discrimination and undermines the human dignity of segregated Roma children. The 
inability of the Slovak Government to effectively address the segregation of Roma children 
in education and facilitate their school inclusion, resulted in the submission of other cases 
to the Slovak courts by the Slovak non-governmental organisation, the Centre for Civil and 
Human Rights. The Centre for Civil and Human Rights submitted a series of cases and one 
of  them  was  dismissed  by  the  District  court  in  Bratislava  on  6  October  2016.  The 
segregation of Roma children in education is a very widespread problem. It is notable that 
Slovakia faces infringement proceedings by the European Commission for violating the EU 
Racial  Equality  Directive  (2000/43/EC)  in  the  practice  of  discriminating  against  Roma 
children in special and mainstream education systems.5 

Widespread  and  often  open  racism  and  general  disrespect  towards  minorities  are 
omnipresent, not only among the general public but also at the highest political level. Racial 
and  nationalist  hatred  raises  additional  concerns.  Public  support  for  far-right  policies 
increased and resulted in the accession of the far-right extremist party, National Party – 
Our Slovakia, to the Slovak Parliament after the elections in March 2016.  

1   See http://census2011.statistics.sk/tabulky.html (accessed 10 March 2017).  
2   See Prvé výsledky ATLASU rómskych komunít na Slovensku 2013 (The First Results of the Atlas on Roma 

Communities in Slovakia 2013) (2013), The first results provided selected summarized data from the Atlas 
which can be found on the website of the Plenipotentiary of the Government of the Slovak Republic for 
Roma Communities , available at http://www.minv.sk/?atlas_2013, (accessed 10 March 2017).  

3   Each making up less than 1 % of the national population. See http://census2011.statistics.sk/tabulky.html 

(accessed 10 March  2017). 

4   Migration Office of the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic (2016), ‘Migračný úrad MV SR: Štatistický 
prehľad legálnej a nelegálnej migrácie v Slovenskej republike za rok 2016’ (Statistical overview of legal and 
illegal migration in the Slovak Republic for the year 2016), available at: 
http://www.minv.sk/swift_data/source/policia/uhcp/rocenky/rok_2016/2016-rocenka-UHCP-SK.pdf 
(accessed 10 March 2017).  

5   European Commisssion’s decision to initiate infringement proceedings against Slovakia, ‘Non-conformity 

with Directive 2000/43/EC on Racial Equality - Discrimination of Roma children in education’ from 29 April 
2015, information available at http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/applying-eu-law/infringements-
proceedings/infringement_decisions/index.cfm?lang_code=EN&r_dossier=20152025&noncom=0&decision_d
ate_from=&decision_date_to=&active_only=0&EM=SK&title=&submit=Search (accessed 26 April 2017).  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
The LGBTI community has not acquired full legal and political recognition, e.g. through the 
ability to enter into marriage or a registered partnership. Homophobic voices and voices 
that contest the concept of gender equality are getting stronger and stronger and come 
not  only  from  the  Catholic  Church  hierarchies,  but  also  from  the  highest  political 
representatives.  

People with disabilities face numerous physical and societal barriers and segregation on a 
daily basis in all fields of life. In 2016, the ombudswoman gave particular attention to the 
issue  and  monitored  the  barriers  that  people  with  disabilities  face  in  accessing  public 
buildings,  in  particular  school  buildings,  police  stations  and  state  hospitals.  The 
ombudswoman  in  her  reports  addressed  the  existing  deficiencies  and  recommended 
specific measures that the responsible state authorities have to take in order to prevent 
discrimination against people with disabilities in accessing public buildings.6  

Slovak Government authorities have been generally reluctant to accept refugees in recent 
years in comparison with other countries of the EU and representatives of some political 
parties publicly expressed hostility towards the refugees, particularly in the period before 
the parliamentary elections in March 2016. In order to address political and public negative 
attitudes  towards  the  refugees,  the  NGO  League  for  Human  Rights  in  cooperation  with 
Open Society Foundations created a project called ‘Refugee Friendly Slovakia’, which aimed 
to change political and public opinion towards a more positive acceptance of refugees and 
diversity in the society.7 

Many other individuals and groups also face serious discrimination, often on combinations 
of several grounds. Roma women are especially affected by multiple discrimination.  

2. Main legislation 

The Slovak Republic is party to several international human rights treaties including the 
International  Covenant  on  Civil  and  Political  Rights,  the  International  Covenant  on 
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN 
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the UN Convention 
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

The Constitution of the Slovak Republic states that human rights are guaranteed to every 
individual regardless of sex, race, skin colour, language, belief, religion, political affiliation 
or conviction, national or social origin, nationality (národnosť)8 or ethnic origin, property, 
lineage  or  any  other  status.  No  person  can  be  denied  their  legal  rights,  discriminated 
against or favoured on any of these grounds.  

6   Office of the Public Defender of Rights (October 2016), ‘Správa o výsledkoch prieskumu  bezbariérového 
prístupu do budov škôl a bezbariérovosti v nich’ (Report on outcomes of the research on access to school 
buildings for the disabled); Office of the Public Defender of Rights (September 2016), ‘Správa o výsledkoch 
prieskumu zabezpečenia bezbariérového prístupu v budovách, ktoré sú sídlami útvarov Policajného zboru a 
klientskych centier’ (Report on outcomes of the research on access to police buildings and their client’s 
centres for the disabled); Office of the Public Defender of Rights (September 2016), Bezbariérovosť v 
štátnych nemocniciach a iných zdravotníckych zariadeniach- správa o výsledkoch prieskumu (Access to 
state run hospitals and other health care facilities for the disabled - report on outcomes of the research). 

7   More information on the project is available at: http://www.hrl.sk/en/projects/refugee-friendly-slovakia 

(accessed 10 March 2017).  

8   In the Slovak law, the word ‘nationality’ (národnosť) is separate and distinct from the word ‘citizenship’ 
(štátne občianstvo). Whereas ‘citizenship’ is understood as meaning nationality in the sense of having a 
legal affiliation with a particular state (i.e. being a national or citizen of the Slovak Republic), ‘nationality’ is 
understood as an affiliation with a particular ‘nation’ (a group of people defined by common language, 
geographical and cultural roots etc.) or ethnic group. Thus, ‘nationality’ is often understood as meaning 
‘ethnicity’, including in the practice of state bodies and public institutions. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
The Anti-Discrimination Act (ADA) now in force was  adopted in May  2004,9 immediately 
after  Slovakia  joined  the  EU.  The  ADA  meets  the  minimum  standards  required  by  the 
directives and goes beyond them in some instances.  

The ADA prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex, religion or belief, race, affiliation 
with nationality or an ethnic group, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status and 
family status, colour of skin, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, 
property, lineage/gender10 or other status, or the reason of reporting criminality or other 
anti-social activity.11 In addition to the ADA, several special laws in all the fields covered 
by the directives refer to the ADA, sometimes extending the scope of grounds protected 
by it. Thus, in accordance with these other laws, discrimination is also prohibited on the 
grounds  of  unfavourable  state  of  health,  genetic  features,  trade  union  activities,  or 
activities within associations. In some cases, these laws also contain special mechanisms 
for  invoking  the  right  to  equal  treatment.  Some  serious  offensive  and  discriminatory 
behaviour is outlawed separately by the Criminal Code. 

The  ADA  defines  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  not  only  as  the  prohibition  of 
discrimination, but also as a duty to adopt measures to prevent it.12 The principle of equal 
treatment applies to all fields covered by the directives (these are all contained in the ADA) 
and to all grounds covered by the ADA.  

3. Main principles and definitions 

The  ADA  defines  direct  discrimination,  indirect  discrimination,  harassment,  sexual 
harassment, instruction to discriminate, incitement to discrimination,13 and victimisation.14 
Except for incitement to discrimination (which is a form that goes beyond the scope of the 
directives and does not conflict with them), the definitions follow the patterns  of both of 
the  Directives  2000/43/  EC  and  2000/78/EC.  Discrimination  by  association  is  also 
prohibited,  but  this  only  covers  race,  nationality  (národnosť),  ethnicity,  religion  and 
belief.15 In determining whether discrimination has occurred or not, no account is taken of 
whether the reasons for discrimination were based on facts or on a false assumption.16 

The ADA also imposes  on employers the duty  to provide reasonable accommodation.  In 
particular, it obliges them to take appropriate measures to enable a person with a disability 
to have access to employment, promotion or other advance at work, and to training. At 
the same time, accommodating the needs of a person with disabilities must not impose a 
disproportionate burden on an employer.17 

An  exception  grounded  on  genuine  and  determining  occupational  requirements  is 
permitted  if  it  is  justified  in  accordance  with  rules  that  are  identical  to  those  in  the 
directives.18 

The ADA also defines other exceptions to the principle of equal treatment. Discrimination 
on the ground of religion or belief is allowed for churches and religious organisations if a 

9   Slovakia, Act No. 365/2004 on Equal Treatment in Certain Areas and on Protection Against Discrimination 
(Anti-discrimination Act), as amended (zákon č. 365/2004 Z. z. o rovnakom zaobchádzaní v niektorých 
oblastiach a o ochrane pred diskrimináciou a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (antidiskriminačný 
zákon) v znení neskorších predpisov). 

10   The Slovak word rod can be translated as either ‘lineage’ or ‘gender’. 
11   Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 2(1).  
12   Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Sections 2(1) and 2(3).  
13   An instruction to discriminate is defined as abusive conduct towards a person in a subordinate position for 
the purpose of discriminating against a third person. Incitement to discrimination can be in the form of 
persuading, affirming or inciting a person to discriminate against a third person. 

14   Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 2a(1)-(8).  
15   Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Sections 2a(11)(b) and 2a(11)(c).  
16   Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 3(3).  
17   Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 7.  
18   Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 8(1).  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
person’s  religion  is  fundamental  to  the  exercise  of  a  certain  occupation.19  The  ADA 
stipulates that it does not apply to legal regulation of the status of third-country nationals20 
and states that, in the armed forces and security and rescue services, discrimination on 
the grounds of disability and age is allowed.21  

Under special circumstances, several exceptions concern differences in treatment on the 
ground of age, such as setting age restrictions for access to employment, entitlement to 
certain  social  benefits  in  employment  or  for  the  provision  of  insurance  services.22 
Discrimination on the ground of disability is not considered to be discrimination in providing 
insurance  services  or  in  employment  where  the  health  requirements  are  essential  for 
carrying out certain occupational activities.23  

The  existing  legal  rules  and  case  law  do  not  explicitly  deal  with  situations  of  multiple 
discrimination. 

4. Material scope 

The principle of equal treatment applies to all areas defined in the EU directives and overall 
goes beyond the scope of the directives. 

In particular, the principle of equal treatment must be observed in the field of access to 
employment,  occupation  and  other  earning  activity  or  function,  including  recruitment 
requirements,  selection  criteria  and  methods,  vocational  training,  advanced  vocational 
training and participation in active labour market policy programmes, including vocational 
guidance  services,  membership  and  activity  in  employees’  organisations,  employers’ 
organisations  and  in  organisations  whose  members  carry  out  a  particular  profession, 
including benefits provided by such organisations, and in the fields of social services, social 
insurance,  old-age  pension  insurance,  supplementary  pension  insurance,  state  social 
support and social advantages, healthcare, education, and goods and services, including 
housing  (explicitly,  housing  provided  to  the  public  by  legal  entities  and  natural  persons 
who are entrepreneurs).24 In all these fields, discrimination is prohibited on all the grounds 
listed in the ADA. The implementation of the ADA applies to both the private and the public 
sector. 

5. Enforcing the law 

Although anti-discrimination legislation is relatively progressive, its implementation is very 
weak  in  practice.  Despite  being  poorly  documented  by  the  state  and  its  bodies, 
discrimination  seems  to  be  hugely  present  in  all  fields  covered  by  the  directives  (and 
beyond) and seems to be taking place through more subtle forms than in the past, due to 
the introduction of non-discrimination language to the discourse. One of the reasons for 
the  weak  implementation  of  the  legislation  may  be  the  fact  that  there  is  very  low 
enforcement  through  legal  procedures.  In  March  2017,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  only 
presented data on 12 cases concerning (non-)discrimination that were finalised by effective 
judgements in 2016.25 The available numbers on the ongoing and finished proceedings are 
not accurate because the corresponding data are either not collected or are not collected 
properly.26  

19   Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 8(2).  
20   Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 4(1)(a).  
21   Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Sections 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c).  
22   Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 8(3).  
23   Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Sections 8(6) and 8(5).  
24   Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Sections 3(1), 5 and 6.  
25   A response of the Ministry of Justice of 1 March 2017 to a request for information of 17 February 2017 (on 

file with the author). 

26   For example, the courts do not register discrimination-related proceedings and decisions properly and hence 

reliable statistics do not exist.  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Anyone who considers themselves to have been wronged by a breach of the principle of 
equal treatment can bring the perpetrator to court. The person discriminated against (the 
claimant)  can  demand  before  a  civil  court  (there  are  no  special  labour  courts)  that  the 
person who breached the principle of equal treatment (the defendant) refrains from such 
conduct  and,  where  possible,  rectifies  the  illegal  state  of  affairs.  If  the  violation  of  the 
principle of equal treatment has considerably impaired the dignity, social status or social 
achievements  of  the  victim,  the  victim  may  also  seek  financial  compensation  of  non-
pecuniary damage. The amount of compensation has no fixed scale.27 It is up to the court 
to accept, reject or lower the proposed amount in each particular case. A claimant can in 
principle  claim  other  remedies,  for  example  that  the  court  declares  treatment  by  a 
defendant  to  be  discriminatory.  A  person  who  has  been  discriminated  against  may  also 
request material damages, if it is proved that such damage was caused by discriminatory 
behaviour.28  

The  existing  case  law  shows  that  courts  are  rather  reluctant  to  impose  sanctions  on 
perpetrators that would be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. This is especially true 
for financial compensation of non-pecuniary damage. In 2016 the regional court in Košice 
in its final decision awarded a Roma couple who claimed to have been discriminated against 
based on their ethnic origin in a local bar in Spišské Vlachy financial compensation totalling 
EUR 600 (EUR 300 each). This is one of the first final cases in Slovakia in which the courts 
have awarded financial compensation for racial discrimination.29 

There  is  a  shift  of  the  burden  of  proof  in  court  proceedings  once  the  claimant  has 
communicated to the court facts giving rise to a reasonable presumption that violation of 
the principle of equal treatment has occurred. The defendant must prove that there has 
been  no  discrimination  against  the  claimant  or  that  the  treatment  was  necessary  and 
justifiable.30 The implementation of this  measure by Slovak  courts is still problematic in 
practice. This has been also highlighted by the UN Committee of the Elimination of Racial 
Discrimination  in  its  decision  against  Slovakia  concerning  an  individual  case  of 
discrimination against a Roma woman in access to employment.31  

A person affected by discrimination may be represented in court by the Slovak National 
Centre  for  Human  Rights  (the  equality  body)  or  by  an  organisation  that  has  protection 
against discrimination as its aim (in practice such organisations are mainly NGOs, but in 
principle they could also be trade unions).32 

Sometimes, in cases of discrimination that affect a larger or non-specified number of people 
or  otherwise  threaten  the  public  interest,  such  an  organisation,  or  the  Slovak  National 
Centre for Human Rights, can sue the discriminating entity in its own name (so-called actio 
popularis).33 So far, a few such cases have been initiated (all by an NGO)34 and only one 
of them was won and finalised (a case of segregation of Roma children in education).35  

27   Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 9(1)-(3), in conjunction with Section 11(1).  
28   Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 9(4).  
29   Decision of the Košice regional court, No. 6 Co 833/2014 – 223 of 28 June 2016. 
30   Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 11(2).  
31   See the opinion of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in the case of V.S. v. 

Slovakia, Communication no. 56/2014 of 16 December 2015, paragraphs 7.4. and 9. 

32   Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 10.  
33   Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 9a.  
34   Centre for Civil and Human Rights.  
35   Case Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva vs Základná škola v Šarišských Michaľanoch (Centre for Civil 
and Human Rights vs Šarišské Michaľany Primary School), decision of the District Court in Prešov of 5 
December 2011, ref. No 25C 133/10-229-, and decision of the Regional Court in Prešov of 30 October 2012, 
ref. No 20Co 125/2012, 20Co 126/2012. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
There  are  few  NGOs  in  Slovakia  that  provide  legal  assistance  to  people  affected  by 
discrimination. One  such NGO is the Centre  for Civil and Human Rights in Košice,36 and 
another is Citizen, Democracy and Accountability.37  

According  to  the  Labour  Code,  an  employee  may  submit  a  complaint  to  an  employer 
claiming  infringement  of  the  principle  of  equal  treatment.  The  employer  is  obliged  to 
respond  to  such  a  complaint  without  undue  delay,  perform  restitution  and  abstain  from 
discriminatory  conduct.38  However,  the  effect  of  this  kind  of  remedy  is  questionable 
because there is no  official authority outside the  employment  relationship to handle the 
complaints and employees may be deterred from using the law in this way (due to fear of 
victimisation, for example). 

Sanctions  for  discriminatory  behaviour  can  also  be  imposed  through  the  administrative 
imposition of fines. The labour, trade and school inspectorates  are the bodies in charge. 
However, proceedings before inspectorates are still not much used in practice to enforce 
the anti-discrimination provisions, no shift in burden of proof applies in them, and even if 
such proceedings take place, fines are rarely imposed.  

The ADA contains a provision enabling public administration bodies and other legal entities 
to  adopt  positive  action  measures  (entitled  `temporary  equalising  measures´).  The  act 
stipulates that these measures should be aimed at removing disadvantages following from 
the grounds of racial or ethnic origin, affiliation with a national minority or an ethnic group, 
gender  or  sex,  age  or  disability,  and  that  their  aim  should  be  to  guarantee  equality  of 
opportunity in practice.39 Some positive action measures are in place with regard to the 
Roma.  For  example,  the  programme  Healthy  Communities,  which  employs  234  health 
mediators  of  Roma  origin  in  299  marginalised  Roma  communities  (the  mediators  come 
from these communities) who assist people with everyday health-related situations, was 
re-introduced  in  2013.  Due  to  the  problems  in  funding  in  2016,  the  continuation  of  the 
project seemed questionable.40 Employment legislation provides for special protection for 
people with disabilities and there is a special quota system established for employers who 
employ at least 20 employees.41 There are no specific positive action measures related to 
discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation and religion and belief. 

Some form of dialogue with NGOs is taking place through the Council of the Government 
of  the  Slovak  Republic  for  Human  Rights,  National  Minorities  and  Gender  Equality,  the 
Government’s  advisory  body.42  The  functioning  of  the  council  has  some  systemic  and 
practical drawbacks.  

It appears that there is no constant and systematic dialogue between the Government and 
trade unions as regards non-discrimination. Trade unions are in general not very active in 
the field.  

36   This NGO deals mainly with cases of discrimination against Roma. 
37   Citizen, Democracy and Accountability focuses mainly on gender-related discrimination. 
38   See Slovakia, Act No 311/2001 Labour Code (zákon č. 311/2001 Z. z. Zákonník práce), Section 13(5). 
39   Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 8a.  
40   More information about the programme is available at http://www.zdravekomunity.sk/?q=en (accessed 10 

March 2017).  

41   Pursuant to Slovakia, Act No 5/2004 on Employment Services, Sections 63-65, any employer who employs 

at least 20 employees is obliged to ensure that people with disabilities make up at least 3.2 % of the 
workforce, provided that the local labour office has job seekers with disabilities on its register. Instead of 
employing a person with a disability, an employer can also decide to buy goods or services from a sheltered 
workshop or a sheltered workplace or a self-employed person with a disability. 

42   Slovakia, Act No 575/2001 Z. z. on the Organisation of the Activities of the Government and on the 
Organisation of the Central State Administration, as amended (zákon č. 575/2001 Z. z. o organizácii 
činnosti vlády a organizácii ústrednej štátnej správy v znení neskorších predpisov), Section 2(3). The 
website of the Council of the Government: www.radavladylp.gov.sk/ (accessed 10 March 2017).  

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6. Equality bodies 

The body designated for the promotion of equal treatment is the Slovak National Centre 
for  Human  Rights.  The  centre  is  an  independent,  non-judicial  body,  subsidised  mainly 
through the state budget.43  

The centre is empowered to draft expert opinions on compliance with the principle of equal 
treatment. It is also tasked with monitoring and evaluating the observance of human rights 
and  of  equal  treatment  and  with  collecting  and  providing  information  on  racism, 
xenophobia  and  anti-Semitism,  as  well  as  with  carrying  out  independent  inquiries 
concerning discrimination. More generally, the centre is obliged to conduct research and 
surveys for the purpose of providing data in the field of human rights. The centre is also 
obliged  to  publish  an  annual  report  on  the  observance  of  human  rights,  including  the 
principle of equal treatment, in Slovakia. It is also required to secure legal aid for people 
affected  by  discrimination  under  the  ADA  and  is  empowered  to  represent  the  victims  of 
discrimination in court.44 It may also file an actio popularis (see above). As the centre is 
competent to act in cases of discrimination defined by the ADA, it works on all the grounds 
defined by it. 

In 2016, the centre dealt with 524 complaints of possible discriminatory treatment, out of 
which  45  concerned  age,  26  race,  24  gender,  276  other  status,  55  disability,  73 
nationality/ethnic origin, 1 sexual orientation, 11 family status, 9 language, 4 the reason 
on reporting criminality or other anti- social activity. The centre issued 19 expert opinions, 
provided  legal  representation  in  three  court  proceedings  and  did  not  submit  any  actio 
popularis lawsuits. 45  

For a long time now, various sources have been reporting that the centre is not fulfilling 
its  tasks  efficiently  and  satisfactorily.46  In  2011,  the  Slovak  Government  approved  an 
analytical report on the functioning and status of the centre, the first (and last) of its kind. 
The report presented a number of findings, which resulted from a relatively complex data 
gathering exercise.  

Among  the  most  relevant  findings  presented  were:  the  centre’s  lack  of  powers/unclear 
powers; its inadequate professional and personal capacity; inefficient management of the 
public  resources  allocated  to  the  centre;  inappropriate  structure  of  the  governing  and 
supervisory  bodies  created  within  the  centre  and  their  inactivity;  the  centre’s  lack  of 
preventive and strategic approaches; a lack of independence and mechanisms to protect 
it  against  abuse  by  particular  interests,  including  political  ones;  lack  of  visibility  of  the 
centre’s activities and their limited impact; the very low number of cases of discrimination 

43   Slovakia, Act No 308/1993 on Establishing the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights (zákon č. 308/1993 

Z. z. o zriadení Slovenského národného strediska pre ľudské práva), Sections 1 and 2(1)-(3). 

44   Slovakia, Act No 308/1993 on Establishing the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights, Sections 1(2)-(4). 
45   Response of the Centre for Human Rights of 21 February 2017 to a request for information of 17 February 

2017 (on file with the author). 

46   See, for example, Durbáková, V., Holubová, B., Ivanco, Š., Liptáková, S. (2012), Hľadanie bariér v prístupe 
k účinnej právnej ochrane pred diskrimináciou, Košice: Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva, pp. 110-112. 
The publication is also available at https://www.poradna-prava.sk/sk/dokumenty/diskriminacia-na-
slovensku-hladanie-barier-v-pristupe-k-ucinnej-pravnej-ochrane-pred-diskriminaciou/ ( accessed 10 March 
2017); see also Centre for Civil and Human Rights – People in Need Slovak Republic (2013), Written 
comments concerning the Ninth and Tenth Periodic Reports of the Slovak Republic under the International 
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, pp. 2, 13, 16 (also available at: 
https://www.poradna-prava.sk/en/documents/written-comments-to-the-committee-on-the-elimination-of-
racial-discrimination/; see also the Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of 
Discrimination against Women from 2015 (available at: 
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2fC%2fSVK%
2fCO%2f5-6&Lang=en, (accessed 10 March 2017) and the Concluding Observations of the Human Rights 
Committee from October 2016 (available at: 
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fSVK%2f
CO%2f4&Lang=en (accessed 10 March 2017).  

12 

 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
that have been brought to court by the centre and that have been resolved by the centre 
in general.  

The  new  Government  appointed  in  2016  is  already  working  on  the  legislative  bill  that 
should strengthen the independence and effective functioning of the centre. By the end of 
2016, the legislation had not yet been presented to the public. 

7. Key issues 

In  general,  the  transposition  of  the  directives  has  been  carried  out  in  a  relatively 
satisfactory manner, going beyond the requirements of the directives in many instances, 
and, despite a lot of room for improvement (e. g. in some procedural rules), it could serve 
as  a  good  departure  point  for  the  implementation  of  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  in 
practice. However, at the moment, implementation is still far behind the requirements of 
the directives. The main reasons for this are: barriers to access to courts and to justice in 
general; lack of proper knowledge of anti-discrimination legislation by legal professionals 
and by decision-makers; racial prejudices among judges and lack of programmes to raise 
their  awareness;  lack  of  case  law  and  deficiencies  in  the  registration  of  cases  on 
discrimination; lack of data and statistics connected to discrimination and its grounds; lack 
of effectiveness in the functioning of the equality body; lack of independence of the equality 
body; lack of public policies in the field of anti-discrimination; lack of effective policies for 
the  transition  from  a  segregated  to  an  inclusive  educational  system;  lack  of  material, 
financial and human resources for mainstream schools to ensure inclusive education; lack 
of  mainstreaming  of  the  principle  of  non-discrimination  and  lack  of  coordination  among 
public bodies responsible for non-discrimination; lack of resources to be invested by the 
Government into non-discrimination, lack of systemic support of NGOs by the Government; 
the  system  of  education  not  sufficiently  integrating  the  principles  and  values  of  human 
rights and non-discrimination; politicians lacking commitment and interest in these values; 
a  very  high  level  of  occurrence  and  tolerance  of  racism  and  discriminatory  attitudes  in 
society  as  a  whole;  increased  public  support  for  far-right  policies  leading  also  to  the 
accession of the far-right extremist party to the Slovak  Parliament after the elections in 
March 2016.  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RÉSUMÉ  

1. Introduction 

La  République  slovaque  est  un  pays  de  5,4 millions  d’habitants  où  vivent,  outre  les 
ressortissants slovaques, toute une série de groupes minoritaires – les principaux étant les 
Hongrois (8,5 %) et la minorité rom qui, selon le dernier recensement (2011), comptait 
officiellement 105 738 personnes (2 % de la population).47 L’Atlas 2013 des communautés 
roms révèle toutefois que plus de 400 000 Roms vivent en Slovaquie et représentent dès 
lors  7,45 %  de  l’ensemble  de  la  population.48  Parmi  les  autres  minorités  figurent  les 
Tchèques,  les  Ukrainiens,  les  Croates,  les  Allemands,  les  Polonais,  les  Bulgares,  les 
Moraves  et  les  Juifs.49  Les  étrangers  représentent  1,7  %  de  la  population;  93 247 
ressortissants  étrangers  vivaient  en  Slovaquie  en  2016  (dont  41 232 ressortissants  de 
pays tiers). Le groupe le plus nombreux est formé des Ukrainiens, suivis des Serbes, des 
Russes,  des  Vietnamiens,  des  Chinois  et  des  Coréens.  En  2016,  2 170 étrangers  ont 
illégalement franchi les frontières slovaques.50 

Bon nombre de personnes et de groupes font l’objet d’une forte discrimination en Slovaquie 
en  raison  de  certaines  de  leurs  caractéristiques.  Ainsi  par  exemple  les  Roms  sont-ils 
confrontés à des préjugés largement répandus et à une discrimination qui, observée dans 
tous les domaines de vie, revêt souvent un caractère ségrégationniste. Les  Roms établis 
dans des campements ségrégués vivent sous la menace grandissante d’une éviction forcée. 
Les enfants roms suivent leur enseignement dans des écoles et/ou des classes séparées, 
et beaucoup d’entre eux dans des établissements pour enfants mentalement handicapés.  
La première affaire (et, à ce jour, la seule passée en force de chose jugée) en matière de 
ségrégation des enfants roms dans l’enseignement, dans laquelle les juridictions nationales 
se sont prononcées en 2011 et 2012, conclut que l’éducation des enfants roms dans des 
classes ordinaires séparées est constitutive d’une discrimination raciale et va à l’encontre 
de la dignité des enfants roms ainsi mis à l’écart. L’incapacité du gouvernement slovaque 
de  remédier  efficacement  à  la  ségrégation  des  enfants  roms  dans  l’enseignement  et  de 
faciliter  leur  inclusion  scolaire  fait  que  les  juridictions  slovaques  ont  été  saisies  d’autres 
dossiers par le Centre pour les droits civils et humains, organisation non gouvernementale 
slovaque. Le tribunal régional de Bratislava a rejeté l’un de ces recours le 6 octobre 2016. 
La ségrégation des enfants roms dans l’enseignement est un problème très répandu, et il 
est  à  noter  que  la  Slovaquie  fait  l’objet  de  la  part  de  la  Commission  européenne  d’une 
procédure d’infraction pour violation de la directive européenne relative à l’égalité raciale 
(2000/43/CE) en raison de la discrimination pratiquée à l’encontre des enfants roms dans 
les systèmes spéciaux et ordinaires d’enseignement.51 

Un racisme largement répandu et souvent déclaré ainsi qu’un manque général de respect 
à l’égard des minorités  sont omniprésents, non seulement au sein du grand public mais 
également au plus haut niveau politique. La haine raciale et nationaliste est une source de 

47   Voir http://census2011.statistics.sk/tabulky.html (consulté le 10 mars 2017).  
48   Voir Prvé výsledky ATLASU rómskych komunít na Slovensku 2013 (Les premiers résultats de l’Atlas 2013 

des communautés roms) (2013). Les premiers résultats sont une sélection de données sommaires tirées de 
l’Atlas, que l’on peut consulter sur le site web du Plénipotentiaire du gouvernement de la République de 
Slovaquie pour les communautés roms: http://www.minv.sk/?atlas_2013, consulté le 10 mars 2017.  

49   Chacune de ces minorités représentant moins de 1 % de la population nationale. Voir 

http://census2011.statistics.sk/tabulky.html (consulté le 10 mars 2017). 

50   Office des migrations du ministère de l’Intérieur de la République slovaque (2016), «Migračný úrad MV SR: 

Štatistický prehľad legálnej a nelegálnej migrácie v Slovenskej republike za rok 2016» (Aperçu statistique 
des migrations légales et illégales en République slovaque pour l’année 2016), disponible sur: 
http://www.minv.sk/swift_data/source/policia/uhcp/rocenky/rok_2016/2016-rocenka-UHCP-SK.pdf 
(consulté le 10 mars 2017).  

51   Décision de la Commission européenne d’engager une procédure d’infraction à l’encontre de la Slovaquie 

«Non-conformity with Directive 2000/43/EC on Racial Equality - Discrimination of Roma children in 
education», 29 avril 2015, informations disponibles sur http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/applying-eu-
law/infringements-
proceedings/infringement_decisions/?r_dossier=20152025&noncom=0&decision_date_from=&decision_date
_to=&active_only=0&EM=SK&title=&submit=Search&lang_code=fr  (consulté le 26 avril 2017).  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
préoccupation supplémentaire. Le soutien public en faveur de politiques d’extrême-droite 
s’est  intensifié  et  a  donné  lieu  à  l’entrée  du  parti  national  d’extrême-droite  «Notre 
Slovaquie» au Parlement suite aux élections de mars 2016.   

La  communauté  LGBTI  n’a  pas  acquis,  comme  ce  fut  le  cas  pour  d’autres  motifs  de 
discrimination et d’autres groupes visés par des discriminations, une pleine reconnaissance 
politique  juridique  qui  permettrait,  par  exemple,  de  contracter  un  mariage  ou  un 
partenariat enregistré. Des voix homophobes et des voix contestant le concept de l’égalité 
des genres se font de plus en plus largement entendre; elles émanent non seulement de 
la  hiérarchie  de  l’Église  catholique,  mais  également  de  représentants  politiques  au  plus 
haut niveau.  

Les personnes handicapées se heurtent à de nombreuses barrières physiques et sociétales 
ainsi  qu’à  une  ségrégation  quotidienne  dans  tous  les  domaines  de  vie.  En  2016,  la 
médiatrice s’est plus spécialement intéressée à la question des obstacles rencontrés par 
les personnes handicapées pour accéder aux bâtiments publics, et en particulier aux écoles, 
aux commissariats de police et aux hôpitaux publics. Elle fait part dans ses rapports des 
lacunes constatées, et recommande des mesures spécifiques à prendre par les autorités 
publiques compétentes pour prévenir la discrimination envers les personnes handicapées 
en termes d’accès aux bâtiments publics.52  

De  façon  générale,  les  autorités  publiques  slovaques  se  sont  montrées  –  par  rapport  à 
d’autres  pays  de  l’UE  –  plutôt  réticentes  ces  dernières  années  en  termes  d’accueil  de 
réfugiés, et les représentants de plusieurs partis politiques ont publiquement exprimé leur 
hostilité à l’égard de ceux-ci, en particulier durant la période qui a précédé les élections 
parlementaires de mars 2016. En vue de lutter contre ces attitudes politiques et publiques 
négatives  à  l’égard  des  réfugiés,  l’ONG  «Ligue  des  droits  de  l’homme»  a  créé  en 
collaboration avec les Fondations pour une société ouverte un projet intitulé «La Slovaquie 
favorable aux réfugiés», qui vise à faire évoluer l’opinion politique et publique en faveur 
d’une acceptation plus positive des réfugiés et d’une diversité de la société.53 

Beaucoup  d’autres  personnes  et  groupes  sont  également  confrontés  à  une  forte 
discrimination, souvent fondée sur la combinaison de plusieurs motifs. Cette discrimination 
multiple vise plus particulièrement les femmes roms.  

2. Législation principale 

La République slovaque est partie à plusieurs traités internationaux relatifs aux droits de 
l’homme,  dont  le  Pacte  international  relatif  aux  droits  civils  et  politiques,  le  Pacte 
international  relatif  aux  droits  économiques,  sociaux  et  culturels,  la  Convention 
européenne  de  sauvegarde  des  droits  de  l’homme,  la  Convention  internationale  sur 
l’élimination  de  toutes  les  formes  de  discrimination  raciale  et  la  Convention  des  Nations 
unies relative aux droits des personnes handicapées.  

La Constitution de la République de Slovaquie déclare que les droits fondamentaux sont 
garantis à toute personne indépendamment de son sexe, de sa race, de la couleur de sa 
peau,  de  sa  langue,  de  ses  convictions,  de  sa  religion,  de  son  appartenance  ou  de  ses 

52   Bureau du Défenseur public des droits (octobre 2016), «Správa o výsledkoch prieskumu  bezbariérového 

prístupu do budov škôl a bezbariérovosti v nich» (Rapport des résultats de l’étude sur l’accès des personnes 
handicapées aux bâtiments scolaires); Bureau du Défenseur public des droits (septembre 2016), «Správa o 
výsledkoch prieskumu zabezpečenia bezbariérového prístupu v budovách, ktoré sú sídlami útvarov 
Policajného zboru a klientskych centier» (Rapport sur les résultats de l’étude sur l’accès des personnes 
handicapées aux bâtiments de la police et à ses centres ouverts à la clientèle); Bureau du Défenseur public 
des droits (septembre 2016), Bezbariérovosť v štátnych nemocniciach a iných zdravotníckych zariadeniach- 
správa o výsledkoch prieskumu (accès des personnes handicapées aux hôpitaux et autres centres de soins 
en gestion publique – rapport sur les résultats de l’étude). 

53   De plus amples informations concernant ce projet sont disponibles sur: 

http://www.hrl.sk/en/projects/refugee-friendly-slovakia (consulté le 10 mars 2017).  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
options politiques, de son origine nationale ou sociale, de sa nationalité (národnosť)54 ou 
de  son  origine  ethnique,  de  sa  fortune,  de  sa  naissance  ou  de  toute  autre  circonstance 
personnelle. Aucune personne ne peut se voir refuser sa protection juridique ni faire l’objet 
d’un traitement discriminatoire ou préférentiel pour l’un quelconque de ces motifs.  

La  loi  antidiscrimination  actuellement  en  vigueur  a  été  adoptée  en  mai  2004,55 
immédiatement après l’adhésion de la Slovaquie à l’UE. Elle respecte les normes minimales 
imposées par les directives et va au-delà de celles-ci dans certains cas.  

La  loi  antidiscrimination  interdit  la  discrimination  fondée  sur  le  sexe,  la  religion  ou  les 
convictions, la race, l’appartenance à une nationalité ou un groupe ethnique, un handicap, 
l’âge,  l’orientation  sexuelle,  l’état  matrimonial  et  la  situation  familiale,  la  couleur  de  la 
peau, la langue, les opinions politiques ou autres, l’origine nationale ou sociale, la fortune, 
la naissance/le genre56 ou toute autre caractéristique personnelle, ou pour avoir signalé un 
délit  ou  une  autre  activité  antisociale.57  Outre  la  loi  antidiscrimination,  plusieurs  lois 
spéciales relevant des différents domaines visés par les directives font référence à la loi 
antidiscrimination et élargissent parfois le champ d’application des motifs qu’elle protège. 
C’est ainsi que, en vertu de ces autres lois, la discrimination fondée sur un état de santé 
précaire, des caractéristiques génétiques, des activités syndicales  ou des activités au sein 
d’associations est également interdite. Ces lois contiennent également dans certains cas 
des  mécanismes  spéciaux  pour  l’invocation  du  droit  à  l’égalité  de  traitement.  Plusieurs 
formes graves de comportement offensant et discriminatoire font l’objet d’une interdiction 
distincte dans le code pénal. 

La loi antidiscrimination définit le principe de l’égalité de traitement non seulement comme 
l’interdiction de discrimination, mais également comme l’obligation d’adopter des mesures 
pour  l’empêcher.58  Le  principe  de  l’égalité  de  traitement  s’applique  à  tous  les  domaines 
couverts  par  les  directives  (lesquels  sont  tous  inclus  dans  la  loi  antidiscrimination)  et  à 
tous les motifs protégés par la loi antidiscrimination.  

3. Principes généraux et définitions 

La  loi  antidiscrimination  définit  la  discrimination  directe,  la  discrimination  indirecte,  le 
harcèlement, le harcèlement sexuel, l’incitation à discriminer59 et les rétorsions.60 Hormis 
en ce qui concerne l’incitation à la discrimination (forme de discrimination qui va au-delà 
du  champ  d’application  des  directives  mais  qui  n’est  pas  incompatible  avec  elles),  les 
définitions  suivent  le  modèle  des  deux  directives  (2000/43/CE  et  2000/78/CE).  La 
discrimination par association est également interdite, mais seuls les motifs de la race, de 
la nationalité (národnosť), de l’ethnicité, de la religion et des convictions sont couverts.61 
L’établissement  de  l’existence  ou  de  la  non-existence  d’une  discrimination  ne  tient  pas 

54   En droit slovaque, le terme «nationalité» (národnosť) se distingue du terme «citoyenneté» (štátne 

občianstvo). Alors que le second s’entend comme la nationalité au sens d’une appartenance juridique avec 
un État particulier (autrement dit comme le fait d’être un ressortissant ou un citoyen de la République 
slovaque), le terme «nationalité» s’entend comme une appartenance à une «nation» particulière (à savoir 
un groupe de personnes définies par une même langue, des racines géographiques et culturelles 
communes, etc.) ou à un groupe ethnique. Il en découle que la «nationalité» s’entend souvent comme 
désignant «l’ethnicité», y compris  dans la pratique des organes de l’État et des institutions publiques. 
55   Slovaquie, loi n° 365/2004 sur l’égalité de traitement dans certains domaines et sur la protection contre la 

discrimination (loi antidiscrimination), telle que modifiée (zákon č. 365/2004 Z. z. o rovnakom zaobchádzaní 
v niektorých oblastiach a o ochrane pred diskrimináciou a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov 
(antidiskriminačný zákon) v znení neskorších predpisov). 

56   Le terme slovaque «rod» peut se traduire par «naissance» ou par «genre». 
57   Slovaquie, loi antidiscrimination, 365/2004, article 2, paragraphe 1.  
58   Slovaquie, loi antidiscrimination, 365/2004, article 2, paragraphes 1 et 3.  
59   Une instruction de discriminer est définie comme un comportement abusif envers une personne 

subordonnée visant à une discrimination à l’égard d’une tierce personne. L’incitation à la discrimination peut 
consister à persuader, engager ou inciter une personne à pratiquer une discrimination à l’encontre d’une 
tierce personne. 

60   Slovaquie, loi antidiscrimination, 365/2004, article 2a, paragraphes 1 à 8.  
61   Slovaquie, loi antidiscrimination, 365/2004, article 2a, paragraphe 11 sous b) et c).  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
compte  du  fait  que  celle-ci  ait  été  fondée  sur  des  faits  réels  ou  sur  une  supposition 
erronée.62 

La loi antidiscrimination impose également aux employeurs une obligation d’aménagement 
raisonnable.  Elle  les  oblige  notamment  à  prendre  les  mesures  appropriées  pour  qu’une 
personne  handicapée  puisse  avoir  accès  à  l’emploi,  à  la  promotion  ou  tout  autre 
avancement  au  travail,  et  à  la  formation.  L’adaptation  aux  besoins  d’une  personne 
handicapée ne peut toutefois faire peser une charge disproportionnée sur l’employeur.63 

Une  dérogation  fondée  sur  des  exigences  professionnelles  essentielles  et  déterminantes 
est admise pour autant qu’elle soit justifiée par des règles identiques à celles définies dans 
les directives.64 

La loi antidiscrimination définit d’autres exceptions au principe de l’égalité de traitement. 
Ainsi la discrimination fondée sur la religion ou les convictions est-elle autorisée pour les 
églises et les organisations religieuses lorsque la religion d’une personne s’avère essentielle 
pour l’exercice d’une profession déterminée.65 La loi antidiscrimination dispose qu’elle ne 
s’applique pas à la réglementation juridique du statut des ressortissants de pays tiers66 et 
que la discrimination fondée sur le handicap et l’âge est admise dans les forces armées et 
de sécurité et dans les services de secours.67  

Plusieurs dérogations sont prévues, dans des matières particulières, en ce qui concerne les 
différences de traitement fondées sur l’âge: on songe ici à la fixation d’un âge pour accéder 
à l’emploi, pour prétendre à certains avantages sociaux liés à l’emploi ou pour bénéficier 
de services d’assurance.68 La discrimination fondée sur le handicap n’est pas considérée 
comme une discrimination lorsqu’il s’agit de fournir des services d’assurance ou de prester 
un  emploi  si  les  exigences  de  santé  sont  déterminantes  pour  l’exécution  de  certaines 
activités professionnelles.69  

Ni les règles de droit en vigueur ni la jurisprudence ne traitent explicitement des situations 
de discrimination multiple. 

4. Champ d’application matériel 

Le  principe  de  l’égalité  de  traitement  s’applique  à  tous  les  domaines  définis  dans  les 
directives de l’UE et va, de façon générale, au-delà du champ d’application de celles-ci. 

Ce principe doit plus particulièrement être respecté dans les domaines de l’accès à l’emploi, 
au travail et à toute autre activité ou fonction rémunératrice, en ce compris les critères de 
recrutement,  les  critères  et  méthodes  de  sélection,  la  formation  professionnelle,  le 
perfectionnement professionnel et la participation à des programmes relevant de politiques 
actives sur le marché du travail (services d’orientation professionnelle inclus); l’affiliation 
et  la  participation  active  à  des  organisations  de  travailleurs,  à  des  organisations 
d’employeurs  et  à  des  organisations  dont  les  membres  exercent  une  profession 
particulière, y compris les avantages octroyés par ces organisations; et dans les domaines 
des  services  sociaux,  de    la  sécurité  sociale,  de  l’assurance  vieillesse,  de  l’assurance 
pension complémentaire, des prestations et avantages sociaux divers, des soins de santé, 
de l’éducation ainsi que des biens et des services, y compris du logement (explicitement 
décrit comme un logement mis à la disposition du public par des personnes morales et par 

62   Slovaquie, loi antidiscrimination, 365/2004, article 3, paragraphe 3.  
63   Slovaquie, loi antidiscrimination, 365/2004, article 7.  
64   Slovaquie, loi antidiscrimination, 365/2004, article 8, paragraphe 1.  
65   Slovaquie, loi antidiscrimination, 365/2004, article 8, paragraphe 2.  
66   Slovaquie, loi antidiscrimination, 365/2004, article 4, paragraphe 1 sous a).  
67   Slovaquie, loi antidiscrimination, 365/2004, article 4, paragraphe 1 sous b) et c).  
68   Slovaquie, loi antidiscrimination, 365/2004, article 8, paragraphe 3.  
69   Slovaquie, loi antidiscrimination, 365/2004, article 8, paragraphes 6 et 5.  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
des personnes physiques qui sont entrepreneurs).70 Est interdite dans tous ces domaines 
la  discrimination  fondée  sur  n’importe  lequel  des  motifs  énoncés  dans  la  loi 
antidiscrimination, laquelle s’applique à la fois au secteur privé et au secteur public. 

5. Mise en application de la loi 

La législation antidiscrimination est relativement progressiste, mais sa mise en œuvre sur 
le terrain reste fort limitée. Bien que mal documenté par l’État et ses différents organes, 
le  phénomène  discriminatoire  semble  très  largement  répandu  dans  tous  les  domaines 
couverts par les directives (ainsi que dans d’autres) tout en se manifestant sous des formes 
plus subtiles que par le passé grâce à l’introduction d’un langage non discriminatoire dans 
le  discours.  Le  faible  degré  de  mise  en  œuvre  de  la  législation  pourrait  notamment 
s’expliquer  par  un  recours  extrêmement  limité  aux  procédures  judiciaires  pour  la  faire 
appliquer.  En  mars  2017,  les  données  communiquées  par  le  ministère  de  la  Justice 
concernaient uniquement 12 affaires relatives à une (non-)discrimination ayant fait l’objet 
d’un jugement exécutoire en 2016.71 Les chiffres disponibles concernant les procédures en 
cours et les procédures clôturées ne sont guère exacts car les données y relatives ne sont 
pas collectées ou ne sont pas collectées correctement.72 

Quiconque  estime  avoir  été  lésé  par  une  violation  du  principe  de  l’égalité  de  traitement 
peut en poursuivre l’auteur en justice. La personne visée par la discrimination (la partie 
requérante) peut demander à une juridiction civile (il n’existe pas de juridiction spéciale 
du travail) que la personne ayant enfreint le principe de l’égalité de traitement (la partie 
défenderesse) s’abstienne de ce type de comportement et qu’elle remédie, dans la mesure 
du possible, à la situation abusive. Si le non-respect du principe de l’égalité de traitement 
a  porté  gravement  atteinte  à  sa  dignité,  à  son  statut  social  ou  à  ses  acquis  sociaux,  la 
victime  peut  également  réclamer  une  indemnisation  financière  pour  préjudice  moral.  Le 
montant  de  l’indemnisation  ne  relève  pas  d’un  barème  établi.73  C’est  au  tribunal  qu’il 
appartient dans chaque cas d’accepter, de rejeter ou de réduire le montant proposé. Une 
partie requérante peut en principe réclamer d’autres réparations: que le tribunal déclare 
discriminatoire  le  traitement  pratiqué  par  la  partie  défenderesse,  par  exemple.  Une 
personne  ayant 
l’objet  d’une  discrimination  peut  également  réclamer  une 
indemnisation pour le préjudice matériel subi, pour autant qu’il soit démontré que le dit 
préjudice a été causé par un comportement discriminatoire.74  

fait 

La  jurisprudence  existante  atteste  d’une  certaine  réticence  des  cours  et  tribunaux 
d’imposer  à  l’égard  des  auteurs  d’infractions  des  sanctions  qui  soient  efficaces, 
proportionnées  et  dissuasives.  Tel  est  particulièrement  le  cas  en  ce  qui  concerne 
l’indemnisation financière d’un préjudice moral. À un couple rom alléguant avoir fait l’objet 
d’une discrimination fondée sur son origine ethnique dans un bar local de Spišské Vlachy, 
le  tribunal  régional  de  Košice  a  alloué  par  sa  décision  finale  prononcée  en  2016  une 
indemnité financière s’élevant à 600 euros (300 euros à chacun des membres du couple). 
Il s’agit de l’une des premières affaires jugées en Slovaquie dans laquelle une juridiction 
attribue une indemnité financière en réparation d’une discrimination raciale.75 

La  procédure  judiciaire  prévoit  un  renversement  de  la  charge  de  la  preuve  lorsque  la 
victime  communique  au  tribunal  des  faits  permettant  de  présumer  raisonnablement 
l’existence  d’une  violation  du  principe  de  l’égalité  de  traitement.  Il  appartient  alors  au 
défendeur  de  démontrer  l’absence  de  discrimination  à  l’encontre  du  requérant  ou  la 

70   Slovaquie, loi antidiscrimination, 365/2004, article 3, paragraphe 1, et articles 5 et 6.  
71   Réponse du ministère de la Justice en date du 1er mars 2017 à une demande d’information du 17 février 

2017 (dans les dossiers de l’auteure). 

72   Ainsi par exemple, les cours et tribunaux n’enregistrent correctement ni les procédures ni les décisions en 

rapport avec des discriminations de sorte qu’il n’existe pas de statistiques fiables.  

73   Slovaquie, loi antidiscrimination, 365/2004, article 9, paragraphes 1 à 3, lu conjointement à l’article 11, 

paragraphe 1.  

74   Slovaquie, loi antidiscrimination, 365/2004, article 9, paragraphe 4.  
75   Arrêt du tribunal régional de Košice, n° 6 Co 833/2014 – 223 du 28 juin 2016. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
nécessité et la justification du traitement incriminé.76 La mise en œuvre de cette mesure 
par les juridictions slovaques  reste problématique sur le terrain  – un  constat  également 
mis en lumière par le comité des NU pour l’élimination de la discrimination raciale dans sa 
décision à l’encontre de la Slovaquie à propos d’une affaire individuelle de discrimination 
en matière d’accès à l’emploi à l’encontre d’une femme rom.77  

Une personne visée par une discrimination peut être représentée en justice par le Centre 
national slovaque des droits de l’homme (organisme pour l’égalité) ou par une organisation 
ayant pour objet la protection contre la discrimination (il s’agit, en pratique, surtout d’ONG 
mais, en théorie, il pourrait également s’agir de syndicats).78 

Il arrive, lorsque la discrimination affecte un nombre de personnes plus important ou non 
spécifié, ou menace d’une autre manière l’intérêt public, que ce type d’organisation ou le 
Centre  national  slovaque  des  droits  de  l’homme  poursuive  en  son  propre  nom  (actio 
popularis) l’entité qui commet l’acte discriminatoire.79 À ce jour, quelques actions ont été 
engagées  (toutes  par  une  ONG)80  et  une  seule  d’entre  elle  a  abouti  (une  affaire  de 
ségrégation d’enfants roms dans l’enseignement).81  

Quelques ONG slovaques apportent une assistance juridique aux personnes visées par des 
discriminations.  Tel  est  notamment  le  cas  du  Centre  des  droits  civils  et  humains  de 
Košice,82 et de l’ONG «Citoyenneté, démocratie et responsabilité».83  

Un  salarié  peut,  en  vertu  du  code  du  travail,  porter  plainte  contre  son  employeur  en 
invoquant  une  violation  du  principe  de  l’égalité  de  traitement.  L’employeur  est  tenu  de 
réagir  sans  délai,  de  procéder  à  une  réparation  et  de  s’abstenir  de  tout  comportement 
discriminatoire.84 On peut néanmoins douter de l’effet de ce type de recours car l’absence, 
en dehors de la relation de travail, d’autorité officielle habilitée à traiter les plaintes pourrait 
dissuader  les  travailleurs  d’invoquer  la  loi  de  cette  manière  (par  crainte  de  représailles 
notamment). 

Des sanctions pour comportement discriminatoire peuvent également être imposées sous 
la  forme  d’amendes  administratives  –  les  organes  compétents  en  la  matière  étant  les 
inspections  du  travail,  du  commerce  et  de  l’enseignement.  Les  actions  auprès  de  ces 
inspections  restent  toutefois  très  peu  utilisées  dans  la  pratique  pour  faire  appliquer  les 
dispositions antidiscrimination, aucun renversement de la charge de la preuve n’est prévu 
et même lorsque de telles actions sont engagées, des amendes sont rarement infligées. 

loi  antidiscrimination  contient  une  disposition  permettant  aux  organes  de 
La 
l’administration  publique  et  à  d’autres  entités  juridiques  d’adopter  des  mesures  d’action 
positive (appelées «mesures temporaires d’égalisation»). La loi précise que ces mesures 
doivent  viser  à  supprimer  des  désavantages  associés  aux  motifs  de  l’origine  raciale  ou 
ethnique, de l’appartenance à une minorité nationale ou un groupe ethnique, du genre ou 
du sexe, de l’âge ou du handicap, et qu’elles doivent avoir pour finalité de garantir l’égalité 
des chances dans la pratique.85 Certaines mesures d’action positive sont en place en faveur 

76   Slovaquie, loi antidiscrimination, 365/2004, article 11, paragraphe 2.  
77   Voir l’avis du comité des Nations unies pour l’élimination de la discrimination raciale dans l’affaire V.S. c. 

Slovaquie, communication n° 56/2014 du 16 décembre 2015, points 7.4 et 9. 

78   Slovaquie, loi antidiscrimination, 365/2004, article 10.  
79   Slovaquie, loi antidiscrimination, 365/2004, article  9a.  
80   Centre des droits civils et humains.  
81   Affaire Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva vs Základná škola v Šarišských Michaľanoch (Centre des droits 

civils et humains c. École primaire Šarišské Michaľany), arrêt du tribunal départemental de Prešov du 
5 décembre 2011, réf. n° 25C 133/10-229, et arrêt du tribunal régional de Prešov du 30 octobre 2012, réf. 
n° 20Co 125/2012, 20Co 126/2012. 

82   Cette ONG traite principalement de cas de discrimination envers les Roms. 
83   Cette ONG se concentre pour sa part sur la discrimination liée au genre. 
84   Slovaquie, loi n° 311/2001 – Code du travail (zákon č. 311/2001 Z. z. Zákonník práce), article 13, 

paragraphe 5.  

85   Slovaquie, loi antidiscrimination, 365/2004, article 8a.  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                 
 
des Roms. Ainsi par exemple, le programme pour des communautés en bonne santé, qui 
emploie  234 médiateurs  de  santé  d’origine  rom  dans  299 communautés  roms 
marginalisées (dont ces médiateurs sont issus) pour venir en aide aux personnes dans le 
cadre de situations courantes en rapport avec leur santé, a été réintroduit en  2013. Des 
problèmes  de  financement  en  2016  mettent  en  question  la  poursuite  de  ce  projet.86  La 
législation en matière d’emploi prévoit une protection spéciale à l’intention des personnes 
handicapées,  et  un  système  de  quota  a  été  instauré  pour  les  employeurs  occupant 
20 salariés au moins.87 Aucune mesure d’action  positive n’a été  spécifiquement adoptée 
en  rapport  avec  la  discrimination  fondée  sur  l’orientation  sexuelle  ou  la  religion  et  les 
convictions. 

Un  certain  dialogue  est  organisé  avec  les  ONG  par  l’intermédiaire  du  Conseil  du 
gouvernement  de  la  République  slovaque  pour  les  droits  de  l’homme,  les  minorités 
nationales et l’égalité entre les sexes, qui est l’organe consultatif du gouvernement.88 Le 
fonctionnement du Conseil présente quelques défauts systémiques et pratiques.  

Il n’y a apparemment pas de dialogue permanent et systémique entre le gouvernement et 
les syndicats en ce qui concerne la non-discrimination. Les syndicats ne sont généralement 
pas très actifs dans ce domaine.  

6. Organismes de promotion de l’égalité de traitement 

L’organisme  désigné  pour  la  promotion  de  l’égalité  de  traitement  est  le  Centre  national 
slovaque  des  droits  de  l’homme.  Il  s’agit  d’un  organisme  indépendant  et  non  judiciaire 
principalement subventionné par le budget de l’État.89  

Le  Centre  est  habilité  à  rédiger  des  avis  d’expert  sur  la  conformité  avec  le  principe  de 
l’égalité  de  traitement.  Il  est  également  chargé  de  surveiller  et  d’évaluer  le  respect  des 
droits de l’homme et de l’égalité de traitement, et de collecter et de fournir des informations 
sur le racisme, la xénophobie et l’antisémitisme, ainsi que de procéder à des investigations 
indépendantes  à  propos  des  discriminations.  Le  Centre  a  l’obligation  plus  générale  de 
réaliser  des  études  et  des  recherches  afin  de  fournir  des  données  dans  le  domaine  des 
droits de l’homme. Le Centre a aussi l’obligation de publier annuellement un rapport sur le 
respect  des  droits  de  l’homme,  y  compris  le  principe  de  l’égalité  de  traitement,  en 
Slovaquie.  Il  est  également  tenu  en  vertu  de  la  loi  antidiscrimination  de  fournir  une 
assistance  juridique  aux  victimes  de  discrimination  et  il  est  habilité  à  représenter  des 
victimes de discrimination en justice.90 Il peut également intenter une actio popularis (voir 
plus  haut).  Étant  compétent  pour  agir  dans  les  cas  de  discrimination  définis  par  la  loi 
antidiscrimination, le Centre traite tous les motifs visés par celle-ci.  

En 2016, le Centre a traité 524 plaintes alléguant un éventuel traitement discriminatoire, 
parmi lesquelles 45 concernaient l’âge, 26 la race, 24 le genre, 276 d’autres statuts, 55 un 

86   De plus amples informations concernant le programme sont disponibles sur: 

http://www.zdravekomunity.sk/?q=en (consulté le 10 mars 2017).  

87   En vertu des articles 63 à 65 de la loi slovaque n° 5/2004 sur les services de l’emploi, tout employeur 

occupant au moins 20 salariés est tenu de veiller à ce que des personnes handicapées représentent 3,2 % 
au moins de son personnel pour autant que le bureau local pour l’emploi ait des demandeurs d’emploi 
handicapés sur ses listes. Plutôt que d’engager une personne handicapée, l’employeur peut également 
décider d’acheter des biens ou des services auprès d’un atelier protégé ou d’un travailleur indépendant 
handicapé. 

88   Slovaquie, loi n° 575/2001 Z. z. relative à l’organisation des activités du gouvernement et à l’organisation 

de l’administration centrale de l’État, telle que modifiée (zákon č. 575/2001 Z. z. o organizácii činnosti vlády 
a organizácii ústrednej štátnej správy v znení neskorších predpisov), article 2, paragraphe 3. Site web du 
Conseil du gouvernement: www.radavladylp.gov.sk/ (consulté le 10 mars 2017).  

89   Slovaquie, loi n° 308/1993 portant création du Centre national slovaque des droits de l’homme (zákon č. 

308/1993 Z. z. o zriadení Slovenského národného strediska pre ľudské práva), articles 1 et 2, paragraphes 
1 à 3.  

90   Slovaquie, loi n° 308/1993 portant création du Centre national slovaque des droits de l’homme, article 1, 

paragraphes 2 à 4. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
handicap,  73  l’origine  nationale/ethnique,  1  l’orientation  sexuelle,  11  l’état  familial,  9  la 
langue, 4 le signalement d’un acte criminel ou autre activité antisociale. Le Centre a émis 
19 avis d’experts; il a assuré une représentation légale dans trois procédures judiciaires; 
et il n’a engagé aucune action collective (actio popularis). 91  

Des sources diverses signalent de longue date que le Centre n’accomplit pas ses tâches de 
manière  efficace  et  satisfaisante.92  En  2011,  le  gouvernement  slovaque  a  approuvé  un 
rapport analytique sur le fonctionnement et la situation du Centre – lequel rapport, qui fut 
le premier (et le dernier) de ce type, présente une série de conclusions issues d’un exercice 
de collecte de données relativement complexe.  

Les principales constatations sont les compétences insuffisantes/mal définies du Centre; 
l’inadéquation de ses capacités professionnelles et personnelles; la gestion inefficiente des 
ressources publiques qui lui sont allouées; la structure inadéquate des organes de direction 
et supervision institués dans le cadre du Centre et leur inactivité; l’absence d’approches 
préventives  et  stratégiques  de  la  part  du  Centre;  un  manque  d’indépendance  et  de 
mécanismes pour le protéger d’abus émanant d’intérêts particuliers, y compris des intérêts 
politiques; la visibilité insuffisante des activités du Centre et leur impact limité; le nombre 
extrêmement faible d’actions intentées en justice par le Centre et d’affaires résolues par 
lui de façon générale.  

Le nouveau gouvernement désigné en 2016 étudie d’ores et déjà un projet de loi qui devrait 
renforcer  l’indépendance  et  l’efficacité  de  fonctionnement  du  Centre.  En  fin  d’année 
toutefois, cet acte législatif n’avait pas encore été présenté au public.  

7. Points essentiels 

La transposition des directives a été, de façon générale, effectuée de manière relativement 
satisfaisante: elle va, à de nombreux égards, au-delà de leurs exigences et,  même si cette 
transposition reste largement perfectible (en ce qui concerne certaines règles de procédure 
notamment),  elle  pourrait  constituer  un  bon  point  de  départ  pour  la  mise  en  œuvre 
concrète du principe de l’égalité de traitement. À l’heure actuelle toutefois, cette mise en 
œuvre  est  encore  loin de  satisfaire  aux  exigences  des  directives.  Cette  situation  résulte 
principalement  des  entraves  à  l’accès  aux  tribunaux  et  à  la  justice  en  général;  d’une 
méconnaissance de la législation antidiscrimination de la part des professionnels du droit 
et  des  décideurs;  de  préjugés  raciaux  de  la  part  des  magistrats  et  de  l’absence  de 
programmes destinés à les sensibiliser; d’une jurisprudence insuffisante et de lacunes dans 
la consignation des cas de discrimination; d’une pénurie de données et de statistiques en 
rapport  avec  la  discrimination  et  ses  motifs;  d’un  manque  d’efficacité  au  niveau  du 
fonctionnement  de  l’organisme  pour  l’égalité;  du  manque  d’indépendance  de  cet 
organisme;  d’une  absence  de  politiques  publiques  en  matière  de  lutte  contre  la 
discrimination;  du  manque  d’actions  efficaces  pour  assurer  la  transition  d’un  système 

91   Réponse du Centre des droits de l’homme en date du 21 février 2017 à une demande d’information du 

17 février 2017 (dans les dossiers de l’auteure). 

92   Voir notamment Durbáková, V., Holubová, B., Ivanco, Š., Liptáková, S. (2012), Hľadanie bariér v prístupe 
k účinnej právnej ochrane pred diskrimináciou, Košice, Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva, p. 110-112. 
Cette publication est aussi disponible sur https://www.poradna-prava.sk/sk/dokumenty/diskriminacia-na-
slovensku-hladanie-barier-v-pristupe-k-ucinnej-pravnej-ochrane-pred-diskriminaciou/ (consulté le 10 mars 
2017); voir également Centre des droits civils et humains et Personnes dans le besoin en République 
slovaque (2013), Commentaires écrits concernant les neuvième et dixième rapports périodiques de la 
République slovaque dans le cadre de la Convention internationale sur l’élimination de toutes les formes de 
discrimination raciale, janvier 2013, p. 2, 13, 16 (également disponible sur https://www.poradna-
prava.sk/en/documents/written-comments-to-the-committee-on-the-elimination-of-racial-discrimination/; 
voir également les Observations finales du Comité pour l’élimination de la discrimination à l’égard des 
femmes, 2015 (disponible sur: 
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2fC%2fSVK%
2fCO%2f5-6&Lang=en (consulté le 10 mars 2017) et les Observations finales  du Comité pour les droits de 
l’homme d’octobre 2016, disponible sur: 
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fSVK%2f
CO%2f4&Lang=en (consulté le 10 mars 2017).  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
éducatif  segrégué  à  un  système  éducatif  inclusif;  de  l’insuffisance  des  ressources 
matérielles, financières et humaines nécessaires à ce que les écoles ordinaires pratiquent 
un enseignement inclusif; d’une intégration insuffisante du principe de non-discrimination 
dans l’ensemble des politiques (mainstreaming) et d’un manque de coordination entre les 
organismes  publics  en  charge  de  la  non-discrimination;  d’une  pénurie  de  ressources  à 
investir par le gouvernement dans la lutte contre la discrimination; d’un apport insuffisant 
de soutien systémique aux ONG par le gouvernement; d’un système éducatif n’intégrant 
pas suffisamment les principes et les valeurs relevant des droits de l’hommes et de la non-
discrimination;  du  manque  d’engagement  et  d’intérêt  des  politiciens  à  l’égard  de  ces 
valeurs; d’un degré d’occurrence et de tolérance extrêmement élevé pour ce qui concerne 
le  racisme  et  les  attitudes  discriminatoires  dans  l’ensemble  de  la  société;  d’un  soutien 
public  accru  en  faveur  de  politiques  d’extrême-droite,  ce  qui  a  notamment  conduit  à 
l’entrée du parti d’extrême-droite au parlement slovaque au lendemain des  élections de 
mars 2016.  

22 

 
 
 
 
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG 

1. Einleitung 

Die  Slowakische  Republik  hat  5,4 Millionen  Einwohner.  Neben  den  Slowaken  leben 
zahlreiche Minderheiten im Land. Die größten  Gruppen  sind die Ungarn (8,5 %) und die 
Minderheit der Roma. In der letzten Volkszählung (2011) lag die offizielle Zahl der Roma 
bei 105 738 (2 %),93 allerdings zeigt der Atlas der Roma-Gemeinschaften von 2013, dass 
in  der  Slowakei  400 000  Roma  leben,  was  7,45 %  der  Gesamtbevölkerung  entspricht.94 
Weitere  Minderheiten  sind  Tschechen,  Ukrainer,  Kroaten,  Deutsche,  Polen,  Bulgaren, 
Mährer  und  Juden.95  Ausländer  machen  1,7 %  der  Bevölkerung  aus;  2016  lebten  in  der 
Slowakei  93 247  Ausländer  (davon  41 232  Drittstaatsangehörige).  Die  stärkste  Gruppe 
unter den in der Slowakei lebenden Ausländern ist die der Ukrainer, gefolgt von Serben, 
Russen, Vietnamesen, Chinesen und Koreanern. 2016 überquerten 2170 Ausländer illegal 
die slowakischen Grenzen.96 

In der Slowakei werden viele Einzelpersonen und Gruppen aufgrund bestimmter Merkmale 
schwer  diskriminiert.  Beispielsweise  sind  Vorurteile  gegenüber  den  Roma  tief  verankert 
und diese Gruppe wird in allen Lebensbereichen diskriminiert und häufig auch ausgegrenzt. 
Roma, die in separaten Siedlungen leben, sind in erhöhtem Maße von Zwangsräumungen 
bedroht. Roma-Kinder werden in separaten Schulen und/oder Klassen unterrichtet, viele 
von ihnen auch in Schulen für Kinder mit geistiger Behinderung. Im ersten (und bislang 
einzigen  abgeschlossenen)  Verfahren  wegen  Segregation  von  Roma-Kindern 
im 
Bildungswesen  kamen  nationale  Gerichte  2011  bzw.  2012  zu  dem  Ergebnis,  dass  die 
Beschulung von Roma-Kindern in  separaten Regelklassen  eine Diskriminierung aufgrund 
von Rasse darstellt und die Menschenwürde der separierten Roma-Kinder untergräbt. Die 
Unfähigkeit der slowakischen Regierung, wirkungsvoll gegen die Segregation von Roma-
Kindern im Bildungswesen vorzugehen und deren schulische Integration zu fördern, führte 
dazu,  dass  eine  slowakische  Nichtregierungsorganisation,  das  Zentrum  für  Bürger-  und 
Menschenrechte, den slowakischen Gerichten weitere Fälle vorlegte. Am 6. Oktober 2016 
wurde eine dieser Klagen vom Bezirksgericht Bratislava abgewiesen. Die Segregation von 
Roma-Kindern im Bildungswesen ist ein sehr weit verbreitetes Problem. Es ist festzustellen, 
dass 
einem 
Vertragsverletzungsverfahren  wegen  Verstoßes  gegen  die  Antirassismusrichtlinie 
(2000/43/EG)  in  Form  der  Diskriminierung  von  Roma-Kindern  in  speziellen  und 
allgemeinen Bildungssystemen konfrontiert ist.97 

Kommission  mit 

Europäischen 

Slowakei 

seitens 

der 

die 

Allgemeine  Missachtung  von  Minderheiten  und  oft  auch  offener  Rassismus  sind  weit 
verbreitet,  nicht  nur  in  der  Bevölkerung,  sondern  auch  auf  höchster  politischer  Ebene. 
Rassenhass und nationalistisch motivierter Hass geben weiteren Anlass zur Besorgnis. Die 
öffentliche Unterstützung für rechtsextreme Positionen nahm zu und führte dazu, dass die 

93   Siehe http://census2011.statistics.sk/tabulky.html (letzter Zugriff am 10. März 2017). 
94   Siehe Prvé výsledky ATLASU rómskych komunít na Slovensku 2013 (Erste Ergebnisse aus dem Atlas der 

Roma-Gemeinschaften in der Slowakei 2013). Die ersten Ergebnisse lieferten ausgewählte, 
zusammengefasste Daten aus dem Atlas, der auf der Website des Regierungsbeauftragten für Roma-
Gemeinschaften veröffentlicht wurde; abrufbar unter http://www.minv.sk/?atlas_2013 (letzter Zugriff am 
10. März 2017). 

95   Jede dieser Gruppen stellt weniger als 1 % der Bevölkerung. Siehe 

http://census2011.statistics.sk/tabulky.html (letzter Zugriff am 10. März 2017). 

96   Migrationsamt des Innenministeriums der Slowakischen Republik (2016), „Migračný úrad MV SR: Štatistický 
prehľad legálnej a nelegálnej migrácie v Slovenskej republike za rok 2016“ (Statistischer Überblick über 
legale und illegale Migration in der Slowakischen Republik für das Jahr 2016), abrufbar unter: 
http://www.minv.sk/swift_data/source/policia/uhcp/rocenky/rok_2016/2016-rocenka-UHCP-SK.pdf (letzter 
Zugriff am 10. März 2017). 

97   Entscheidung der Europäischen Kommission über die Einleitung eines Vertragsverletzungsverfahrens gegen 
die Slowakei, „Nichteinhaltung der Richtlinie 2000/43/EG über Gleichbehandlung ohne Unterschied der 
Rasse – Diskriminierung von Roma-Kindern im Bildungswesen“ vom 29. April 2015; Informationen abrufbar 
unter http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/applying-eu-law/infringements-
proceedings/infringement_decisions/?r_dossier=20152025&noncom=0&decision_date_from=&decision_date
_to=&active_only=0&EM=SK&title=&submit=Search&lang_code=de (letzter Zugriff am 26. April 2017). 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
rechtsextremistische  „Volkspartei  Unsere  Slowakei“,  bei  den  Wahlen  im  März 2016  ins 
slowakische Parlament einzog. 

Die LGBTI-Gemeinschaft genießt keine volle rechtliche und politische Anerkennung etwa in 
Form  des  Rechts  auf  Eheschließung  oder  eingetragene  Partnerschaften.  Homophobe 
Äußerungen und Stimmen, die die Gleichstellung der Geschlechter in Frage stellen, werden 
stärker und stammen nicht nur aus den Rängen der katholischen Kirche, sondern auch von 
hohen politischen Vertretern des Landes. 

Menschen mit Behinderungen sind tagtäglich in allen Bereichen des Lebens mit zahlreichen 
physischen und gesellschaftlichen Barrieren und Segregation konfrontiert. 2016 widmete 
sich  die  Ombudsfrau  speziell  diesem  Thema  und  untersuchte  die  Hindernisse,  denen 
Menschen  mit  Behinderungen  beim  Zugang  zu  öffentlichen  Gebäuden –  insbesondere 
Schulgebäuden,  Polizeistationen  und  staatlichen  Krankenhäusern –  gegenüberstehen.  In 
ihren  Berichten  beschrieb  sie  die  bestehenden  Mängel  und  empfahl  spezifische 
Maßnahmen,  die  seitens  der  zuständigen  Behörden  zu  ergreifen  seien,  um  eine 
Diskriminierung von Menschen mit Behinderungen beim Zugang zu öffentlichen Gebäuden 
zu verhindern.98 

Die slowakischen Behörden haben sich, anders als andere EU-Länder, in den letzten Jahren 
im  Allgemeinen  dagegen  gesperrt,  Flüchtlinge  aufzunehmen,  und  Vertreter  einiger 
politischer  Parteien  äußerten  sich,  vor  allem  im  Vorfeld  der  Parlamentswahlen  im 
März 2016,  offen  feindselig  gegenüber  Flüchtlingen.  Um  negativen  politischen  und 
öffentlichen Einstellungen gegenüber Flüchtlingen entgegenzutreten, rief die NRO Liga für 
Menschenrechte in Zusammenarbeit mit Open Society Foundations ein Projekt unter dem 
Motto „Flüchtlingsfreundliche Slowakei“ ins Leben, dessen Ziel es war, die politische und 
öffentliche  Meinung  zu  verändern  und  eine  stärkere  Akzeptanz  von  Flüchtlingen  und 
gesellschaftlicher Vielfalt zu erreichen.99 

Auch viele andere Personen und Gruppen sind schweren Diskriminierungen ausgesetzt, oft 
aufgrund  mehrerer  Diskriminierungsgründe  gleichzeitig.  Roma-Frauen  sind  besonders 
häufig von Mehrfachdiskriminierung betroffen. 

2. Wichtigste Gesetze 

Die slowakische Republik hat mehrere internationale Menschenrechtsabkommen ratifiziert, 
unter  anderem  den  Internationalen  Pakt  über  bürgerliche  und  politische  Rechte,  den 
Internationalen  Pakt  über  wirtschaftliche,  soziale  und  kulturelle  Rechte,  die  Europäische 
Menschenrechtskonvention,  das  Übereinkommen  zur  Beseitigung  jeder  Form  von 
Rassendiskriminierung  und  das  Übereinkommen  über  die  Rechte  von  Menschen  mit 
Behinderungen der Vereinten Nationen. 

Die Verfassung der Slowakischen Republik garantiert die Menschenrechte aller Menschen 
ungeachtet  von  Geschlecht,  Rasse,  Hautfarbe,  Sprache,  Weltanschauung,  Religion, 
politischer Zugehörigkeit oder Überzeugung, nationaler oder sozialer Herkunft, Nationalität 

98   Zentralbüro der Bürgerbeauftragten (Oktober 2016), „Správa o výsledkoch prieskumu bezbariérového 

prístupu do budov škôl a bezbariérovosti v nich“ (Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Studie über den Zugang 
zu Schulgebäuden für Menschen mit Behinderungen); Zentralbüro der Bürgerbeauftragten (September 
2016), „Správa o výsledkoch prieskumu zabezpečenia bezbariérového prístupu v budovách, ktoré sú sídlami 
útvarov Policajného zboru a klientskych centier“ (Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Studie über den Zugang zu 
Polizeigebäuden und den entsprechenden Kundencentern für Menschen mit Behinderungen); Zentralbüro 
der Bürgerbeauftragten (September 2016), „Bezbariérovosť v štátnych nemocniciach a iných zdravotníckych 
zariadeniach- správa o výsledkoch prieskumu“ (Zugang zu staatlichen Krankenhäusern und anderen 
Gesundheitseinrichtungen für Menschen mit Behinderungen – Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Studie). 
99   Weitere Informationen zu dem Projekt unter: http://www.hrl.sk/en/projects/refugee-friendly-slovakia 

(letzter Zugriff am 10. März 2017).  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
(národnosť)100  oder  ethnischer  Herkunft,  Vermögen,  Abstammung  oder  jedem  anderen 
Status.  Niemand  darf  wegen  der  genannten  Gründe  in  seinen  Rechten  beschnitten, 
diskriminiert oder bevorzugt werden. 

Das  gültige  Antidiskriminierungsgesetz  (ADG)  wurde  im  Mai  2004  verabschiedet,101 
unmittelbar nach dem Beitritt der Slowakei zur Europäischen Union. Das ADG  erfüllt die 
von den Richtlinien geforderten Mindeststandards und geht in einigen Bereichen über diese 
hinaus. 

Das ADG verbietet Diskriminierung aufgrund von biologischem Geschlecht, Religion oder 
Weltanschauung,  Rasse,  Zugehörigkeit  zu  einer  Nationalität  oder  ethnischen  Gruppe, 
Behinderung, Alter, sexueller Ausrichtung, Ehe- oder Personenstand, Hautfarbe, Sprache, 
politischer  oder  sonstiger  Überzeugung,  nationaler  oder  sozialer  Herkunft,  Eigentum, 
Abstammung  bzw.  sozialem  Geschlecht102  oder  einem  sonstigen  Status  oder  wegen  der 
Anzeige von Straftaten  oder anderen kriminellen Aktivitäten.103 Mehrere  andere Gesetze 
zu den Bereichen, die unter die Richtlinien fallen, beziehen sich auf das ADG und dehnen 
dessen Diskriminierungsschutz in manchen Fällen auf weitere Diskriminierungsgründe aus. 
Daher  ist  durch  diese  anderen  Gesetze  Diskriminierung  aufgrund  eines  schlechten 
Gesundheitszustands,  genetischer  Merkmale,  Tätigkeit  für  eine  Gewerkschaft  oder 
Tätigkeit in Vereinigungen ebenfalls verboten. In einigen Fällen sehen diese Gesetze auch 
spezielle  Mechanismen  zur  Durchsetzung  des  Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatzes  vor.  Einige 
besonders  beleidigende  und  diskriminierende  Handlungen  sind  außerdem  durch  das 
Strafgesetzbuch verboten. 

Im  ADG  beinhaltet  der  Grundsatz  der  Gleichbehandlung  nicht  nur  ein  Verbot  von 
Diskriminierung, sondern auch eine Pflicht zu positiven Maßnahmen, die Diskriminierung 
verhindern.104  Der  Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatz  gilt  für  alle  Bereiche,  die  unter  die 
Richtlinien fallen (diese sind alle vom ADG abgedeckt) und für weitere im ADG genannte 
Bereiche. 

3. Wichtigste Grundsätze und Begriffe 

Das  ADG  definiert  unmittelbare  und  mittelbare  Diskriminierung,  Belästigung,  sexuelle 
Belästigung,  Anweisung  zur  Diskriminierung,  Anstiftung  zur  Diskriminierung105  und 
Viktimisierung.106  Außer  in  Bezug  auf  Anstiftung  zur  Diskriminierung  (die  über  die 
Richtlinien hinausgeht und nicht gegen sie verstößt), folgen die Definitionen den Vorgaben 
der beiden Richtlinien 2000/43/EG und 2000/78/EG. Auch Diskriminierung aufgrund von 
Assoziierung ist verboten, jedoch nur bei den Diskriminierungsgründen Rasse, Nationalität 
(národnosť), ethnische Zugehörigkeit, Religion und Weltanschauung.107 Bei der Bewertung 

100  Im slowakischen Recht sind die Begriffe „Nationalität“ (národnosť) und „Staatsangehörigkeit“ (štátne 

občianstvo) klar getrennt. Während „Staatsangehörigkeit“ die rechtliche Zugehörigkeit zu einem bestimmten 
Staat bezeichnet (d. h. den Status als Staatsangehöriger oder Bürger der Slowakischen Republik), meint 
„Nationalität“ die Zugehörigkeit zu einer bestimmten „Nation“ (Gruppe von Menschen, die durch eine 
gemeinsame Sprache, geografische und kulturelle Wurzeln usw. verbunden sind) oder ethnischen Gruppe. 
Daher wird „Nationalität“ häufig im Sinne von „ethnischer Zugehörigkeit“ verwendet, auch von staatlichen 
Stelle und öffentlichen Institutionen. 

101  Slowakei, Gesetz Nr. 365/2004 über Gleichbehandlung in bestimmten Bereichen und zum Schutz vor 
Diskriminierung (Antidiskriminierungsgesetz), in der geltenden Fassung (zákon č. 365/2004 Z. z. o 
rovnakom zaobchádzaní v niektorých oblastiach a o ochrane pred diskrimináciou a o zmene a doplnení 
niektorých zákonov (antidiskriminačný zákon) v znení neskorších predpisov). 

102  Das slowakische Wort rod kann sowohl „Abstammung“ als auch „biologisches Geschlecht“ bedeuten. 
103  Slowakei, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 365/2004, Artikel 2(1).  
104  Slowakei, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 365/2004, Artikel 2(1) und Artikel 2(3).  
105  Anweisung zur Diskriminierung ist definiert als missbräuchliches Verhalten gegenüber einem Untergebenen 
zum Zweck der Diskriminierung eines Dritten. Als Anstiftung zur Diskriminierung gilt es, wenn man eine 
Person überredet, darin bestätigt oder dazu aufhetzt, eine dritte Person zu diskriminieren. 

106  Slowakei, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 365/2004, Artikel 2a(1)-(8).  
107  Slowakei, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 365/2004, Artikel 2a(11)(b) und Artikel 2a(11)(c).  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
einer  Handlung  als  Diskriminierung  spielt  es  keine  Rolle,  ob  die  Gründe  für  die 
Diskriminierung auf Tatsachen oder irrtümlichen Annahmen beruhen.108 

Das ADG verpflichtet zudem Arbeitgeber zu angemessenen Vorkehrungen. Insbesondere 
sind sie verpflichtet, Menschen mit Behinderungen durch entsprechende Maßnahmen den 
Zugang zu Beschäftigung, Beförderung oder zu anderen beruflichen Verbesserungen und 
zur Weiterbildung zu ermöglichen. Allerdings dürfen die Vorkehrungen für Menschen mit 
Behinderungen den Arbeitgeber nicht unverhältnismäßig belasten.109 

Ausnahmen  für  wesentliche  und  entscheidende  berufliche  Anforderungen  sind  zulässig, 
wenn sie gemäß den in den Richtlinien genannten Vorgaben gerechtfertigt sind.110 

Das  ADG  erlaubt  noch  weitere  Ausnahmen  vom  Grundsatz  der  Gleichbehandlung. 
Diskriminierung  wegen  der  Religion  oder  Weltanschauung  ist  Kirchen  und  religiösen 
Organisationen  erlaubt,  wenn  die  Religion  für  die  Ausübung  einer  bestimmten  Tätigkeit 
grundlegend ist.111 Das ADG gilt nicht für Rechtsvorschriften, die den Status von Menschen 
mit  fremder  Staatsangehörigkeit  betreffen,112  und  erlaubt  den  Streitkräften  sowie  den 
Sicherheits-  und  Rettungsdiensten  eine  Ungleichbehandlung  aufgrund  von  Behinderung 
und Alter.113 

Unter besonderen Umständen ist eine Ungleichbehandlung aufgrund des Alters zulässig, 
beispielsweise  in  Form  von  Altersgrenzen  beim  Zugang  zu  Beschäftigung,  bei  den 
Ansprüchen  auf  bestimmte  soziale  Vergünstigungen  im  Berufsleben  oder  bei  der 
Bereitstellung  von  Versicherungsdienstleistungen.114  Ungleichbehandlung  aufgrund  einer 
Behinderung  gilt  bei  der  Bereitstellung  von  Versicherungsdienstleistungen  nicht  als 
Diskriminierung  und  auch  nicht  im  Beruf,  wenn  gesundheitliche  Anforderungen  für  die 
Ausübung bestimmter Tätigkeiten wesentlich sind.115 

Die geltenden Rechtsvorschriften und das Fallrecht enthalten keine ausdrücklichen Regeln 
für Fälle von Mehrfachdiskriminierung. 

4. Sachlicher Anwendungsbereich 

Der  Grundsatz  der  Gleichbehandlung  gilt  in  allen  in  den  EU-Richtlinien  vorgegebenen 
Bereichen und geht insgesamt über den Anwendungsbereich der Richtlinien hinaus. 

oder 

sonstige 

berufliche 

Funktionen, 

Erwerbstätigkeit 

-verfahren,  den  Zugang 

Insbesondere gilt das Gleichbehandlungsgebot in Bezug auf unselbstständige, selbständige 
einschließlich 
oder 
Einstellungsbedingungen,  Auswahlkriterien  und 
zur 
Berufsausbildung,  beruflichen  Weiterbildung  und  Teilnahme  an  arbeitsmarktpolitischen 
Programmen, einschließlich von Berufsberatung, bei der Mitgliedschaft und Mitwirkung in 
einer  Arbeitnehmer-  oder  Arbeitgeberorganisation  oder  einer  Organisation,  deren 
Mitglieder einer bestimmten Berufsgruppe angehören, einschließlich der Inanspruchnahme 
der  Leistungen  solcher  Organisationen,  sowie  in  den  Bereichen  der  sozialen  Dienste, 
Sozialversicherung,  der  Rentenversicherung,  der  zusätzlichen  Rentenversicherung, 
staatlicher  Sozialleistungen  und  sozialer  Vergünstigungen,  Gesundheitsdienste,  Bildung 
sowie  Güter  und  Dienstleistungen,  einschließlich  von  Wohnraum  (genauer  gesagt, 
Wohnraum,  den  juristische  oder  natürliche  Personen,  die  Unternehmer  sind,  der 
Öffentlichkeit zur Verfügung stellen).116 In all diesen Bereich ist Diskriminierung aufgrund 

108  Slowakei, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 365/2004, Artikel 3(3).  
109  Slowakei, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 365/2004, Artikel 7.  
110  Slowakei, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 365/2004, Artikel 8(1).  
111  Slowakei, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 365/2004, Artikel 8(2).  
112  Slowakei, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 365/2004, Artikel 4(1)(a).  
113  Slowakei, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 365/2004, Artikel 4(1)(b).  
114  Slowakei, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 365/2004, Artikel 8(3).  
115  Slowakei, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 365/2004, Artikel 8(6) und 8(5).  
116  Slowakei, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 365/2004, Artikel 3(1), 5 und 6.  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
der im ADG aufgezählten Gründe verboten. Das ADG gilt sowohl für den privaten als auch 
für den öffentlichen Sektor. 

5. Rechtsdurchsetzung 

Obwohl das Antidiskriminierungsrecht relativ progressiv ist, gibt es erhebliche Schwächen 
bei  der  praktischen  Umsetzung.  Zwar  dokumentieren  der  Staat  und  seine  Organe  das 
Problem  kaum,  dennoch  ist  Diskriminierung  in  allen  Bereichen,  die  unter  die  Richtlinien 
fallen, (und darüber hinaus) weit verbreitet. Allerdings scheint die Einführung einer nicht 
diskriminierenden  Sprache  im  gesellschaftlichen  Diskurs  dazu  geführt  zu  haben,  dass 
Diskriminierung  heute  subtilere  Formen  annimmt  als  früher.  Einer  der  Gründe  für  die 
ungenügende Umsetzung der Rechtsvorschriften ist vermutlich die Tatsache, dass nur sehr 
wenige  Opfer  ihre  Rechte  auf  juristischem  Wege  durchsetzen.  Im  März  2017  legte  das 
Justizministerium  Zahlen  vor,  wonach  2016  lediglich  zwölf  Verfahren,  in  denen  es  um 
rechtskräftig  abgeschlossen  worden  waren.117  Die 
(Nicht-)Diskriminierung  ging, 
verfügbaren Zahlen über laufende und bereits abgeschlossene Verfahren sind nicht präzise, 
da  die  entsprechenden  Daten  entweder  gar  nicht  oder  nicht  ordnungsgemäß  erfasst 
werden.118 

Jeder, der durch eine Verletzung des Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatzes benachteiligt wurde, 
kann den Verantwortlichen vor Gericht bringen. Die Person, die diskriminiert wurde (der 
Kläger), kann vor einem Zivilgericht (es gibt keine spezialisierten Arbeitsgerichte) darauf 
klagen, dass die Person, die den Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatz verletzt hat (der Beklagte), 
die  entsprechende  Handlung  einstellt  und,  wenn  möglich,  den  unrechtmäßigen  Zustand 
korrigiert.  Wenn  die  Verletzung  des  Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatzes  der  Würde,  dem 
sozialen  Status  oder  den  sozialen  Errungenschaften  des  Opfers  wesentlichen  Schaden 
zugefügt hat, kann das Opfer außerdem Schadenersatz oder Schmerzensgeld fordern. Es 
gibt  keine  festen  Grenzwerte  für  die  Höhe  der  Entschädigung.119  Das  Gericht  kann  den 
geforderten  Betrag  in  jedem  Einzelfall  akzeptieren,  senken  oder  ganz  ablehnen.  Kläger 
können  grundsätzlich  auch  auf  andere  Forderungen  erheben,  beispielsweise,  dass  das 
Gericht  die  Handlungen  der  beklagten  Partei  für  diskriminierend  erklärt.  Personen,  die 
diskriminiert  wurden,  können  außerdem  auf  eine  Entschädigung  klagen,  wenn  sie 
nachweisen können, dass durch die Diskriminierung ein Schaden entstanden ist.120 

Das bisherige Fallrecht zeigt, dass die Gerichte gegen die Täter nur sehr selten wirksame, 
verhältnismäßige und abschreckende Sanktionen aussprechen. Dies gilt insbesondere für 
Schmerzensgeld für nicht-materielle Schäden. 2016 gewährte das Regionalgericht Košice 
in  seiner  rechtskräftigen  Entscheidung  einem  Roma-Paar,  das  geltend  gemacht  hatte, 
aufgrund seiner ethnischen Herkunft in einem Lokal in Spišské Vlachy diskriminiert worden 
zu sein, eine Entschädigung in Höhe von insgesamt 600 EUR (je 300 EUR). Dies ist eines 
der ersten rechtskräftig abgeschlossenen Verfahren in der Slowakei, in denen die Gerichte 
finanzielle  Entschädigung  wegen  rassistischer  Diskriminierung  zugesprochen 
eine 
haben.121 

Sobald  der  Kläger  Tatsachen  glaubhaft  macht,  die  eine  Verletzung  des 
Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatzes vermuten lassen, gilt in Gerichtsverfahren die umgekehrte 
Beweislast. Der Beklagte muss dann beweisen, dass er den Kläger nicht diskriminiert hat 
oder  dass  die  Ungleichbehandlung  notwendig  und  gerechtfertigt  war.122  Die  Anwendung 
dieser  Regel  seitens  der  slowakischen  Gerichte  ist  in  der  Praxis  jedoch  nach  wie  vor 

117  Antwort des Justizministeriums vom 1. März 2017 auf ein Auskunftsersuchen vom 17. Februar 2017 (liegt 

der Verfasserin vor). 

118  Beispielsweise werden Verfahren und Entscheidungen im Zusammenhang mit Diskriminierung von den 

Gerichten nicht ordnungsgemäß erfasst, weshalb keine verlässlichen Statistiken existieren. 

119  Slowakei, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 365/2004, Artikel 9(1)-(3) in Verbindung mit Artikel 11(1).  
120  Slowakei, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 365/2004, Artikel 9(4).  
121  Entscheidung des Regionalgerichts Košice, Nr. 6 Co 833/2014 – 223 vom 28. Juni 2016. 
122  Slowakei, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 365/2004, Artikel 11(2).  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
zur  Beseitigung  der 
problematisch.  Dies  wurde  auch  vom  UN-Ausschuss 
Rassendiskriminierung  in  seiner  Entscheidung  gegen  die  Slowakei  in  einen  Fall  von 
Diskriminierung einer Roma beim Zugang zu Beschäftigung hervorgehoben.123 

Opfer von Diskriminierung können sich vor Gericht vom Slowakischen Nationalen Zentrum 
für  Menschenrechte  (der  Gleichbehandlungsstelle)  oder  einer  anderen  Organisation 
vertreten lassen, die dem Schutz vor Diskriminierung dient (in der Praxis sind das vor allem 
NROs, grundsätzlich könnte es sich dabei aber auch um Gewerkschaften handeln).124 

Wenn  die  Diskriminierung  mehrere  oder  eine  nicht  genau  abgegrenzte  Anzahl  von 
Menschen  betrifft  oder  anderweitig  von  öffentlichem  Interesse  ist,  können  diese 
Organisationen, etwa das Slowakische Nationale Zentrum für Menschenrechte, im eigenen 
Namen  gegen  den/die  Verursacher/in  der  Diskriminierung  klagen  (so  genannte 
Popularklage).125  Bisher  wurden  ein  paar  solche  Verfahren  initiiert  (alle  von  derselben 
NRO)126 und nur eines wurde in letzter Instanz gewonnen (ein Fall von segregierter Bildung 
für Roma-Kinder).127 

In  der  Slowakei  gibt  es  nur  wenige  NROs,  die  Rechtsbeistand  für  Diskriminierungsopfer 
anbieten. Eine davon ist das Zentrum für Bürger- und Menschenrechte in Košice,128 eine 
andere  die  NRO  „Občan,  demokracia  a  zodpovednosť“  (Bürger,  Demokratie  und 
Verantwortung, kurz: ODZ).129 

Nach  dem  Arbeitsgesetz  können  sich  Arbeitnehmer  im  Fall  einer  Verletzung  des 
Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatzes bei ihrem Arbeitgeber beschweren. Der Arbeitgeber muss 
unverzüglich  auf  die  Beschwerde  reagieren,  die  Schäden  erstatten  und  diskriminierende 
Handlungen einstellen.130 Allerdings ist die Wirksamkeit dieses Rechtsmittels zweifelhaft, 
weil  es  keine  offizielle  Stelle  außerhalb  des  Beschäftigungsverhältnisses  gibt,  die  die 
Beschwerden prüft, und die Arbeitnehmer sich häufig scheuen, diese rechtliche Möglichkeit 
wahrzunehmen (z. B. aus Angst vor Viktimisierung). 

sanktioniert  werden. 

Diskriminierendes  Verhalten  kann  auch  durch  Verhängung  einer  Geldbuße  in  einem 
Verwaltungsverfahren 
die 
Arbeitsaufsichtsbehörde, die Gewerbeaufsicht und die Schulbehörden zuständig. Allerdings 
werden  diese  Verfahren  zur  Durchsetzung  des  Diskriminierungsverbots  vor  den 
Aufsichtsbehörden noch kaum genutzt, sie sehen keine Umkehrung der Beweislast vor und 
selbst  wenn  entsprechende  Verfahren  eingeleitet  werden,  führen  sie  nur  selten  zur 
Verhängung einer Geldbuße. 

diese  Verfahren 

sind 

Für 

Nach  dem  ADG  sind  öffentliche  Behörden  und  andere  juristische  Personen  berechtigt, 
Fördermaßnahmen  zu  beschließen  (so  genannte  „zeitweilige  Ausgleichsmaßnahmen“). 
Nach dem Gesetz müssen diese Maßnahmen dazu dienen, Benachteiligungen aufgrund von 
Rasse  oder  ethnischer  Herkunft,  Zugehörigkeit  zu  einer  nationalen  Minderheit  oder 
ethnischen  Gruppe,  sozialem  oder  biologischem  Geschlecht,  Alter  oder  Behinderung 
auszugleichen  und  eine  praktische  Chancengleichheit  herzustellen.131  In  Bezug  auf  die 
Roma gibt es bereits eine Reihe von positiven Fördermaßnahmen. So wurde beispielsweise 

123  Vgl. die Stellungnahme des UN-Ausschusses zur Beseitigung der Rassendiskriminierung in dem Verfahren 

V.S. v. Slovakia, Mitteilung Nr. 56/2014 vom 16. Dezember 2015, Abschnitte 7.4. und 9. 

124  Slowakei, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 365/2004, Artikel 10.  
125  Slowakei, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 365/2004, Artikel 9a.  
126  Zentrum für Bürger- und Menschenrechte.  
127  Rechtssache Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva vs Základná škola v Šarišských Michaľanoch (Zentrum 
für Bürger- und Menschenrechte gegen Šarišské Michaľany Grundschule, Urteil des Amtsgerichts Prešov 
vom 5. Dezember 2011, Aktenzeichen 25C 133/10-229-, und Urteil des Bezirksgerichts Prešov vom 
30. Oktober 2012, Aktenzeichen 20Co 125/2012, 20Co 126/2012. 

128  Diese NRO befasst sich hauptsächlich mit Fällen, in denen Roma diskriminiert wurden. 
129  ODZ konzentriert sich vor allem auf Diskriminierung aufgrund des Geschlechts. 
130  Slowakei, Gesetz Nr. 311/2001 Arbeitsgesetzbuch (zákon č. 311/2001 Z. z. Zákonník práce), Artikel 13(5). 
131  Slowakei, Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 365/2004, Artikel 8a.  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
2013 das Programm „Gesunde Gemeinden“ wieder eingeführt. Das Programm beschäftigt 
in  299  marginalisierten  Roma-Gemeinden  234 Gesundheitsmediatoren,  die  selbst  aus 
diesen  Gemeinden  stammen  und  die  Bewohner  bei  alltäglichen  Gesundheitsproblemen 
unterstützen. Aufgrund von Finanzierungsproblemen im Jahr 2016 schien die Fortsetzung 
des  Projekts  in  Frage  gestellt  zu  sein.132  Das  Arbeitsrecht  sieht  für  Menschen  mit 
Behinderung  einen  speziellen  Schutz  vor  und  es  gibt  ein  Quotensystem  für  Arbeitgeber, 
die mindestens 20 Mitarbeiter beschäftigen.133 Für Menschen, die aufgrund der sexuellen 
Ausrichtung oder ihrer Religion oder Weltanschauung diskriminiert werden, gibt es keine 
speziellen Fördermaßnahmen. 

Über  den  Rat  der  Regierung  der  slowakischen  Republik  für  Menschenrechte,  nationale 
Minderheiten  und  Gleichstellung  von  Frauen  und  Männern,  dem  Beratungsorgan  der 
Regierung, findet ein gewisser Austausch mit NROs statt.134 Die Arbeit des Rates wird durch 
einige systemische und praktische Probleme behindert. 

Es  gibt  keinen  ständigen  und  systematischen  Dialog  zwischen  der  Regierung  und  den 
Gewerkschaften  zum  Thema  Antidiskriminierung.  Die  Gewerkschaften  sind  in  diesem 
Bereich generell nicht besonders aktiv. 

6. Gleichbehandlungsstellen 

In  der  Slowakei  ist  das  Slowakische  nationale  Zentrum  für  Menschenrechte  für  die 
Förderung  der  Gleichbehandlung  zuständig.  Das  Zentrum  ist  eine  unabhängige, 
außergerichtliche Stelle, die vorwiegend aus dem Staatshaushalt finanziert wird.135 

die 

und 

über 

kann 

Zentrum 

Einhaltung 

Auswertung 

Rechtsgutachten 

Menschenrechtslage 

des 
Das 
Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatzes  erstellen.  Zu  seinen  Aufgaben  gehören  außerdem  die 
Überwachung 
des 
der 
Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatzes,  die  Erfassung  und  Bereitstellung  von  Daten  über 
sowie  die  Durchführung 
Rassismus,  Fremdenfeindlichkeit  und  Antisemitismus 
unabhängiger  Studien  über  Diskriminierung.  Allgemein  ist  das  Zentrum  verpflichtet, 
Untersuchungen und Umfragen durchzuführen, die Daten zur Menschenrechtslage liefern. 
Außerdem muss das Zentrum einen Jahresbericht zur Menschenrechtslage in der Slowakei 
verfassen, bei der auch der Grundsatz der Gleichbehandlung berücksichtigt wird. Gemäß 
dem ADG muss das Zentrum Opfern von Diskriminierung Rechtsbeistand leisten und kann 
sie vor Gericht vertreten.136 Außerdem kann es Popularklagen einreichen (siehe oben). Da 
das Zentrum für alle Fälle von Diskriminierung im Sinne des ADG zuständig ist, liegen alle 
im Gesetz genannten Diskriminierungsgründe in seiner Zuständigkeit. 

und 

2016  bearbeitete  das  Zentrum  524  Beschwerden  wegen  möglicher  diskriminierender 
Behandlung;  davon  betrafen  45  Alter,  26  Rasse,  24  Geschlecht,  276  sonstige  Status, 
55 Behinderung,  73  Staatsangehörigkeit/ethnische  Herkunft,  1  sexuelle  Orientierung, 

132  Mehr Informationen zu dem Programm unter http://www.zdravekomunity.sk/?q=en (letzter Zugriff am 

10. März 2017). 

133  Nach dem slowakischen Gesetz Nr. 5/2004 über Arbeitsvermittlungsdienste, Artikel 63-65, ist jeder 

Arbeitgeber, der mindestens 20 Mitarbeiter beschäftigt, verpflichtet zu gewährleisten, dass Menschen mit 
Behinderungen mindestens 3,2 % der Belegschaft ausmachen, sofern das staatliche Arbeitsamt 
Arbeitssuchende mit Behinderungen vermitteln kann. Statt der Beschäftigung von Menschen mit 
Behinderungen kann der Arbeitgeber aber auch Güter oder Dienstleistungen von beschützenden 
Werkstätten oder selbständig Beschäftigten mit Behinderung kaufen. 

134  Slowakei, Gesetz Nr. 575/2001 Z. z. über die Organisation der Tätigkeit der Regierung und die Organisation 
der zentralen Staatsverwaltung, in der aktuellen Fassung (zákon č. 575/2001 Z. z. o organizácii činnosti 
vlády a organizácii ústrednej štátnej správy v znení neskorších predpisov), Artikel 2(3). Die Website des 
Rates der Regierung: www.radavladylp.gov.sk/ (letzter Zugriff am 10. März 2017). 

135  Slowakei, Gesetz Nr. 308/1993 über die Einrichtung des Slowakischen nationalen Zentrums für 

Menschenrechte (zákon č. 308/1993 Z. z. o zriadení Slovenského národného strediska pre ľudské práva), 
Artikel 1 und 2(1)-(3). 

136  Slowakei, Gesetz Nr. 308/1993 über die Einrichtung des Slowakischen nationalen Zentrums für 

Menschenrechte, Artikel 1(2)-(4). 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
11 Familienstand, 9 Sprache, 4 das Melden einer kriminellen Handlung oder einer anderen 
antisozialen  Aktivität.  Das  Zentrum  gab  19  Sachverständigengutachten  ab,  leistete 
rechtliche Vertretung in drei Gerichtsverfahren und erhob keine Popularklagen.137 

Seit  längerem  berichten  verschiedene  Quellen,  dass  das  Zentrum  seine  Aufgaben  nicht 
effizient  und  zufriedenstellend  erfüllt.138  Im  Jahr  2011  genehmigte  die  slowakische 
Regierung einen analytischen Bericht über Funktionsweise und Status des Zentrums, den 
ersten (und letzten) dieser Art. Der Bericht enthält einige Schlussfolgerungen, die in einem 
relativ komplexen Verfahren der Datenerhebung ermittelt wurden. 

Dies sind die wichtigsten Ergebnisse: mangelnde bzw. unklare Befugnisse des Zentrums, 
zu wenige und ungenügend qualifizierte Mitarbeiter, ineffiziente Verwaltung der staatlichen 
Mittel, ungeeignete Struktur und Untätigkeit der Leitungs- und Kontrollgremien innerhalb 
des  Zentrums,  Fehlen  vorbeugender  und  strategischer  Konzepte,  mangelnde 
Unabhängigkeit  und 
fehlende  Mechanismen  zum  Schutz  vor  Missbrauch  zu 
Einzelinteressen, insbesondere zu politischen Zwecken, geringer Bekanntheitsgrad seiner 
Tätigkeit und beschränkte gesellschaftliche Wirkung und die niedrigen Fallzahlen, die das 
Zentrum vor Gericht gebracht oder anderweitig behandelt hat. 

Die neue Regierung, die 2016 ernannt wurde, arbeitet bereits an der Gesetzesvorlage, mit 
der die Unabhängigkeit und effiziente Arbeitsweise des Zentrums gestärkt werden sollen. 
Bis Ende 2016 war das Gesetz der Öffentlichkeit noch nicht vorgestellt worden. 

7. Wichtige Punkte 

Justiz 

Grundsätzlich  wurden  die  Richtlinien  relativ  gut  in  nationales  Recht  umgesetzt,  wobei 
dieses  in  vielen  Bereichen  über  die  Vorgaben  der  Richtlinien  hinausgeht.  Trotz  einiger 
Verbesserungsmöglichkeiten  (z. B.  bei  manchen  Verfahrensvorschriften)  bietet  es  einen 
guten  Ausgangspunkt  für  die  praktische  Umsetzung  des  Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatzes. 
Allerdings fällt die praktische Durchsetzung derzeit noch weit hinter die Anforderungen der 
Richtlinien  zurück.  Dafür  gibt  es  die  folgenden  Gründe:  mangelhafter  Zugang  zu  den 
Gerichten  und  zur 
fehlende  Kenntnisse  über  das 
Antidiskriminierungsrecht  bei  Juristen  und  Entscheidungsträgern;  rassistische  Vorurteile 
unter  Richtern  und  mangelnde  Programme  für  deren  Sensibilisierung;  mangelndes 
Fallrecht  und  Defizite  bei  der  Erfassung  von  Diskriminierungsfällen;  fehlende  Daten  und 
Statistiken über Diskriminierungsfälle und Diskriminierungsgründe; ineffiziente Arbeit und 
mangelnde Unabhängigkeit der Gleichbehandlungsstelle; Mangel an politischen Strategien 
zur Bekämpfung von Diskriminierung; Mangel an wirksamen Strategien für den Übergang 
von  einem  segregierten  zu  einem  integrativen  Bildungssystem;  die  Regelschulen  haben 
nicht genug materielle, finanzielle und menschliche Ressourcen, um integrative Bildung zu 
des  Grundsatzes 
gewährleisten; 
der 
durchgängige  Berücksichtigung 
für  Nichtdiskriminierung 
Nichtdiskriminierung  und  mangelnde  Koordination  der 

im  Allgemeinen; 

keine 

137  Antwort des Zentrums für Menschenrechte vom 21. Februar 2017 auf ein Auskunftsersuchen vom 

17. Februar 2017 (liegt der Verfasserin vor). 

138  Siehe z. B. Durbáková, V., Holubová, B., Ivanco, Š., Liptáková, S. (2012), Hľadanie bariér v prístupe 

k účinnej právnej ochrane pred diskrimináciou, Košice, Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva, S. 110-112. 
Die Veröffentlichung ist auch verfügbar unter https://www.poradna-prava.sk/sk/dokumenty/diskriminacia-
na-slovensku-hladanie-barier-v-pristupe-k-ucinnej-pravnej-ochrane-pred-diskriminaciou/ (letzter Zugriff am 
10. März 2017); siehe ebenso Zentrum für Bürger- und Menschenrechte, People in Need Slovak Republic 
(2013), Written comments concerning the Ninth and Tenth Periodic Reports of the Slovak Republic under 
the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, S. 2, 13, 16 (auch 
verfügbar unter: https://www.poradna-prava.sk/en/documents/written-comments-to-the-committee-on-
the-elimination-of-racial-discrimination/; siehe ebenso Abschließende Bemerkungen des Ausschusses zur 
Beseitigung der Diskriminierung der Frau von 2015 (abrufbar unter: 
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2fC%2fSVK%
2fCO%2f5-6&Lang=en (letzter Zugriff am 10. März 2017) und Abschließende Bemerkungen des 
Menschenrechtsausschusses vom Oktober 2016, verfügbar unter: 
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fSVK%2f
CO%2f4&Lang=en (letzter Zugriff am 10. März 2017). 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
zuständigen  öffentlichen  Stellen;  fehlende  staatliche  Mittel  für  die  Durchsetzung  des 
Diskriminierungsverbots;  keine  systematische  Unterstützung  von  NROs  seitens  der 
Regierung;  im  Bildungssystem  sind  die  Grundsätze  und  Werte  der  Menschenrechte  und 
Nichtdiskriminierung  nicht  ausreichend  verankert;  Politikern  fehlt  das  Engagement  und 
Interesse  für  diese  Werte;  Rassismus  und  diskriminierende  Einstellungen  sind  in  der 
gesamten  Bevölkerung  weit  verbreitet  und  werden  allgemein  toleriert;  zunehmende 
öffentliche  Unterstützung  rechtsextremer  Positionen,  was  bei  den  Wahlen im  März  2016 
auch der rechtsextremistischen Partei Zugang zum slowakischen Parlament verschaffte. 

31 

 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

The national legal system 

The Slovak Republic has a parliamentary form of government and a statutory law system, 
its  basic  law  being  the  Constitution,139  which  lays  down  the  scope  of  guaranteed 
fundamental  rights.  International  treaties  on  human  rights  and  fundamental  freedoms, 
international treaties for the exercise of which no other law is necessary, and international 
treaties that directly confer rights or impose duties on natural persons or legal persons and 
that were ratified by Slovakia and promulgated as prescribed by the law, take precedence 
over national laws.140 Legally binding acts of the European Union take precedence over the 
laws of the Slovak Republic.141 Regulations of the Government and generally binding legal 
regulations of ministries have to be in compliance with the Constitution, with international 
treaties that were promulgated as prescribed by the law, and with laws.142 

In matters of local and regional self-governance and in the exercise of tasks stipulated by 
the  law,  municipalities  and  self-governing  regions  may  adopt  generally  binding  legal 
regulations.143 In the field of non-discrimination, this has relevance mainly in the field of 
social protection (e.g. social services, social advantages) and housing. Generally binding 
legal regulations of municipalities and self-governing regions must be in compliance with 
the  Constitution,  with international treaties  that  were  promulgated  as  prescribed  by  the 
law, with laws, with governmental regulations, and with generally binding legal regulations 
of ministries.144  

Together with the Constitution, the Act on Equal Treatment in Certain Areas and Protection 
against  Discrimination  (Anti-discrimination  Act),145  which  was  adopted  by  the  National 
Council  of  the  Slovak  Republic  (the  Slovak  Parliament)  on  20  May  2004  and  came  into 
force on 1 July 2004, establishes the basic legal framework of Slovak anti-discrimination 
law.  

According to the Anti-discrimination Act, the statutory obligation to observe the principle 
of equal treatment within the areas stipulated by law applies to ‘everyone’.146 The duty to 
observe  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  is  defined  as  comprising  the  prohibition  of 
discrimination147 on the prohibited grounds (sex, religion or belief, race, affiliation with a 
nationality or an ethnic group, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status and family 
status,  colour  of  skin,  language,  political  or  other  opinion,  national  or  social  origin, 
property,  lineage/gender  or  other  status,  or  the  reason  of  reporting  criminality  or  other 

139  Slovakia, The Constitution of the Slovak Republic No. 460/1992, as amended (Ústava Slovenskej republiky 
č. 460/1992 Zb. v znení neskorších predpisov), 1 September 1992. The English text of the Constitution can 
be found at http://www.slovak-republic.org/constitution/ (accessed 10 March 2017). The version of 
Constitution effective until 31 December 2016 can be found in Slovak at: https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-
predpisy/SK/ZZ/1992/460/20170227?ucinnost=31.12.2016 (accessed 10 March 2017). All other laws 
published in the Collection of Laws from 1998 onwards can be found in the Slovak language at: 
https://www.slov-lex.sk/domov (accessed 10 March 2017). 

140  Article 7(5) of the Constitution, which came into effect on 1 July 2001. Until then, the precedence of 

international human rights instruments over national law was guaranteed only if international law provided 
for ‘broader fundamental rights and freedoms’ than the relevant national law. 

141  Article 7(2) of the Constitution.  
142  Article 125(1)(b) of the Constitution.  
143  Article 71(2) of the Constitution.  
144  Article 125(1)(d) of the Constitution. 
145  Slovakia, Act No. 365/2004 on Equal Treatment in Certain Areas and Protection against Discrimination, 

amending and supplementing certain laws (Anti-discrimination Act), as amended (Zákon č. 365/2004 Z. z. o 
rovnakom zaobchádzaní v niektorých oblastiach a o ochrane pred diskrimináciou a o zmene a doplnení 
niektorých zákonov (Antidiskriminačný zákon) v znení neskorších predpisov), 20 May 2004. The English text 
of the Anti-discrimination Act can be found at 
http://www.snslp.sk/CCMS/files/AntidiskriminacnyZakon_ENG-1.1.2015.pdf (accessed 10 March 2017).  

146  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 3(1).  
147  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 2a(1). According to section, discrimination can take the 
following forms: direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment, victimisation, 
instruction to discriminate and incitement to discriminate. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
anti-social activity).148 It also requires ‘measures for protection against discrimination’149 
to  be  adopted.  The  Anti-discrimination  Act  also  stipulates  that,  ‘when  observing  the 
principle of equal treatment, it is also necessary to take into consideration good morals for 
the purposes of extending protection against discrimination’.150  

In  addition  to  the  Anti-discrimination  Act,  the  duty  to  observe  the  principle  of  equal 
treatment in particular spheres of life is also regulated by other laws, which either refer to 
the  Anti-discrimination  Act  or  contain  their  own  equal  treatment/anti-discrimination 
clauses that usually duplicate some of the provisions contained in the Anti-discrimination 
Act  and/or  add  some  details  specific  to  the  personal  and  material  scope  of  the  piece  of 
legislation. 

List of main legislation transposing and implementing the directives 

Title of the law: Act No. 365/2004 on Equal Treatment in Certain Areas and Protection 
Against  Discrimination  (Anti-discrimination  Act)  (zákon  č.  365/2004  Z.  z.  o  rovnakom 
zaobchádzaní v niektorých oblastiach a o ochrane pred diskrimináciou a o zmene a doplnení 
niektorých zákonov (antidiskriminačný zákon)) 
Abbreviation: ADZ (Antidiskriminačný zákon) 
Date of adoption: 20 May 2004 
Latest amendments: 12 November 2015 (No. 378/2015) 
Entry into force: 01 July 2004 
Grounds covered: sex, religion or belief, race, affiliation with a nationality or an ethnic 
group, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status and family status, colour of skin, 
language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, lineage/gender or 
other status, or the reason of reporting criminality or other anti-social activity, contained 
in Section 2(1) of the Anti-discrimination Act (and some other grounds contained in some 
other  acts,  mainly  trade  union  involvement,  unfavourable  state  of  health  and  genetic 
features, contained, for example, in the Labour Code) 
Material  scope:  employment  and  occupation,  social  security,  social  advantages, 
healthcare, provision of goods and services including housing and education  

Title of the law: Labour Code No. 311/2001 (zákon č. 311/2001 Z. z. Zákonník práce) 
Abbreviation: ZP (Zákonník práce) 
Date of adoption: 02 July 2001 
Latest amendments: 26 November 2015 (No. 440/2015) 
Entry into force: 01 April 2002 
Grounds covered: sex, religion or belief, race, affiliation with a nationality or an ethnic 
group, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status and family status, colour of skin, 
language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, lineage/gender or 
other status, or the reason of reporting criminality or other anti-social activity, contained 
in  Section  2(1)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  as  well  as  trade  union  involvement, 
unfavourable state of health and genetic features 
Material scope: employment  

Title of the law: Act No. 400/2009 on Civil Service, as amended (zákon č. 400/2009 Z. 
z. o štátnej službe a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov) 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 16 September 2009 
Latest amendments: 15 December 2016 (No. 340/2016) 
Entry into force: 01 November 2009 
Grounds  covered:  all  grounds  covered  by  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  as  well  as 
unfavourable state of health, duties to family, membership of or involvement in a political 
party or a political movement, a trade union or another association 

148  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 2(1).  
149  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 2(3).  
150  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 2(2).  

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Material scope: employment 

Title of the law: Act No. 5/2004 on Employment Services, amended (zákon č. 5/2004 Z. 
z. o službách zamestnanosti a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov) 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 04 December 2003 
Latest amendments: 25 November 2016 (No. 310/2016) 
Entry into force: 01 February 2004 
Grounds covered: sex, religion or belief, race, affiliation with a nationality or an ethnic 
group, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status and family status, colour of skin, 
language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, lineage/gender or 
other status, or the reason of reporting criminality or other anti-social activity, contained 
in Section 2(1) of the Anti-discrimination Act as well as activity in trade unions 
Material scope: employment  

Title of the law: Act No. 245/2008 on Education (Schools Act) (zákon č. 245/2009 Z. z. 
o výchove a vzdelávaní (školský zákon) a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov) 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 22 May 2008 
Latest amendments: 19 July 2016 (No. 216/2016) 
Entry into force: 01 September 2008 
Grounds covered: sex, religion or belief, race, affiliation with a nationality or an ethnic 
group, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status and family status, colour of skin, 
language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, lineage/gender or 
other status, or the reason of reporting criminality or other anti-social activity contained in 
Section 2(1) of the Anti-discrimination Act as well as social disadvantage 
Material scope: education 

Title of the law: Act No 131/2002 on Higher Education, as amended 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 21 February 2002 
Latest amendments: 25 November 2015 (No 422/2015) 
Entry into force: 01 April 2002 
Grounds covered: sex, religion or belief, race, affiliation with a nationality or an ethnic 
group, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status and family status, colour of skin, 
language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, lineage/gender or 
other status, or the reason of reporting criminality or other anti-social activity contained in 
Section 2(1) of the Anti-discrimination Act  
Material scope: education 

Title of the law: Act  No. 576/2004  on Healthcare, Services Related to the Provision of 
Healthcare and on amending and supplementing certain acts, as amended (zákon č. Act 
No.  576/2004  Z.  z.  o  zdravotnej  starostlivosti,  službách  súvisiacich  s  poskytovaním 
zdravotnej starostlivosti a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov) 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 21 October 2004 
Latest amendments: 30 December 2016 (No. 386/2016) 
Entry into force: 01 January 2005 
Grounds covered: sex, religion or belief, race, affiliation with a nationality or an ethnic 
group, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status and family status, colour of skin, 
language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, lineage/gender or 
other status, or the reason of reporting criminality or other anti-social activity, contained 
in Section 2(1) of the Anti-discrimination Act 
Material scope: healthcare 

Title of the law: Act No. 461/2003 on Social Insurance, as amended (zákon č. 461/2003 
Z. z. o sociálnom poistení v znení neskorších predpisov) 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 30 October 2003 
Latest amendments: 22 December 2016 (No. 355/2016) 
Entry into force: 01 January 2004 
Grounds covered: sex, religion or belief, race, affiliation with a nationality or an ethnic 
group, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status and family status, colour of skin, 
language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, lineage/gender or 
other status, or the reason of reporting criminality or other anti-social activity, contained 
in Section 2(1) of the Anti-discrimination Act 
Material scope: social security 

Title  of  the  law:  Act  No.  448/2008  on  Social  Services  and  on  amending  and 
supplementing Act No.  455/1991  on  Licensed  Trades (Small Business Act), as amended 
(zákon č. 448/2008 Z. z. o sociálnych službách a o zmene a doplnení zákona č. 455/1991 
Zb. o živnostenskom podnikaní (živnostenský zákon) v znení neskorších predpisov) 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 30 October 2008 
Latest amendments: 23 March 2016 (No. 125/2016) 
Entry into force: 01 January 2009 
Grounds covered: sex, religion or belief, race, affiliation with a nationality or an ethnic 
group, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status and family status, colour of skin, 
language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, lineage/gender or 
other status, or the reason of reporting criminality or other anti-social activity contained in 
Section 2(1) of the Anti-discrimination Act, as well as unfavourable social situation 
Material scope: social security 

Title of the law: Act No. 308/1993 on Establishing the Slovak National Centre for Human 
Rights (zákon č. 308/1993 Z. z. o zriadení Slovenského národného  strediska pre ľudské 
práva) 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 15 December 1993 
Latest amendments: 28 July 2015 (No. 176/2015) 
Entry into force: 01 January 1994 
Grounds  covered:  all  grounds  covered  by  national  law:  sex,  religion  or  belief,  race, 
affiliation with a nationality or an ethnic group, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital 
status  and  family  status,  colour  of  skin,  language,  political  or  other  opinion,  national  or 
social origin, property, lineage/gender or other status, or the reason of reporting criminality 
or  other  anti-social  activity,  contained  in  Section  2(1)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act,  as 
well as some other grounds contained in other acts (unfavourable state of health, genetic 
features, duties to family, membership of or involvement in a political party or a political 
movement, a trade union or other association) 
Material  scope:  employment  and  occupation,  social  security,  social  advantages, 
healthcare, provision of goods and services including housing and education  

Title of the law: Act No. 99/1963 Civil Procedure Act, as amended (zákon č. 99/1963 Z. 
z. Občiansky súdny poriadok v znení neskorších predpisov) 
Abbreviation: OSP (Občiansky súdny poriadok) 
Date of adoption: 04 December 1963 
Latest amendments: 15 December 2015 (No. 438/2015) 
Entry into force: 01 April 1964; abolished from 1 July 2016 (by Act No 160/2015 Civil 
Dispute Act) 
Grounds  covered:  all  grounds  covered  by  national  law:  sex,  religion  or  belief,  race, 
affiliation with a nationality or an ethnic group, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital 
status  and  family  status,  colour  of  skin,  language,  political  or  other  opinion,  national  or 
social origin, property, lineage/gender or other status, or the reason of reporting criminality 
or  other  anti-social  activity,  contained  in  Section  2(1)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  (as 

35 

 
 
 
 
well as some other grounds contained in other acts, mainly trade union involvement and 
unfavourable state of health, which are contained in the Labour Code) 
Material  scope:  employment  and  occupation,  social  security,  social  advantages, 
healthcare, provision of goods and services including housing and education 

Title  of  the  law:  Act  No.  160/2015  Civil  Dispute  Act  (zákon  č.  160/2015  Z.  z.  Civilný 
sporový poriadok) 
Abbreviation: CSP (Civilný sporový poriadok) 
Date of adoption: 21 May 2015 
Latest amendments: n/a 
Entry into force: 01 July 2016 (upon Civil Procedure Act becoming ineffective) 
Grounds covered: sex, religion or belief, race, affiliation with a nationality or an ethnic 
group, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status and family status, colour of skin, 
language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, lineage/gender or 
other status, or the reason of reporting criminality or other anti-social activity, contained 
in Section 2(1) of the Anti-discrimination Act (and some other grounds contained in some 
other  acts,  mainly  trade  union  involvement,  unfavourable  state  of  health  and  genetic 
features, contained, for example, in the Labour Code) 
Material  scope:  employment  and  occupation,  social  security,  social  advantages, 
healthcare, provision of goods and services including housing and education  

Title of the law: Act No. 162/2015 Administrative Judicial Act (zákon č. 162/2015 Z. z. 
Správny súdny poriadok) 
Abbreviation: SSP (Správny súdny poriadok) 
Date of adoption: 21 May 2015 
Latest amendments: n/a  
Entry into force: 01 July 2016 
Grounds covered: sex, religion or belief, race, affiliation with a nationality or an ethnic 
group, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status and family status, colour of skin, 
language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, lineage/gender or 
other status, or the reason of reporting criminality or other anti-social activity, contained 
in Section 2(1) of the Anti-discrimination Act (and some other grounds contained in some 
other  acts,  mainly  trade  union  involvement,  unfavourable  state  of  health  and  genetic 
features, contained, for example, in the Labour Code) 
Material  scope:  employment  and  occupation,  social  security,  social  advantages, 
healthcare, provision of goods and services including housing and education 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
1 

GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK  

Constitutional provisions on protection against discrimination and the promotion 
of equality  

The Slovak Constitution includes the following Articles dealing with non-discrimination:  

- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 

Article 12 – a general clause. Article 12(1) states that ‘people are free and equal in 
dignity and rights’. Article 12(2) stipulates that  
‘fundamental  rights  and  freedoms  are  guaranteed  in  the  territory  of  the  Slovak 
Republic  to  every  person  regardless  of  sex,  race,  skin  colour,  language,  belief, 
religion, political affiliation or conviction, national or social origin, nationality or ethnic 
origin,  property,  lineage/gender151  or  any  other  status.  No  person  shall  be  denied 
their legal rights, discriminated against or favoured on any of these grounds’.  
Article 12(3) of the Constitution guarantees free choice of ‘nationality’.152 The right 
to be treated equally is an accessory right and can only be claimed in connection with 
the  protection  of  particular  fundamental  rights  and  freedoms  listed  in  the 
Constitution.153 The list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Constitution is 
open-ended  (‘any  other  status’)  and  the  Constitutional  Court  has  already  declared 
that  sexual  orientation  is  a  constitutionally  prohibited  ground  of  discrimination.154 
Given the fact that the list is open-ended, it can be argued that disability and age, as 
well  as  any  other  grounds  covered  by  the  legislation155  or  even  not  covered  by 
generally binding Slovak legal acts, are also constitutionally protected grounds.156 
Article 24 – freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief. 
Article 33 – the affiliation to any national minority or an ethnic group cannot be to 
the detriment of anyone. 
Article 34 – special rights of citizens belonging to national minorities or ethnic groups. 
Article  38  –  special  work-related  protection  for  women,  minors  and  people  with 
disabilities. 
Article 41(2) – special care and work-related protection for pregnant women. 

These  provisions  apply  to  all  areas  covered  by  the  directives.  Their  material  scope  is 
broader than those of the directives. 

151  The Slovak Constitution uses the word rod, which is equivalent to both ‘lineage’ and ‘gender’. The 

Constitutional Court has not interpreted the concept of rod directly yet. However, it has already used the 
word rod in the sense of gender when it referred to the ‘gender context’ of one of the cases that it was 
deciding (minimum pay threshold stated by law for nurses), albeit without a direct reference to the word rod 
contained in the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in Article 12(2) of the Constitution. See the 
finding of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, PL. ÚS 13/2012-90, 19 June 2013, paragraph 
139, available at https://www.ustavnysud.sk/vyhladavanie-rozhodnuti#!DecisionsSearchResultView 
(accessed 10 March 2017).  

152  In Slovak law, the word ‘nationality’ (národnosť) is separate and distinct from the word ‘citizenship’ (štátne 

občianstvo). Whereas ‘citizenship’ is understood as meaning nationality in the sense of having a legal 
affiliation with a particular state (i.e. being a national or citizen of the Slovak Republic), ‘nationality’ is 
understood as an affiliation with a particular ‘nation’ (a group of people defined by common language, 
geographical and cultural roots etc.) or ethnic group. Thus, ‘nationality’ is often understood as meaning 
‘ethnicity’, including in the practice of state bodies and public institutions.  

153  Finding of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, I. ÚS 17/99, 22 September 1999. 
154  See the Finding of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, PL. ÚS 8/04-202, 18 October 2005, 

available at https://www.ustavnysud.sk/vyhladavanie-rozhodnuti#!DecisionsSearchResultView (accessed 10 
March 2017).  

155  Such as marital and family status, which are covered, for example, by the Anti-discrimination Act or by the 

Labour Code.  

156  The Constitutional Court has already stated that the fact of being a minister of a certain church constitutes 
just such ‘another status’ and hence such a person cannot be advantaged or disadvantaged on this ground. 
See the finding of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, No III. ÚS 64/00-65, 31 January 2001, 
available at https://www.ustavnysud.sk/vyhladavanie-rozhodnuti#!DecisionsSearchResultView (accessed 22 
February 2017).  

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
These provisions are directly applicable, but only have vertical effect. The Constitutional 
Court held explicitly that Articles 12(1) and 12(2) of the Constitution do not have direct 
horizontal effect.157 

Thus, these provisions cannot be enforced against private actors (or against the state). 

157  See the Finding of the Constitutional Court, PL. ÚS 8/04-202, 18 October 2005, paragraph 13, available at 
https://www.ustavnysud.sk/vyhladavanie-rozhodnuti#!DecisionsSearchResultView (accessed 10 March 
2017). 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2 

THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION  

2.1  Grounds of unlawful discrimination explicitly covered  

The following grounds of discrimination are explicitly prohibited in national law: 

Grounds  explicitly  covered  by  the  Constitution:  sex,  race,  skin  colour,  language,  belief, 
religion,  political  affiliation  or  conviction,  national  or  social  origin,  nationality  or  ethnic 
origin, property, lineage/gender or any other status.158 The Constitutional Court has also 
confirmed 
is  a  constitutionally  prohibited  ground  of 
discrimination.159 

that  sexual  orientation 

Grounds explicitly covered by the Anti-discrimination Act (relevant for the fields of ‘labour 
relations  and  related  legal  relations,  social  security,  healthcare,  provision  of  goods  and 
services and in education’):160 sex, religion or belief, race, affiliation with nationality or an 
ethnic group, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status and family status, colour of 
skin, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, lineage/gender 
or other status, or the reason of reporting criminality or other anti-social activity.161  

Grounds  explicitly  covered  by  other  laws  (in  addition  to  those  listed  in  the  Anti-
discrimination  Act)  are,  for  example,  trade  union  activities,162  unfavourable  state  of 
health163 and genetic features.164 

2.1.1  Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the directives 

The Anti-discrimination Act does not define any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination 
listed in it.  

- 

Race and ethnic origin 

The terms racial origin and ethnic origin are used in the provisions of many laws (especially 
in  connection  with  anti-discrimination  provisions  or  provisions  prohibiting  racism  and 
intolerance), albeit without any legal definitions.  

Criminal law literature and commentaries state that race means a group of people differing 
from others due to various typical features, especially physical ones (e.g. colour of skin), 
regardless of the fact that the members of the race concerned live within the territory of 
the state.  

Criminal law literature characterises an ‘ethnic group’ as a  

‘historically formed group of people connected by common history, distinct cultural 
features (mainly language) and common mentality, traditions, and possibly a distinct 
way of life. Representatives of a given ethnic group have their own name … and have 
an  understanding  of  mutual  belonging  and  at  the  same  time  distinctiveness  from 

158  See Article 12(2) of the Constitution.  
159  See the Finding of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, PL. ÚS 8/04-202, 18 October 2005, 

available at https://www.ustavnysud.sk/vyhladavanie-rozhodnuti#!DecisionsSearchResultView (accessed 10 
March 2017).  

160  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 3(1).  
161  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 2(1).  
162  Slovakia, Act No 311/2001 Labour Code, as amended (zákon č. 311/2001 Z. z. Zákonník práce v znení 
neskorších predpisov), 1 April 2002, Section 13(2). The English text of the Labour Code is available at 
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/61871/60966/F-506442866/SVK61871.pdf (accessed 10 
March 2017).  

163  See Slovakia, Labour Code, 311/2001, Article 1 of the Basic Principles. 
164  See Slovakia, Labour Code, 311/2001, Article 1 of the Basic Principles and Section 13(2). 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
other communities. An ethnic group usually exists beyond the borders of one state. 
In Slovakia an example would be the Roma’.165  

The Supreme Court confirmed in 2013 that the Roma represent an ethnic group.166  

The Slovak courts have a strong tendency to interpret the concept of (Roma) ethnicity, in 
the context of hate speech and hate crimes, narrowly. Evidence of this can also be found 
in  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  2013.167  The  Supreme  Court  argued,  inter  alia, 
that the word ‘Gypsy’ (both as a noun and as an adjective) belongs to a group of words 
that are frequently used as a part of the codified state language, and that the usage of this 
word  alone  cannot  indicate  that  a  crime  of  defamation  of  nation,  race  and  conviction 
pursuant to Section 423(1) of the Criminal Code has been committed.168  

- 

Religion and belief 

Slovak  law  provides  no  definition  of  the  terms  of  religion  and  belief.  The  Criminal  Code 
instead uses the expression ‘confession/creed’, which is explained in law commentaries as 
‘the  active  or  passive  relation  to  a  particular  religion  as  to  the  general  theory  of  the 
interpretation of the world presented by a particular faith’.169 

Act  308/1991  on  Freedom  of  Religious  Belief  and  the  Status  of  Churches  and  Religious 
Societies uses the concept of religious belief but fails to define it. For the purposes of the 
act,  any  person  professing  a  religion  is  considered  to  be  a  believer.  The  agreement  on 
religious  education170  between  the  Slovak  Republic  and  the  registered  churches  and 
religious  societies  deals  only  with  ‘religion’  as  defined  by  the  doctrine  of  churches  or 
religious societies registered in Slovakia:  

‘religion and religious education is taught according to the educational programmes 
and curricula approved by a registered church or religious society after receiving an 
opinion of the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic’.171  

The Slovak legal system makes no clear distinction between religion, confession/creed and 
belief.  

Both  the  Constitution  and  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  state  explicitly  that  discrimination 
against a person without a religion shall be deemed to be discrimination on the ground of 
religion or belief. In 2001, the Constitutional Court also stated that the fact that someone 
is a minister of a certain church constitutes ‘another status’ (a formulation at the end of 
the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination contained in the Slovak Constitution) and 
hence such a person must not be advantaged or disadvantaged on this ground.172 

Act  308/1991  on  Freedom  of  Religious  Belief  and  the  Status  of  Churches  and  Religious 
Societies stipulates rules for the registration of churches and religious societies in Slovakia. 

165  Samaš, O., Stiffel, H, Toman, P (2006), Trestný zákon – Stručný komentár (The Criminal Code: a brief 

commentary), Bratislava, IURA EDITION, spol. s r. o., pp. 301-302. 

166  Decision of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, 4 Tdo 49/2012, 19 March 2013, pp. 7-8, available at 
http://www.nssr.gov.sk/rozhodnutia/?ID=48&nazov=&art_datrozh_od=&art_datrozh_do=&art_katrozh=0&
art_cisrozh=&art_spisznac=4+Tdo+49%2F2012&art_obsah=&odoslat=Odosla%C5%A5 (accessed 10 March 
2017). 

167  Decision of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, 4 Tdo 49/2012, 19 March 2013.  
168  Decision of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, 4 Tdo 49/2012, 19 March 2013, pp. 6-7. 
169  See e.g., Stiffel, H., Kočica, J. (2001), Trestný zákon: Stručný komentár (The Criminal Code: A Brief 

Commentary), Bratislava, p. 403.  

170  Slovakia, Agreement between the Slovak Republic and Registered Churches and Religious Societies 

regarding Religious Education, published in the Collection of Laws under No. 395/2004. 

171  Slovakia, Agreement between the Slovak Republic and Registered Churches and Religious Societies 

regarding Religious Education, 395/2004, Article 2(7).  

172  See the finding of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, III. ÚS 64/00-65, 31 January 2001, 

available at https://www.ustavnysud.sk/vyhladavanie-rozhodnuti#!DecisionsSearchResultView.  

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Under these rules, a church or a religious society can be registered only when it submits a 
statutory  declaration  from  20,000  adult  members  confirming  their  membership  of  the 
church  or  religious  society  and  their  permanent  residency  in  Slovakia.  The  registration 
process  is  important,  since  only  registered  churches  and  religious  societies  are  legally 
acknowledged by the state. The registered churches and religious societies have significant 
advantages (with regard to the legal and economic environment in which they operate) in 
comparison  with  those  that  are  not  registered,  which  can  lead  to  discrimination  against 
individuals belonging to non-registered churches and religious societies.173  

- 

Disability 

Neither the Anti-discrimination Act nor other acts include the definition of disability that is 
to be used in the area of anti-discrimination. Disability (or some aspects of it) is defined 
by social security, employment and school legislation for the purposes of those areas (the 
duty to apply the principle of equal treatment in relation to disability applies to all of them). 

The Labour Code defines an ‘employee with a disability’ as an employee who is officially 
acknowledged as disabled on the basis of the Social Insurance Act174 and who submits to 
their  employer  a  decision  proving  entitlement  to  a  disability  pension.175  The  Social 
Insurance Act defines the following conditions to qualify for a disability pension: 

- 
- 
- 

at least 40 % loss of the ability to work (when compared to a ‘healthy’ person); 
attainment of a sufficient number of years of pension insurance; 
long-term unfavourable state of health, i.e. state of health causing a loss of ability to 
perform gainful activities, which is expected, on the basis of medical assessment, to 
last at least one year.176 

However, it is also important to state that Article 1 (of the Basic Principles of the Labour 
Code and Section 13(2) of the Labour Code also prohibit discrimination on the ground of 
unfavourable state of health and on the ground of genetic characteristics. 

A  similar  test  for  determining  whether  someone  has  a  disability  is  used  by  the  Act  on 
Employment  Services,177  which  regulates  the  system  of  institutions  and  measures  to 
support  and  help  participants  in  the  labour  market.  This  act  considers  a person  with  a 
disability to be a citizen who is officially registered disabled in accordance with the Social 
Insurance Act and who can also prove their disability with a decision or a notification from 
the Social Insurance Agency.178 

The  Act  on  Benefits  for  Compensation  of  Serious  Disability179  uses  the  term  ‘serious 
disability’  and  defines  it  as  a  ‘disability  with  a  level  of  functional  impairment  of  at  least 

173  Only registered churches and religious societies can legitimately claim state support (including payment of 
clergy or exemption from taxation), organise religious education in schools, establish their own schools 
(partly funded by the state), establish and run hospitals and social services facilities etc. Small churches 
that cannot be registered do not exist legally; they can only be established as civil society organisations. 
174  Slovakia, Act. No 461/2003 on Social Insurance, as amended (Zákon č. 461/2003 Z. z. o sociálnom poistení 

v znení neskorších predpisov), 30 October 2003. 

175  Slovakia, Labour Code, 311/2001, Section 40(8).  
176  Slovakia, Social Insurance Act, 461/2003, Sections 70-72.  
177  Slovakia, Act No 5/2004 on employment services and on changing and supplementing other laws, as 

amended (Zákon č. 5/2004 Z. z. o službách zamestnanosti a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení 
neskorších predpisov), 4 December 2003.  

178  Slovakia, Employment Services Act, 5/2004, Section 9.  
179  Slovakia, Act No 447/2008 on Benefits for Compensation of Serious Disability, amending and Supplementing 
Certain Laws, as amended (Zákon č. 447/2008 Z. z. o peňažných príspevkoch na kompenzáciu ťažkého 
zdravotného postihnutia a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov, v znení zákona č. 8/2009 Z. z.), 29 
October 2008. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
50%’.180 ‘Functional impairment’ is defined as a lack of physical ability, sensory ability or 
mental ability with a prognosis in excess of 12 months.181 

It  is  possible  that  state  authorities,  as  well  as  courts,  will  in  some  cases  base  their 
understanding of the concept of ‘disability’ on the legal definitions listed above. This may 
become problematic, especially in cases where the concept of disability being defined falls 
outside  the  scope  of  employment.  However,  it  must  be  considered  that  the  Anti-
discrimination  Act  also  prohibits  discrimination  on  the  grounds  of  past  disability  and 
presumed  disability  (‘discrimination  against  a person  who  could  be  presumed,  based  on 
external signs, to have a disability’).182 It should also be borne in mind that Slovakia signed 
and  ratified  the  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  (CRPD),  which,  in 
conjunction  with  Article  7(5)  of  the  Slovak  Constitution,  takes  precedence  over  Slovak 
laws, and the Supreme Court has already confirmed this principle in a case that concerned 
the  right  of  a  child  with  a  disability  to  inclusive  education.183  Therefore,  for  anti-
discrimination purposes, the concept of disability should be understood much more broadly 
than the restrictive legal definitions that apply in fields covered by specific laws, mainly in 
the context of employment and social insurance.  

Neither  the  Constitutional  Court  nor  the  Supreme  Court  has  provided  any  explicit  and 
comprehensive interpretative framework for the concept of disability as yet. However, in a 
case concerning an individual with psychosocial and intellectual disabilities,184 which were 
not  temporary,  the  Constitutional  Court  took  it  as  a  given  that  the  complainant  had  a 
disability (without examining the complainant’s circumstances  in relation to national, EU 
and international legal definitions of disability).185 The Constitutional Court also included 
an obiter dictum in this particular decision, which, while not defining disability, provided 
some hints on the court’s perception of the legal definition of disability as a social concept. 
In particular, the Constitutional Court stated:  

‘Experts  nowadays  (and  in  Slovakia,  it is  more  jurisprudence  and  legal  theory  –  a 
[court’s]  note)  perceive  disability  as  well  as  the  rights  of  people  with  disabilities 
differently from in the past. Today, disability is not only understood within a medical 
(individual) framework but the meanings of the social and legal framework are also 
increasing – which, when compared to the past, integrate the values that represent 
the substrate of human rights, such as respect and the protection of dignity (…).’186 

In a case that concerned the right of a child with special educational needs stemming from 
a combination of disabilities/disadvantages (Down’s syndrome, an intellectual disability, a 

180  Slovakia, Act on benefits for compensation of serious disability, 447/2008, Section 2(3). 
181  Slovakia, Act on benefits for compensation of serious disability, 447/2008, Section 2(4). 
182  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 2a(11)(d).  
183  Decision of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, ref. No 7Sžo/83/2014, 24 September 2015, available 

at http://www.nssr.gov.sk/rozhodnutia/?ID=48&nazov=&art_datrozh_ 
od=&art_datrozh_do=&art_katrozh=0&art_cisrozh=&art_spisznac=7S%C5%BEo%2F83%2F2014&art_obsa
h=&odoslat=Odosla%C5%A5 (accessed 10 March 2017). The Supreme Court held that the CRPD `was 
incorporated into the Slovak legal order, and hence is a part of it, with a regime of preferential application in 
relation to the national law (Article 7(5) of the Constitution). … [D]ue to [CRPD´s] legal force, it was the 
duty of the administrative bodies to interpret the particular provisions of the [Slovak] Schools Act in 
accordance with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, or the administrative bodies could 
directly apply the rules of international law contained in the Convention´ (p. 9 of the decision).  

184  However, the disability of the complainant concerned was not clear from the decision – the Constitutional 
Court did not deal with the particular type of disability and the courts of first and second instance used 
disability terminology confusingly, randomly and interchangeably (in a literal translation, the courts of first 
and second instance used the terms `psychiatric disorder´ and `mental disability´). The expert opinions 
issued during the proceedings, and to which the courts of first and second instance referred, used the terms 
(in a literal translation) `psychiatric disorder´ and `mental retardation´.  

185  Finding of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, I. ÚS 313/2012-52, 28 November 2012, available 

at www.zpmpvsr.sk/dokumenty/I_US_313_2012.pdf (accessed 10 March 2017).  

186  Finding of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, I. ÚS 313/2012-52, 28 November 2012, 

paragraph 34.  

42 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
hearing impairment and a belated talking ability), the Supreme Court implicitly took it as 
a given that the claimant had a disability.187  

The  Schools  Act,188  regulating  legal  relations  in  the  field  of  primary  and  secondary 
education and in related facilities, defines a ‘child with a disability or a pupil with a disability’ 
in section 2(l) as a child or a pupil with a  

‘mental189  disability,  hearing  impairment,  visual  impairment,  physical  impairment, 
communication  ability  disorder,  autism,  or  with  other  pervasive  developmental 
disorders, or with multiple disabilities’.  

The Schools Act also uses the term ‘health disadvantage’. A child or a pupil with a ‘health 
disadvantage’ is defined, in section 2(k), as a child or a pupil: with a ‘disability’; or who is 
‘ill  or  their  health  is  impaired’;  or  who  has  ‘developmental  disorders’,  or  a  ‘behavioural 
disorder’.  

- 

Age 

Slovak law provides no specific definition, and neither does case law.  

- 

Sexual orientation 

Slovak law provides no specific definition, and neither does case law.  

2.1.2  Multiple discrimination 

In Slovakia prohibition of multiple discrimination is not included in the law. 

There are no legal rules or case law that would explicitly deal with situations of multiple 
discrimination.  The  concept  sometimes  appears  in  policy  documents  but  its  use  is  more 
often  theoretical  rather  than  relating  to  the  proposal  and  implementation  of  specific 
measures.  

Section  2(1)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act,  when  listing  the  prohibited  grounds  of 
discrimination,  does  not  contain  any  explicit  prohibition  of  multiple  discrimination. 
However, nor does it say that discrimination or other breaches of the duty to observe the 
principle  of  equal  treatment  must  take  place  on  individual  prohibited  grounds  of 
discrimination.  Thus,  it  could  be  argued  that  the  concept  of  prohibition  of  multiple 
discrimination  is  contained  in  the  act  implicitly  (although  it  will  be  up  to  the  courts  to 
establish this interpretation more authoritatively, which has not happened so far).  

In  Slovakia,  no  case  law  deals  with  multiple  discrimination.  The  multiple  discrimination 
element has either not been dealt with by the courts, or the cases are still pending. 

The only known cases where multiple discrimination has been invoked were cases relating 
to  multiple  discrimination  against  Roma  women  (with  the  multiple  grounds  of 
discrimination being sex/gender and ethnicity) initiated by the Centre for Civil and Human 
Rights (Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva),190 an NGO based in Košice.  

187  Decision of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, ref. No 7Sžo/83/2014, 24 September 2015.  
188  Slovakia, Act No. 245/2008 on Education (Schools Act), as amended (zákon č. 245/2009 Z. z. o výchove a 

vzdelávaní (školský zákon) a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov), 22 May 
2008.  

189  In Slovak, the act uses the word `mental´ (and not, for example,`intellectual´).  
190  See https://www.poradna-prava.sk/en/, (accessed 10 March 2017).  

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
The Centre for Civil and Human Rights initiated a case, using the concept of actio popularis 
(to sue the state) against a provision in the Act on Childbirth Allowance191 that conditions 
the provision of such subsidy on the woman not leaving the healthcare facility (in practice, 
a maternity hospital) upon giving birth without the consent of the healthcare facility. The 
Centre for Civil and Human Rights argued that the provision is specifically discriminatory 
against Roma women who are in very vulnerable positions and who, for various reasons, 
including ill-treatment by the maternity hospitals, often leave the hospital upon giving birth 
without being given the consent of the hospital. The case was dismissed by the court of 
first  instance  in  May  2014192  and  is  still  pending  before  the  second  instance  court.  The 
district  court  in  its  reasoning  focused  only  on  argumentation  regarding  the  form  of 
discrimination  (indirect  discrimination),  but  did  not  provide  any  specific  argumentation 
regarding discriminatory grounds. See also section 3.2.7 of this report.  

In  2013,  the  Centre  for  Civil  and  Human  Rights  submitted  an  actio  popularis  against  a 
state-run hospital in Eastern Slovakia and at the same time against the Ministry of Health 
and the Slovak Republic.193 The actio popularis concerns segregation of Roma women in 
maternity hospitals and qualifies it as discrimination on the (multiple) grounds of ethnicity 
and sex. The case is still pending before the first instance court.  

2.1.3  Assumed and associated discrimination 

a)  Discrimination by assumption 

In  Slovakia  the  following  national  law  prohibits  discrimination  based  on  perception  or 
assumption of what a person is: the Anti-discrimination Act, Section 3(3) and Section 2a 
(11)(d)  (assumed  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  disability).  There  is  no  case  law 
addressing assumed discrimination. 

Section  3(3)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  stipulates  that,  in  determining  whether 
discrimination has occurred, no account shall be taken of whether the underlying reasons 
were based on facts or mistaken beliefs.  

According to Section 2a (11)(d) of the Anti-discrimination Act, discrimination on grounds 
of  past  disability  or  discrimination  against  a  person  who  could  be  presumed,  based  on 
external signs, to have a disability, shall be deemed to constitute discrimination based on 
disability. 

b)  Discrimination by association 

In  Slovakia  the  following  national law  prohibits  discrimination  based  on  association  with 
persons with particular characteristics: Anti-discrimination Act, Sections 2a(11)(b) and (c). 
There is no case law dealing with discrimination by association. 

Sections 2a(11)(b) and (c) of the Anti-discrimination Act state that discrimination on the 
grounds of someone’s relationship with a person of a particular racial, national or ethnic 
origin shall also be deemed to constitute discrimination based on racial, national or ethnic 
origin,  and  that  discrimination  on  grounds  of  someone’s  relationship  with  a  person  of  a 
particular religion or belief, or discrimination against a natural person without a religion, 
shall be deemed to constitute discrimination based on religion or belief.  

191  Slovakia, Act No 383/2013 on Childbirth Allowance and on Allowance on More Concurrently Born Children 

and on changing and supplementing other laws (zákon č. 383/2013 Z. z. o príspevku pri narodení dieťaťa a 
príspevku na viac súčasne narodených detí a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov), 23 October 2013. 
The relevant provision against which the Centre for Civil and Human Rights filed its lawsuit is Section 
3(4)(b).  

192  Decision of the District Court Bratislava I, ref. No 12C 231/2010-132, of 16 May 2014.  
193  The case is conducted before the District Court Bratislava III under ref. No 14 C 288/2014.  

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
These rules are, in principle, in compliance with the judgment in Coleman v Attridge Law 
and  Steve  Law,194  although  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  does  not  explicitly  refer  to 
association  with  a  person  with  a  disability  (or  to  association  with  persons  possessing  or 
presumed  to  possess  other  characteristics  covered  by  the  other  prohibited  grounds  of 
discrimination contained in the Anti-discrimination Act). 

2.2  Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of direct discrimination 

In Slovakia, direct discrimination is prohibited in national law. It is defined.  

Direct discrimination is one of the forms of discrimination listed and prohibited by the Anti-
discrimination Act. Like the other forms of discrimination contained in Section 2a(1) of the 
Anti-discrimination  Act,  it  has  to  take  place  in  connection  with  the  prohibited  ground/s, 
listed in Section 2(1) (see also section 2.1 of this report). 

Section 2a(2) of the Anti-discrimination Act defines direct discrimination as ‘any action or 
omission where one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would 
be treated in a comparable situation.’ 

b) 

Justification of direct discrimination 

The  Anti-discrimination  Act  does  not  permit  any  general  justification  of  direct 
discrimination.  

There  are  a  number  of  specific  exceptions,  called  ‘permissible  differential  treatment’,195 
which will be dealt with in sections 4 and 5 of this report.  

2.2.1  Situation testing 

a) 

Legal framework 

In Slovakia situation testing is permitted in national law. It is, however, not permitted on 
an explicit basis (and the term ‘situation testing’ is not used in legislation). The possible 
use  of  situation  testing  follows  the  general  admissibility  conditions  for  evidence  in  civil 
courts.  

The Civil Procedure Act, which applied to judicial proceedings in cases of breaches of the 
Anti-discrimination Act until 30 June 2016, provided that all means by which it is possible 
to discover the facts relevant to the case may serve as evidence, including examination of 
witnesses, expert opinion, reports and statements from bodies, natural persons and legal 
entities, documents, inspections and examination of the parties. It follows from the above 
that the Code of Civil Procedure did not exclude any kind of potential evidence.  

The Civil Dispute Act came into effect on 1 July 2016 and replaced the Civil Procedure Act. 
The Civil Dispute Act stipulates that the only admissible evidence is evidence that has been 
obtained legally.196 However, the act provides an exception to this rule, in particular in a 
situation where the  ‘justifiability of taking such evidence acquired  contrary to the law is 
provided for by applying Article 3(1) [of the basic principles of the act]’.197 Article 3(1) of 
the basic principles stipulates that each provision of the act requires interpretation that is 
in accordance with the Constitution, with public order, with the principles on which the act 

194  Court of Justice of the EU, C-303/06 S. Coleman v Attridge Law and Steve Law, 17 July 2008. 
195  See Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Sections 8 and 8a.  
196  Slovakia, Civil Dispute Act, 160/2015, Section 187 and basic principles of the act, Article 16(2). Available at 
https://www.slov-lex.sk/static/pdf/2015/160/ZZ_2015_160_20160701.pdf (accessed 10 March 2017). 

197  Slovakia, Civil Dispute Act, Article 16(2) of the basic principles of the act.  

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
is based, with international obligations of the Slovak Republic that take precedence over 
laws, with case law of ECtHR and CJEU, and with permanent regard to the values that are 
protected by these sources. The explanatory report that was submitted by the Government 
when it proposed the act makes it clear that proceedings concerning discrimination should 
be an example of cases when the exception will be applied.198  

Thus,  although  situation  testing  is  not  specified  in  domestic  legislation,  the  general 
definition of ‘evidence’ makes situation testing possible in principle and the courts basically 
accept it.  

However, in connection with situation testing, a more problematic issue is the use of audio 
recording. There are legal provisions, in particular on protection of ‘personhood’ (Sections 
11  and  12  of  the  Civil  Code)  and  on  the  crime  of  ‘breaching  the  confidentiality  of  oral 
expression  and  of  other  expression  of  a  personal  nature’  (Section  377  of  the  Criminal 
Code),  which  hinder  potential  testers  and/or  persons  affected  by  discrimination  from 
recording discriminatory actions.  

According to Sections 11 and 12 of the Civil Code, natural persons have the right to the 
‘protection of personhood’, which includes the protection of privacy and of ‘manifestations 
of  a  personal  nature’  (e.g.  pictures,  drawings,  literary  outputs),  and  ‘pictures  and  video 
and audio recordings related to a natural person or manifestation of their individual nature 
can be made  or used  only with the consent  of the individual’. Under  Section 377  of the 
Criminal  Code,  anyone  who  breaches  the  confidentiality  of  privately  presented  words  or 
other expressions of a personal nature by means of illegitimate recording and provides this 
recording to another person or uses it in another way, thereby causing serious detriment 
to the rights of an individual, will be punished by imprisonment of up to two years. Although 
these provisions do not make situational testing illegal and courts generally accept it, the 
lack of explicit legal permission for the use of this legal concept is certainly discouraging, 
as is the threat of potential criminal proceedings. It also encourages defendants to contest 
the evidence of claimants who allege that they have been discriminated against and who 
rely on evidence gained through sound recording. 

b) 

Practice 

In Slovakia situation testing is used in practice. However, the use of situation testing is not 
widespread and is mainly carried out by NGOs.  

The courts usually do not have a problem with accepting evidence gained as a result of 
testing (witness testimonies, audio recordings). However, the fact of evidence being gained 
through testing seems to have an impact on the amount of non-pecuniary compensation 
awarded to claimants relying on testing: if situation testing has been used as evidence, 
the courts usually do not award non-pecuniary compensation or only award it on a symbolic 
level.  

The NGO Centre for Civil and Human Rights (Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva), based 
in Košice, has already successfully litigated a few discrimination cases using this method 
(mainly  cases  of  racial  discrimination  in  access  to  goods  and  services  and  access  to 
employment). The testing involves creating comparable situations on the spot and securing 
the evidence (testimonies, audio recordings and transcripts of the audio recordings). 

The  first  important  case  where  evidence  was  gathered  through  testing  concerned  racial 
discrimination in access to services. The  case concerned three Roma activists who  were 
refused  access  to  a  bar  for  the  reason  that  they  did  not  own  a  ‘club  card,  which  is  a 

198  Explanatory Report to the Governmental Proposal of the Civil Dispute Act - Special Part (Dôvodová správa k 

vládnemu návrhu Civilného sporového poriadku - osobitná časť), p 4. available at 
http://www.nrsr.sk/web/Default.aspx?sid=zakony/cpt&ZakZborID=13&CisObdobia=6&ID=1333 (accessed 
10 March 2017). 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
condition for entering the bar. They made a sound recording of their encounter with the 
bar personnel, as well as a sound recording of non-Roma activists from the Centre for Civil 
and Human Rights who followed them a few minutes later  and had no problem entering 
without any ‘club card’. Although the courts accepted the sound recording and ordered the 
owner to issue a written apology, they did not grant the financial compensation requested. 
The courts reasoned, inter alia, that the effect on the claimants’ personal dignity was not 
serious enough to order financial compensation, as the claimants must have expected the 
discrimination, given that the whole action was planned.199  

The  claimants  submitted  the  case  to  the  Constitutional  Court,  which  rejected  their 
complaint as ill-founded.200 On 15 August 2014, the case was decided by the Committee 
on  the  Elimination  of  Racial  Discrimination,201  which  did  not  find  a  violation  of  the 
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).202  

Another  case  where  situation  testing  has  been  used  in  order  to  gather  evidence  in 
cooperation  with  the  Centre  for  Civil  and  Human  Rights,  was  a  case  of  Roma  man  who 
sued a mobile operator. He claimed he was discriminated against in access to services on 
the ground of his Roma ethnic origin. When trying to buy a phone service for fixed tariff 
from a mobile operator he was requested to provide confirmation that he was employed 
while non-Roma customers in a comparable situation were not requested to do so. Within 
the  court  proceedings  the  court  heard  the  audio  recording  and  also  heard  non–Roma 
customers from the NGO. The court held that given the fact that the recording was made 
in the publicly accessible premises of the defendants and did not affect the privacy of any 
of the persons present, the use of the recording as a form of evidence was not conditional 
on the defendant’s consent.203 The court also rejected the suggestion that the fact that the 
claimant  prepared  his  evidence  in  order  to  prove  discriminatory  treatment  renders  this 
type  of  evidence  inadmissible.  The  appeal  court  also  held  that  if  a  claimant  submits  a 
transcription of a sound recording, the court should compare it with the recording itself so 
that its credibility can be verified. With regard to testing, the court said explicitly that  

‘for the purpose of acquiring comparative information, testing by means of which a 
comparator organises a comparable situation to that of the claimant is admissible as 
evidence’.  

The court specified that,  

‘the  situations  of  the  claimant  and  the  comparator  do  not  have  to  be  absolutely 
identical, i.e. they do not have to ask absolutely the same questions but the questions 
(possibly formulated differently) must be directed at obtaining information about the 
same thing (…). The testing does not have to be performed in relation to the same 

199   Decision of the Regional Court in Košice, No. 2 Co 115/2008 of 15 July 2010. The decision is available in 
Slovak at https://obcan.justice.sk/infosud/-/infosud/i-detail/rozhodnutie/af5f583a-1ef6-41b2-8b12-
727c43d1cc83%3Ad481702b-2bfd-4c49-a9dd-01f23ceb9aa4 (accessed 10 March 2017). 

200   Decision of the Slovak Constitutional Court, No. I.ÚS 43/2011 of 3 February 2011. The decision is available 

at http://merit.slv.cz/I.US43/2011 (accessed 10 March 2017). 

201  The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is the body of independent experts that monitors 

implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination by its State 
parties. As part of its tasks, the committee examines individual complaints against States (after exhaustion 
of national remedies). 

202  CERD, L.A et al v. Slovak Republic, CERD/C/85/D/49/2011, Communication No 49/2011, (officially available 

at CERD/C/85/D/49/2011, para 7.2).  

203  Decision of the Regional Court in Košice, No. 1Co/334/2008-238, 18 March 2010. The case has been 

decided on merits again by the first instance court (decision of the District Court Spišská Nová Ves, No. 5 C 
266/2005 – 544 confirming racial discrimination). This decision was overturned by the Regional Court in 
Košice’s decision, No. 5 Co 197/2012 of 18 September 2013, which rejected the claim, stating that the 
defendants were not responsible for discriminatory treatment. The Supreme Court in its decision No. 3 
Cdo405/2015 and 3 Cdo 406/2015 of 8 December 2016 rejected the claimant´s extraordinary appeal 
concluding that it agreed with the appeal court’s reasoning on the lack of responsibility of the defendants. 
The case is now pending before the Constitutional Court. The decision of the Supreme Court in available at: 
http://www.supcourt.gov.sk/data/att/59378_subor.pdf (accessed 10 March 2017).  

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
employee  of the  entity involved [the defendant in this case], because  it is not the 
conduct of a particular employee which is at stake but that of the entity in the name 
of which the employee communicates with the person interested in the services of 
this entity’. See also section 12.2 of this report. 

The  Regional  Court  in  Banská  Bystrica  was  deciding,  in  the  second  instance,  on  the 
admissibility of audio recordings in connection to potential or on-going judicial proceedings 
for a crime of ‘breaching the confidentiality of oral expression and of other expression of a 
personal nature’ (Section 377 of the Criminal Code, described in section 2.2.1(a) of this 
report).  The  case  concerned  a  female  claimant  (alleging  gender-based  discrimination  in 
the field of employment) who, during first instance court proceedings, submitted evidence 
in the form of an audio recording from a meeting with her employer during which she was 
given  notice.  Following  the  submission  of  this  evidence,  the  defendant  initiated  criminal 
proceedings against the claimant, alleging that she had committed a crime under Section 
377 of the Criminal Code, and asked that the court of first instance suspend the pending 
anti-discrimination proceedings until a decision on the criminal proceedings had been made 
(one  of  the  defendant’s  main  arguments  was  that  evidence  obtained  illegally  cannot  be 
used in civil proceedings and hence the proceedings should be suspended). The court of 
first instance decided not to suspend the proceedings, and the Regional Court in Banská 
Bystrica upheld the decision, arguing, inter alia, that  

‘if  a  claimant  submitted  a  sound  recording  as  evidence  in  [civil]  proceedings,  with 
which she is proving a breach of the principle of equal treatment in an employment 
relationship,  the  district  court  [i.e.  the  court  of  first  instance]  must  evaluate  this 
evidence with regard to the subject matter of the given proceeding. … In addition, 
with regard to other evidence submitted, the district court will therefore evaluate and 
judge whether it will use this evidence further in the proceeding. Not even a regional 
court can intervene in the evaluation by the court of first instance at this stage of the 
proceedings.’204  

2.3  Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of indirect discrimination 

In Slovakia, indirect discrimination is prohibited in national law. It is defined.  

According to Section 2a(3) of the Anti-discrimination Act, indirect discrimination means  

‘an apparently neutral regulation, decision, instruction or practice that puts or could 
put  a  person  at  a  disadvantage  as  compared  with  another  person,  unless  such 
regulation, decision, instruction or practices  are  objectively justified by following a 
legitimate aim and are appropriate and necessary to achieving that aim’.  

There are three differences between the definitions of indirect discrimination contained in 
the directives and the definition contained in the Anti-discrimination Act, all of which seem 
to go beyond the scope of the directives. 

The first difference is that, whereas the definition contained in the directives requires that 
the provision, criterion or practice in question ‘would put’ persons with a particular feature 
at a disadvantage, the definition in the Slovak Anti-discrimination Act is more concrete and 
admits  both  actual  disadvantage  (‘puts  at  a  disadvantage’)  as  well  as  the  possibility  of 
disadvantage (‘could put at a disadvantage’).  

The second difference is that, whereas the directives require a ‘particular disadvantage’ to 
take place in order to qualify certain treatment as indirectly discriminatory, the definition 

204  Decision of the Regional Court in Banská Bystrica, No 14Co/82/2011-371; 6710201619, 28 April 2011. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
of  indirect  discrimination  contained in the  Slovak  Anti-discrimination  Act  only  requires  a 
‘disadvantage’. It can thus be argued that, with regard to the concept of disadvantage, the 
Slovak  definition  may  be  even  more  favourable  than  the  concept  of  ‘particular 
disadvantage’ as interpreted by CJEU in CHEZ.205 However, judicial interpretation of the 
concept of ‘disadvantage’ in cases of indirect discrimination is still lacking in Slovakia.  

The third difference is that the definition contained in the Anti-discrimination Act does not 
apply the ‘collective approach’ (‘persons’) but goes for an individual approach (‘person’). 
This  may  lead  to  more  favourable  conditions  for  proving  indirect  discrimination  (there 
might be no need to provide very precise and significant statistical evidence), although it 
is unclear yet how the individualised concept of indirect discrimination will be applied. 

b) 

Justification test for indirect discrimination 

Indirect  discrimination  can  be  objectively  justified  by  a  legitimate  aim  if  the  regulation, 
decision, instruction or practice in question is appropriate and necessary to achieve that 
aim.  

The  domestic  courts  dealt  with  indirect  discrimination  and  its  justification  in  a  case  on 
discriminatory provisions in the Act on Childbirth Allowance initiated by the Centre for Civil 
and  Human  Rights  as  an  actio  popularis  claim (described  above  in  chapter  2.1.2  of  this 
report). The NGO as claimant argued that such a provision is discriminatory and as such 
constitutes indirect discrimination  against Roma women based  on sex and ethnic origin. 
The alleged provision conditions the provision of the subsidy on the woman not leaving the 
healthcare facility (in practice, a maternity hospital) upon giving birth without the consent 
of the healthcare facility. In its decision no. 12 C 231/2010 of 16 May 2014, the district 
court Bratislava I dismissed the case concluding there is no indirect discrimination as the 
provision is objectively justified as it pursues the legitimate aim of protecting the child’s 
and  mother’s  health.  The  court  also  reasoned  that  the  provision  is  universal,  putting 
nobody  in  a  favourable  nor  in  a  disadvantaged  position.  The  court  did  not  provide  any 
justification as to whether the measures to achieve that aim are appropriate and necessary. 
The decision is lacking any justification test for indirect discrimination.206 The decision is 
not yet final and is still pending before the appeal court.  

c) 

Comparison in relation to age discrimination 

The existing law does not specify any rule on how to compare different situations relating 
to  age  discrimination.  It  seems  that  the  role  of  a  comparator  is  simply  to  demonstrate 
causation, i.e. that the reason for the detrimental treatment was age. Making a comparison 
and the interpretation of the age discrimination provision will be up to the courts and the 
jurisprudence. 

2.3.1  Statistical evidence 

a) 

Legal framework 

In  Slovakia  there  are  national  rules  permitting  data  collection  –  in  particular  the  Act  on 
Protection of Personal Data207 and Section 2(3) of the Anti-discrimination Act. These rules 
do not directly and explicitly permit (or require) data collection.  

205  CJEU, Case C-83/14 CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, judgment of 

16 July 2015, para 109.  

206   Decision of the District Court Bratislava I, No. 12 C 231/2010 of 16 May 2014.  
207  Slovakia, Act No 122/2013 on Protection of Personal Data and on changing and supplementing other laws, 

as amended (zákon č. 122/2013 Z. z. o ochrane osobných údajov a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov 
v znení neskoších predpisov).  

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
It  could  be  argued  that  a  duty  to  collect  data  is  implicitly  contained  in  the  preventive 
component of the principle of equal treatment (the duty to adopt measures that prevent 
discrimination  enshrined  in  Section  2(3)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act),  as  it  is  hard  to 
imagine effective prevention of discrimination without the collection of relevant data. This 
duty,  as  generally  framed  in  the  preventive  component  of  the  duty  to  adopt  measures 
against  discrimination,  would  apply  equally  to  all  prohibited  grounds  of  discrimination 
contained in the Anti-discrimination Act and hence also in the directives.  

It  should  also  be  noted  that  Slovakia  is  a  party  to  all  the  principal  UN  human  rights 
conventions  (such  as  the  CERD,  CESCR,  CEDAW,  CRPD  etc.),  the  committees  of  which 
require data collection and which, in accordance with the Slovak Constitution, form part of 
Slovak  law  and  even  take  precedence  over  national  laws  (see  also  section  0.1  of  this 
report). 

However, it is well known and has also been confirmed by two surveys conducted in 2009208 
and 2015,209 by a civil society organisation, Citizen, Democracy and Accountability, that 
public  institutions  do  not  collect  data  relating  to  prohibited  grounds  of  discrimination  in 
general  (including  the  grounds  covered  by  the  directives)—  although  some  minor 
exceptions exist.210 The 2009 survey found that the institutions concerned did not collect 
data as they wrongfully deemed it illegal in the context of the Act on Protection of Personal 
Data.211 In 2015 the institutions concerned no longer excused the failure to collect data by 
the argument of illegality. Instead, most of the institutions stated that they do not collect 
equality data without further reasoning, or by giving other reasons.212 

According to Section 13(1) of the Act on Protection of  Personal Data,  the ‘processing of 
personal  data  which  reveal  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  political  opinion,  religion  or  belief, 
membership of political parties or political movements, membership of trade unions and 
data related to health and sexual life is prohibited’. It is, however, important to note that 
Section 3(1) of the Act on Protection of Personal Data defines personal data as  

‘data concerning a specific or identifiable natural person (…) who may be identified 
either directly or indirectly, mainly on the basis of a generally usable identifier213 or 
on the basis of  one  or  more features  or  characteristics that compose  her physical, 
physiological, psychological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity’.  

208  See Hodoňová, S. (2010), Analýza stavu najčastejších problémov v oblasti zberu dát týkajúcich sa 

zakázaných dôvodov diskriminácie (Analysis of the State of the Most Frequent Problems in the Field of 
Collection of Data Relating to Prohibited Grounds of Discrimination), Bratislava, Občan, demokracia 
a zodpovednosť, available at www.oad.sk/sites/default/files/downloads/Akcny_plan_Zber_dat_analyza.doc 
(accessed 10 March 2017).  

209  Representatives of Citizen, Democracy and Accountability searched websites of relevant public institutions. 

Public institutions were also directly addressed with requests for information, pursuant to the Free Access to 
Information Act (Act No 2011/2000, as amended). These official requests were sent to 49 public 
administration bodies at all levels of governance (6 ministries, 17 various central public institutions, 4 
independent public institutions, all 8 self-government regions, and 14 local governments of selected towns 
and villages). Responses were obtained from all 49 public administration bodies. The overwhelming majority 
of those institutions explicitly said that they do not collect equality data, or have information available on 
the existence of such a need or practice. The outcomes of the 2015 survey have not been published. 

210  Mainly with regard to ethnicity.  
211  See Hodoňová, S. (2010), Analýza stavu najčastejších problémov v oblasti zberu dát týkajúcich sa 

zakázaných dôvodov diskriminácie (Analysis of the State of the Most Frequent Problems in the Field of 
Collection of Data Relating to Prohibited Grounds of Discrimination), Bratislava, Občan, demokracia 
a zodpovednosť, available at www.oad.sk/sites/default/files/downloads/Akcny_plan_Zber_dat_analyza.doc 
(accessed 10 March 2017).  

212  The authors of the survey presume that this could be a result of the introduction of information requests, in 
which the authors briefly stated the definition of equality data, made a case for their collection pursuant to 
the relevant legislation, and outlined conditions under which their collection is not prohibited. The 
abandonment of the illegality argument could also be due to more advanced awareness of the need to 
collect equality data as a consequence of newly passed Government strategies and action plans. 

213  A so-called birth number (a unique number assigned to each person at birth and used throughout their 

whole life for various official purposes).  

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Thus, it follows that if data are collected on an anonymous basis and using methodology 
that would prevent direct or indirect identification of the person(s) concerned, the Act on 
Protection of Personal Data is not breached (as the data thus collected do not represent 
‘personal data’ as defined by this act). In practice, this type of data collection would have 
to be on a voluntary basis and so implicitly presumes the consent of the persons concerned.  

In  addition,  in  the  National  Strategy  for  Human  Rights  Protection  and  Promotion  in 
Slovakia214  (‘the  Human  Rights  Strategy’)  one  of  the  tasks  is  to  draft  a  ‘comprehensive 
analysis  of  how  human  rights  are  observed  and  protected  in  Slovakia’,  as  well  as  an 
‘analysis of institutional mechanisms’. One of the framework measures to fulfil this task is:  

‘[c]omprehensive  research  will  assess  the  compatibility  of  national  human  rights 
policies with the policies of the UN, the CoE, the EU, the OSCE and other international 
organisations. It will also define a methodology basis for a continuous monitoring and 
data collection in respect of human rights in Slovakia.’  

So  far,  no  measures  have  been  taken  that  would  start  the  intended  data  collection  and 
analytical work on a systemic level.  

The  Slovak  National  Centre  for  Human  Rights  (the  national  equality  body)  collects 
information on positive  action measures  carried out by public administration bodies and 
other  legal  entities  in  accordance  with  Article  8a  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act.215  One 
conclusion that can be drawn from the collected information (as well as from the generally 
known facts about the way in which public bodies and their policies operate) is that the 
adopted  measures  do  not  stem  from  data-based  analyses,  but  rather  from  general 
knowledge/perceptions about existing problems and/or from wider policy documents.  

Nevertheless, there have been some minor improvements in the field of data collection in 
2012-2014, mainly with regard to ethnicity and age.216  

In Slovakia, statistical evidence is permitted by national law in order to establish indirect 
discrimination.  The  potential  to  use  statistical  evidence  follows  the  general  admissibility 
conditions of evidence in courts. As has already been stated in section 2.2.1 of this report, 
all  means  that  can  prove  the  fact(s)  stated  by  parties  to  the  proceeding  can  serve  as 
evidence before a court (Section 125 of the Civil Procedure Act).  

b) 

Practice 

In  Slovakia  statistical  evidence  in  order  to  establish  indirect  discrimination  is  used  in 
practice. 

However, the use of statistical evidence is very scarce, in fact, it has actually only been 
used by one NGO, the Centre for Civil and Human Rights. One reason for this may be the 
non-existence  of  sufficient  volumes  of  relevant  data  collected  by  the  state,  as  per  its 
international and national human rights obligations (the fact that there is no data means 
that such data cannot be used in court). Equally, the Slovak National Centre for Human 
Rights (the national equality body), which is obliged, inter alia, to monitor the situation in 
the  field  of  equality  and  (non)discrimination,  is  not  fulfilling  its  duty  in  a  satisfactory 

214  Celoštátna stratégia ochrany a podpory ľudských práv v Slovenskej republike, adopted by the Slovak 

Government on 18 February 2015 by resolution No 71/2015. For English version, see Council of Europe, 
National Strategy for Human Rights Protection and Promotion in Slovakia, available at: 
http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/source/NAP/Slovakia-National-Action-Plan-on-Human-Rights.pdf 
(accessed 10 March 2017). 

215  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 8a(4).  
216  For example, in 2013, the Regional Centre of United Nations Development Programme in Bratislava, 
together with the Association of Towns and Municipalities in Slovakia, University in Prešov and the 
Government Plenipotentiary for Roma Communities, published the Atlas of Roma Communities 2013 (Atlas 
rómskych komunít 2013 available at http://www.minv.sk/?atlas_2013, accessed 10 March 2017). 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
manner  (see  section  7  below  for  more  detail).  Furthermore,  in  general,  neither  public 
institutions nor employers collect statistics. Some statistics or other sets of data have been 
collected by NGOs and academics.  

When the concept of indirect discrimination does start to be invoked,217 the Slovak courts 
are  likely  to  look  to  other  countries  and/or  the  CJEU  and/or  the  ECtHR  for  inspiration. 
However,  since  the  concept  of  indirect  discrimination  is  individualised  under  Slovak 
legislation  (see  section  2.3.1(a)),  as  compared  to  the  group  approach  adopted  in  most 
jurisdictions, inspiration taken from European or foreign courts could in practice lead to an 
unjustifiably  and  illegitimately  restrictive  interpretation  of  the  Slovak  legislation  in  force 
(the courts may seek more ‘solid’ statistical evidence than might be required by the Slovak 
legislation,  which  relies  on  an  individualised  rather  than  a  group  approach  to  indirect 
discrimination). 

The relevant cases, with legal representation provided by the Centre for Civil and Human 
Rights, concerned discrimination claims connected to a refusal by an office of labour, social 
affairs and family to pay a childbirth allowance to Roma women, pursuant to a law that 
was, as the Centre for Civil and Human Rights argued, indirectly discriminatory (see section 
3.2.7 for more details). The Centre for Civil and Human Rights used its own statistical data, 
obtained  through  fact-finding  and  surveys  (e.g.  figures  on  ethnicity  of  patients  from 
hospitals in Eastern Slovakia, and numbers of refusals by offices of labour, social affairs 
and family in regions with a large Roma population). Although the courts ruled in favour 
of the Roma women and ordered the offices of labour, social affairs and family to pay the 
childbirth allowance and the Supreme Court upheld the decisions, none of the courts dealt 
with the alleged indirectly discriminatory nature of the claim or the statistics submitted, 
and the proposal to bring a preliminary question before  CJEU was also ignored. Thus, in 
2010,  the  Centre  for  Civil  and  Human  Rights  submitted  an  actio  popularis  on  the  same 
matter, using the same statistical data (the centre sued the Slovak Republic for adopting 
a provision that is discriminatory  –  see  section 2.1.2 and 2.3).  The case is still pending 
before the court of second instance after it was dismissed by the first instance court in May 
2014.218 

In  some  of  its  other  cases,  the  Centre  for  Civil  and  Human  Rights  also  relied  on  data 
collected by public institutions. From experience, the centre has found that many primary 
schools tend to collect their own unofficial data about the number of Roma pupils based on 
third-party  identification  made  by  school  personnel,  though  they  may  be  reluctant  to 
provide such data. The centre is currently litigating three actio popularis lawsuits before 
Slovak courts addressing the segregation of Roma children in education while relying on 
the ethnic data from Atlas of Roma Communities 2013 (a large sociographic mapping of 
Roma communities – see section 2.3.1a) and/or data obtained directly from the relevant 
schools  based  on  written  demand.  So  far,  the  relevance  of  this  data  has  never  been 
questioned  in  the  court  proceedings.219  However,  the  centre  did  not  claim  indirect 

217  So far, there have only been a very few instances when claimants have claimed indirect discrimination – and 
in these few cases the courts held correctly that indirect discrimination had not taken place; on the other 
hand, there have been a few cases where indirect discrimination, although not claimed by claimants, was 
identified by courts, but in only one of the cases was the identification correct (for more information, see 
Durbáková, V., Holubová, B., Ivanco, Š., Liptáková, S. (2012), Hľadanie bariér v prístupe k účinnej právnej 
ochrane pred diskrimináciou, Košice: Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva, pp. 78-79. The publication is 
also available at https://www.poradna-prava.sk/sk/dokumenty/diskriminacia-na-slovensku-hladanie-barier-
v-pristupe-k-ucinnej-pravnej-ochrane-pred-diskriminaciou/ (accessed 10 March 2017).  

218  Decision of the District Court Bratislava I, No. 12C 231/201016, May 2014.  
219  For example, in an actio popularis submitted to the District Court Bratislava III, No 11 C 351/2015, 29 April 
2015, the Centre for Civil and Human Rights claims segregation of Roma children in education that is taking 
place through educating these children in an ethnically homogeneous school and through financing and 
constructing a so-called ‘container school’ (‘container schools´ have a strong element of racial segregation – 
see section 3.2.8 for more details). On 6 October 2016 the district court dismissed the lawsuit, but data 
about ethnic composition on the given school has not been questioned. The case is currently pending before 
the regional court in Bratislava.  

52 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
discrimination in these cases and addresses racial segregation of Roma children as a form 
of direct discrimination. 

Ethnic  data  about  the  Roma  population  in  Slovakia  available  in  the  Atlas  of  Roma 
Communities 2013 was collected on the  basis of information provided to researchers by 
selected  informants  -  representatives  of  the  municipalities  with  a  good  overview  about 
living  condition  in  the  local  villages/towns.  This  information  was  further  verified  in 
communication with Roma NGOs or activists and public sources.220 As the authors of the 
Atlas emphasised, their research particularly aimed to collect data about the infrastructure 
of villages and Roma settlements, availability of social and health services, political and 
civic  participation  of  the  Roma,  economic  and  social  activities  and  school  infrastructure. 
Subsequently,  in  relation  to  those  characteristics,  data  about  the  numbers  of  the  Roma 
population were also specified. All data about the number of the Roma population resulted 
from  estimates  based  on  third-party  mass  identification  by  the  local  informants  (not  by 
individually declared ethnicity).221 

The State  school inspectorate as the administrative body responsible for  overseeing  the 
quality  of  education  in  schools  intensified  its  efforts  to  uncover  the  practices  of 
discrimination against Roma children in education. In this regard they also dealt with the 
issue  of  collecting  ethnic  data  about  children  that  would  enable  them  to  identify  racial 
segregation  of  Roma  children  during  the inspection  controls.  However,  The  inspectorate 
does not have a comprehensible methodology  for collecting ethnic data.  In general, the 
inspectorate  takes  into  account  data  about  Roma  children  provided  by  the  schools 
themselves and data collected by inspectors based on their subjective individual perception 
and identification of Roma children during the controls in schools. It obviously lacks a more 
comprehensible methodology of collecting and assesing the ethnic data based on objective 
criteria.  

2.4  Harassment (Article 2(3)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of harassment 

In Slovakia, harassment is prohibited in national law. It is defined.  

Section 2a(4) of the Anti-discrimination Act defines harassment as  

‘such  conduct  which  results  or  can  result  in  an  intimidating,  unfriendly,  shameful, 
humiliating, insulting, degrading or offensive environment and the purpose or effect 
of which is or can be violation of freedom or human dignity’. 

It should be noted that the definition of harassment does not explicitly stipulate that the 
conduct  must  be  unwanted.  This  may  lead  to  interpretations  under  which  courts  or 
defendants would require the application of ‘objectivity tests’ with regard to the capacity 
of  the  environment  in  question  to  meet  the  required  statutory  characteristics.  The  full 
material scope of protection against harassment of both directives is covered by domestic 
anti-discrimination legislation. 

It is also  worth noting that the general provision on prohibition of discrimination on the 
grounds contained in Section 2(1) of the Anti-discrimination Act (‘observing the principle 
of equal treatment shall lie in prohibition of discrimination on the ground of sex, religion 
or belief, race…’) provides the basic framework for applying the provisions on particular 
forms  of  discrimination  in  relation  to  the  prohibited  grounds  (the  definitions  of  the 
particular forms of discrimination do not reiterate that discrimination must take place on 

220  The Atlas of Roma Communities does not provide more specific information about the selection process of 

local informants, their ethnicity or professional and social background in the village/town.  

221   For detailed information see Atlas Rómskych komunít na Slovensku 2013 (Atlas of Roma Communities in 

Slovakia 2013), introduction and methodology, pp. 6-7.  

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the  prohibited  grounds  but  rather  implicitly  include  the  general  definition  contained  in 
Section 2(1), which states that discrimination must take place on the prohibited grounds). 
Therefore  it  can  be  argued  that  the  definition  of  harassment  contained  in  the  Anti-
discrimination Act is narrower than that contained in the directives, as it must take place 
‘on [the prohibited] grounds’, as compared to the directives where it is sufficient for it to 
be ‘related to’ any of the grounds.  

In Slovakia harassment does explicitly constitute a form of discrimination. Section 2a(1) 
of the Anti-discrimination Act explicitly mentions harassment as a form of discrimination.  

b) 

Scope of liability for harassment 

Where harassment is perpetrated by an employee, in Slovakia the employer is liable and 
probably the employee would also be liable (although judicial interpretation is required on 
the responsibility of the latter). 

The Anti-discrimination Act does not provide a direct answer as to who is to be held liable 
for unlawful actions breaching the principle of equal treatment; it only uses the term ‘the 
person violating the principle of equal treatment’.222 Section 11(1) of the act further states 
that ‘the claimant is obliged to identify the person who has allegedly violated the principle 
of equal treatment’. 

The  liability  rules  (although  not  explicit)  are  universal  with  regard  to  all  forms  of 
discrimination  contained  in  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  and  to  the  duty  to  carry  out 
measures to prevent discrimination (Section 2(3) of the Anti-discrimination Act). The basic 
interpretative  frameworks  to  answer  the  above  question  are  provided  by  two  specific 
provisions of the Anti-discrimination Act.  

First, according to Section 3(1) of the act, the duty to comply with the principle of equal 
treatment in all the areas covered by the act lies with ‘everyone’. Given the fact that the 
provision uses the term ‘everyone’ and does not mention that a particular breach of the 
principle of equal treatment can only lead to the liability of one person, it is arguable that 
liability for breaches of the principle of equal treatment is not vested in sole and mutually 
exclusive liability holders but can lie in parallel with individuals who breach the principle of 
equal treatment with their direct personal actions/omissions (such as (co-)employees) and 
at the same time with persons with overall responsibility (such as employers). However, 
what  is  problematic  in  the  context  of  this  interpretation  is  the  fact  that  the  principle  of 
equal treatment only applies in connection with rights of persons as stipulated by special 
laws (Section 3(2) of the Anti-discrimination Act) and it is therefore hard to establish the 
rights to which, for example, an employee of a service provider is entitled as opposed to a 
customer of the service provider, or as opposed to a co-employee.  

Secondly, the concept of the principle of equal treatment encompassing the duty to adopt 
measures to prevent discrimination (Section 2(3) of the Anti-discrimination Act) also has 
interpretative  significance  in  terms  of  liability.  Provided  some  kind  of  causation  is 
established between the actions/omissions of individuals in certain environments relevant 
from the point of view of the Anti-discrimination Act (such as workplaces), and negligence 
on  the  part  of  persons  with  decision-making/statutory  powers  in  these  environments  is 
identified, the liability should also lie with these entities (e.g. employers).  

Also relevant is the content of Section 5(2) of the Anti-discrimination Act, which stipulates 
that the principle of equal treatment must be applied in the fields of ‘access and provision 
of’ social security, healthcare, education and goods and services including housing. Thus, 
it follows from the quoted provision that both persons who access as well as persons who 
provide the specified items are entitled to protection against violations of the principle of 

222  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 9(2). 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
equal treatment, and those who interact with them in these environments should be held 
liable  for  the  breaches  (as  ‘everyone’  is  obliged  to  observe  the  principle  of  equal 
treatment).  However,  the  wording  of  Section  6(1)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act,  which 
states  that  discrimination  shall  be  prohibited  in  ‘employment  relationships,  similar  legal 
relationships,  and  in  related  legal  relationships’  is  confusing  in  the  framework  of  that 
interpretation.  As  labour  legislation  does  not  define  any  of  the  terms  ‘employment 
relationship,  similar  legal  relationship,  and  related  legal  relationships’  and  legal  theory 
defines legal relationships basically as relationships between employers and employees,223 
it  is  hard  to  state  unambiguously  whether  there  is  individual  liability  for  discrimination 
between co-workers – especially given that the Labour Code does not specify the duty to 
observe the principle of equal treatment/prohibition of discrimination among the explicit 
responsibilities  of  the  employee.224  The  situation  in  respect  of  executive  employees  is 
different because it is easier to argue that they are also personally liable for discrimination 
(in any form). Although the duty to act in accordance with the principle of equal treatment 
is not made explicit by legislation in  the case of executive employees either, the Labour 
Code  contains  various  specific  duties  of  executive  employees  from  which  the  duty  to 
observe  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  can  be  undoubtedly  inferred  (at  least  to  some 
extent).225 

There  are  also  some  additional  statutory  provisions  that  apply  to  liability  for 
discrimination/other breaches of the principle of equal treatment. According to the general 
provisions of the Civil Code regarding liability for damages,226 the damage is caused by a 
legal  entity  or  a  natural  person  provided  it  was  caused  during  the  performance  of  their 
business  and  by  the  people  engaged  to  perform  the  business.  It  is  of  no  importance 
whether  the  person  engaged  performs  an  activity  in  the  context  of  an  employment 
relationship,  self-employment  or  on  the  basis  of  another  type  of  legal  relationship. 
According to the Civil Code, individuals acting on behalf of a legal entity or a natural person 
are not liable for damages without prejudice to their liability for damage as stipulated by 
labour  regulations.  Moreover,  Section  192  of  the  Labour  Code  makes  the  employer 
responsible  in  relation  to  the  employee  for  damage  occurring  to  the  employee  due  to  a 
breach of legal regulations or due to intentional behaviour in breach of good morals during 
the performance of work or in direct connection with such behaviour. The employer is liable 
to  the  employee  for  damages  occurring  due  to  a  breach  of  legal  obligations  by  the 
personnel performing the tasks of the employer on behalf of the employer. 

A harassment case has recently been decided by domestic courts. The case concerned a 
Roma woman who claimed to be discriminated against in her workplace on the ground of 
her Roma ethnic origin in March 2009 when - unlike non-Roma employees in comparable 
working  positions  -  she  was  transferred  to  an  inconvenient  office  room  placed  in  the 
basement, which caused her health problems. Later in 2010, her workplace was transferred 
to the segregated Roma ghetto where she was again placed in an inconvenient office room 
negatively impacting her health. She also claimed that the employer did not give her any 
bonus to her salary and was harassing her, and she pointed out that direct discrimination 

223  See for example Barancová, H., Schronk, R. (2007), Pracovné právo (Labour Law), Bratislava, Sprint, pp. 

197-208.  

224  See Slovakia, Labour Code, 311/2001, Sections 81 and 82 respectively.  
225  See Slovakia, Labour Code, 311/2001, Section 82, which lists the fundamental obligations of executive 

employees and reads as follows: ‘An executive employee, apart from the obligations stipulated in Section 81 
[general obligations of an employee], shall also be obliged in particular: 

a)  to manage and check the work of employees; 
b)  to create favourable working conditions and ensure safety and health protection at work; 
c)  to secure remuneration of employees in accordance with generally binding legal regulations, collective 

agreements and employment contracts, and to comply with the principle of equal pay for equal work or 
work of equal value (...); 

d)  to create favourable conditions for improving the professional standard of employees and for satisfying their 

social needs;  

e)  to ensure that breaches of labour discipline shall not transpire;  
f)  to ensure the adoption of timely and effective measures for protection of the employers´ property.’ 
226  Slovakia, Civil Code (as amended), 40/1964, Section 420(2). 

55 

 
 
 
                                                 
and  harassment  against  her  also  resulted  from  victimisation  after  she  repeatedly 
complained  to  the  employer  about  how  she  was  treated.  The  District  Court  Košice  II 
dismissed  the  lawsuit  by  its  judgement  n.  20C68/2012-350  of  8  September  2015, 
reasoning  that  no  discrimination  occurred.  As  for  harassment,  the  first  instance  court 
concluded  that  the  conduct  of  the  employer  did  not  result  or  could  not  result  in  an 
intimidating,  unfriendly,  shameful,  humiliating, 
insulting,  degrading  or  offensive 
environment, the purpose or effect of which is or can be violation of freedom or human 
dignity of the claimant. According to the court, under the definition of the harassment there 
is a need to identify a person in a comparable situation to the claimant (a comparator), as 
the subjective perception of a specific person is not sufficient to assess harassment. The 
claimant in her appeal asked the appeal court to refer the case to the CJEU for a preliminary 
ruling. The claimant found the identification of a comparator when assessing discrimination 
in the form of harassment clearly impossible and legally groundless. The regional court in 
Košice, sitting as the appeal court, by its decision, no 2Co/657/2015 - 379 of 13 December 
2016 rejected the request for a referral to the CJEU reasoning that it is not necessary to 
resolve the issue of the requirement to identify a comparator when assessing harassment, 
because  the  evidence  provided  in  this  case  by  the  respondent  sufficiently  disproved  the 
alleged harassment and reaffirmed the first instance court decision.227 This judicial practice 
of  finding  a  need  to  identify  a  comparator  in  a  case  of  harassment  is  contrary  to  the 
directives. See also section 12.2 of this report. 

2.5  Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) 

a) 

Prohibition of instructions to discriminate 

In  Slovakia,  instructions  to  discriminate  are  prohibited  in  national  law.  Instructions  are 
defined.  A  definition  is  given  in  Section  2a(6)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  and  means 
conduct  consisting  of  abuse  of  the  subordinate  position  of  a  person  for  the  purpose  of 
discriminating against a third person.  

In Slovakia instructions do explicitly constitute a form of discrimination (Section 2a(1) of 
the Anti-discrimination Act).  

The  Anti-discrimination  Act  also  defines  incitement  to  discriminate  as  ‘persuading, 
affirming or inciting a person to discriminate against a third person’.228 Under Section 2a(1) 
of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act,  incitement  to  discriminate  is  considered  a  form  of 
discrimination. 

The  full  material  scope  of  both  directives  of  the  protection  against  instruction  to 
discriminate is covered by domestic anti-discrimination legislation. 

There is no case law dealing with instructions or incitement to discriminate.  

b) 

Scope of liability for instructions to discriminate 

In Slovakia the instructor and the discriminator are liable. 

Since instruction to discriminate is considered a form of discrimination, the general rules 
for  liability  for  discrimination  (see  section  3.1.2  of  this  report)  apply  also  to  liability  for 
discrimination  by  employers  or  service  providers  in  cases  of  instruction  to  discriminate 
given  by  their  employees.  The  general  liability  rules  described  in  detail  in  section  3.1.2 
below also apply to the individuals who give instructions to discriminate. 

227  Decision of the District Court Košice II, No 20C68/2012-350 of 8 September 2015 and decision of the 

Regional Court in Košice, No 2Co/657/2015 - 379 of 13 December 2016. 

228  See Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 2(7).  

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
With regard to the individual liability of those who discriminate because they have received 
such  an  instruction,  Section  81(a)  of  the  Labour  Code  stipulates  that  an  employee  is 
obliged,  inter  alia,  to  follow  the  instructions  of  their  superiors  that  have  been  given  in 
accordance  with  legal  regulations.  It  therefore  follows  that  following  instructions  of 
superiors is only legal when these instructions do not violate the law (which is not the case 
of  following  an  instruction  to  discriminate).  Hence  the  rules  of  individual  liability  for 
following  an  instruction  to  discriminate  are  the  same  as  the  general  rules  for  individual 
liability for any form of discrimination (see section 3.1.2 below).  

The Civil Service Act229 stipulates that a civil servant has the right to refuse to carry out a 
civil task (a task to be  carried out pursuant to this act)  that is in conflict with generally 
legally binding legal regulations230 (which also includes anti-discrimination legislation). A 
civil servant is also obliged to respect inter alia the Constitution and laws (which includes 
the duty to observe the principle of equal treatment) and apply them to the best of their 
knowledge and belief, and to respect and protect human dignity and human rights.231 Civil 
servants  are  also  obliged  to  follow  the  instructions  of  their  superiors  unless  these 
instructions  are  in  conflict  with  generally  binding  legal  regulations232  (which  includes  all 
anti-discrimination legislation). If a civil servant believes that an instruction given by their 
superior is in conflict with generally binding legal regulations, she or he is obliged to notify 
the superior in question of that fact before starting to follow the instruction. If the superior 
nevertheless insists on the civil servant following the instruction, she or he is obliged to 
notify them of that fact in writing.233 Thus it follows that a civil servant is basically liable 
for following an instruction to discriminate (in accordance with the general rules of liability 
described in  section 3.1.2), with the possible exception of a superior insisting in writing 
that the civil servant in question follow the instruction to discriminate (after being notified 
in  writing  by  the  civil  servant  in  question  of  the  illegality  of  the  instruction  given). 
Therefore, in practice, if a public employer gives an instruction to discriminate to a  civil 
servant and the civil servant follows the instruction (without informing their superior of its 
illegality and without subsequently being notified in writing by the superior that she or he 
insist on following the instruction), both parties could be liable. 

According  to  the  knowledge  of  the  author  of  this  report,  the  only  case  in  which  an 
instruction to discriminate was partially involved is that of a Roma man, I.H., who sued the 
mobile operator, and which was most recently decided by the Slovak Supreme Court on 8 
December 2016, no. 3 Cdo 405/2015 – 773 (the case is also described in sections 2.2.1 
and  12.2  of  this  report).  The  domestic  courts  dismissed  the  claim,  reasoning  that  the 
defendants are not responsible for discriminatory treatment. As for a possible instruction 
to discriminate on the basis of an agency contract (zmluva o obchodnom zastúpení) the 
Supreme Court concluded that a violation of the principle of equal treatment has a personal 
character and that the employee of the company which provides services under a contract 
with the mobile operator has an obligation to refuse to act in accordance with potentially 
discriminatory instructions given by the mobile operator, which is why the mobile operator 
cannot be found responsible for discrimination.234  

2.6  Reasonable  accommodation  duties  (Article  2(2)(b)(ii)  and  Article  5 

Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Implementation  of  the  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  for  people  with 
disabilities in the area of employment 

229  Slovakia, Act No 400/2009 on Civil Service and on Changing and Supplementing Some Other Laws, as 

amended (zákon č. 400/2009 Z. z. o štátnej službe a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení 
neskorších prepdisov).  

230  Slovakia, Civil Service Act, 400/2009, Section 59(1)(d).  
231  Slovakia, Civil Service Act, 400/2009, Section 60(1)(a). 
232  Slovakia, Civil Service Act, 400/2009, Section 60(1)(i). 
233  Slovakia, Civil Service Act, 400/2009, Section 60(3). 
234 Decision of the Slovak Supreme Court, No 3 Cdo 405/2015 – 773 of 8 December 2016.  

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  Slovakia  the  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  is  included  in  the  law.  It  is 
defined. 

Under Section 7 of the Anti-discrimination Act, an employer is obliged to take measures to 
enable  a  person  with  a  disability  to  have  access  to  employment,  to  exercise  certain 
activities at work, to promotion or other advancement in employment or to training. This 
does not apply if the adoption of such measures would impose a disproportionate burden 
on  the  employer.235  To  determine  whether  the  measures  give  rise  to  a  disproportionate 
burden, account must be taken of:  

- 

- 

- 

the  benefit  that  the  adoption  of  the  measure  would  mean  for  the  person  with  a 
disability; 
the financial resources of the employer, including the possibility of obtaining funding 
or any other assistance for the adoption of the measure; and  
the possibility of attaining the purpose of the measure referred to in paragraph 1 in 
a different, alternative manner.236  

The  measure  shall  not  be  considered  as  giving  rise  to  a  disproportionate  burden  if  its 
adoption by the employer is mandatory under separate provisions.237 

Employers’ duties in this regard are also prescribed by the Labour Code: Sections 158-159 
of the Labour Code state that  

‘Employers shall be obliged to employ persons with disabilities in suitable positions, 
to  enable  them  to  receive  training  or  to  study  with  a  view  to  acquiring  necessary 
skills, and shall also be obliged to support the upgrading of these skills. Furthermore, 
employers shall be obliged to create conditions for employees to have the possibility 
of  applying  themselves  in  work,  and  shall  improve  workplace  facilities  in  order  to 
enable these employees to obtain, wherever possible, the same work results as other 
employees, and to facilitate their work as best as they can’ (Section 158(1)).  

As  regards  employees  with  disabilities  who  cannot  be  employed  under  usual  working 
conditions, employers ‘may set up for them sheltered workshops or sheltered workplaces’ 
(Section  158(2)).  Moreover,  ‘employers  shall  enable  their  employees  with  disabilities  to 
receive  theoretical  or  practical  training  (retraining)  aimed  at  maintaining,  upgrading, 
expanding  or  changing  their  qualifications,  or  adapting  to  technological  progress  with  a 
view to safeguarding their employment’. Employers must cooperate with trade unions or 
employee representatives in these activities. 

However,  the  enforceability  of  the  above-quoted  provisions  is  very  questionable.  For 
example,  according  to  Section  158(3)  of  the  Labour  Code,  the  duties  of  an  employer 
stipulated  by  paragraphs  1  and  2  of  Section  158  should  be  regulated  in  more  detail  by 
special  regulations.  However,  no  such  regulations  exist  –  unless  section  7  of  the  Anti-
discrimination  Act  is  perceived  as  this  type  of  regulation  (which  should  serve  as  the 
interpretative framework for Sections 158 and 159 of the Labour Code in any case).  

There is no case law yet on the duty to provide reasonable accommodation in employment. 

b) 

Practice 

There is no case law yet on the duty to provide reasonable accommodation in employment. 
One  case  was  dismissed  by  the  District  Court  Bratislava  II  in  its  judgment  of  1  March 
2016.238 Furthermore, the court did not provide any interpretation on the duty to provide 

235  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 7(1).  
236  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 7(2)(a)-(c).  
237  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 7(3).  
238   Decision of the District Court Bratislava II, No. 19 C/446/2015 – 86, 1 March 2016. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
reasonable accommodation, as it dismissed the claim stating that the statute of limitation 
had expired. The claimant in the case is being legally represented by the Slovak National 
Centre for Human Rights (the equality body). The case is now pending before the Bratislava 
regional court, which will decide on claimant’s appeal.239  

However, in 2015, the Supreme Court decided a case on the right to inclusive education 
of a child with a disability and held that a refusal to provide reasonable accommodation is 
a  form  of  discrimination.240  Although  the  case  primarily  applies  to  reasonable 
accommodation  in  education,  it  will  probably  have  wider  applicability  in  relation  to 
reasonable accommodation in employment (and  in other fields) given that the Supreme 
Court applied the CRPD and reiterated the constitutional principle that the CRPD is a part 
of  the  national  legal  order,  has  priority  over  national  legislation,  and  is  even  directly 
applicable. See section 2.6.d for more detail.  

To the author’s knowledge, there is no information or data available publically on how the 
duty to provide reasonable accommodation is administered by employers in practice.  

c) 

Definition of disability and non-discrimination protection 

There  is  no  definition  of  disability  contained  in  the  Anti-discrimination  Act,  neither  in 
general nor for the purposes of the duty to provide reasonable accommodation.  

The Schools Act defines a ‘child with a disability or a pupil with a disability’ as a child or a 
pupil with a  

‘mental241  disability,  hearing  impairment,  visual  impairment,  physical  impairment, 
communication  ability  disorder,  autism,  or  with  other  pervasive  developmental 
disorders, or with multiple disabilities’.242  

The Schools Act also uses the term ‘health disadvantage’. A child or a pupil with a ‘health 
disadvantage’ is defined as a child or a pupil with a ‘disability’ or who is ‘ill or their health 
is impaired’ or who has ‘developmental disorders’, or a ‘behavioural disorder’.243 

Please see section 2.1.1 for further details.  

d)  Duties  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  in  areas  other  than  employment  for 

people with disabilities 

In  Slovakia,  there  is  a  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  for  people  with 
disabilities outside the employment field.  

It should be noted that the Anti-discrimination Act, which generally applies to the fields of 
employment and occupation, social security, healthcare, provision of goods and services 
including  housing  and  education  (also  in  relation  to  disability)  stipulates  a  legally 
enforceable  duty  to  adopt  measures  to  prevent  discrimination  in  all  the  fields  covered 
(Section  2(3)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act).  Thus,  the  duty  to  provide  reasonable 
accommodation  for  people  with  disabilities  outside  employment  can  be  regarded  to  be 
implicitly  contained  in  this  generally  framed  legal  duty  to  prevent  discrimination.  It  is, 
however, not accompanied by any kind of justification test (the provision on reasonable 
accommodation contained in Section 7 of the Anti-discrimination Act and quoted above in 
Sections 2.6(a) and 2.6(b) only applies to the field of employment). 

239   See information provided by the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights to the author of this report on 27 

February 2017.  

240  Decision of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, No. 7Sžo/83/201424, September 2015. 
241  In Slovak, the Act uses the word `mental´ (and not, for example, `intellectual´).  
242  Slovakia, Schools Act, 245/2008, Section 2(l).  
243  Slovakia, Schools Act, 245/2008, Section 2(k).  

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
There are also some specific duties contained in other pieces of legislation. For example, 
the Schools Act contains special provisions designed to accommodate the needs of children 
and pupils with disabilities in kindergartens, primary and secondary schools and in school 
facilities.244 A special provision is also included in the Act on Higher Education, guaranteeing 
reasonable accommodation for students with specific needs, including financial support in 
certain circumstances.245 The Road Transport Act246 and the Railways Act247 also contain 
some  special  provisions  that  relate  to  creating  conditions  for  access  for  people  with 
disabilities.  

In 2015, the Supreme Court decided a case on the right to inclusive education of a child 
with a disability and held that a refusal to provide reasonable accommodation is a form of 
discrimination.248  

The claimant was a female child with an intellectual disability and a hearing impairment 
who was refused enrolment at a mainstream primary school. The Supreme Court quashed 
the decision of the director of the mainstream school and of the local government district 
to refuse enrolment and ordered the latter to review the case again. It also expressed its 
legal opinion on the case, which will be binding in the proceedings to follow, and that will 
very  likely  result  in  the  school  eventually  having  to  accommodate  the  needs  of  the 
claimant. 

The Supreme Court applied the CRPD and noted that according to the Slovak Constitution, 
the  CRPD  is  a  part  of  the  Slovak  legal  order  and  takes  precedence  over  the  national 
legislation,  and  hence  it  was  the  duty  of  the  school  director  and  the  local  government 
district to interpret the provisions of the Schools Act in accordance with it (and further that 
they are even entitled to apply the CRPD’s provisions directly).  

The Supreme Court noted that the defendant’s argument that the inability of a mainstream 
school to provide special conditions for a child with special educational needs justifies non-
enrolment of such a child at this school cannot be accepted in this case, mainly because 
the case file did not contain any evidence on whether the school director was actively trying 
to create special conditions for the complainant. The Supreme Court also noted that neither 
the  school  director  nor  the  local  government  or  the  regional  court  did  specify  what  the 
disproportionate  or  excessive  burden  for  the  realisation  of  reasonable  accommodation 
comprised. 

As mentioned above, the Supreme Court held, referring to Article 2 of the CRPD, that a 
refusal to provide reasonable accommodation is a form of discrimination on the ground of 
disability and that this type of discrimination is prohibited. The court also emphasised that 
the best interest of a child must represent the primary perspective, and that in this case 
inclusive  education  of  the  complainant,  accompanied  by  the  reasonable  accommodation 
that  she  needed,  was  in  her  best  interest.  The  court  referred  to  an  expert  opinion  that 
recommended considering the education of the complainant in a mainstream school, with 
a simultaneous provision of an individual educational plan and a teacher assistant for her. 
The court, referring to another expert opinion, also emphasised that inclusive education of 
children  with  disabilities  is  beneficial  for  all  children  (that  is  for  children  both  with  and 
without a disability).  

Although the Supreme Court did not mention the Anti-discrimination Act in its decision at 
all and although the case primarily applies to reasonable accommodation in education, it 

244  Slovakia, Act No 245/2008 on Education (Schools Act), as amended (zákon č. 245/2008 Z. z. o výchove a 

vzdelávaní (Školský zákon) a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov). 
245  Slovakia, Act on Higher Education, 131/2002, Sections 16a, 57, 96 and 100. 
246  Slovakia, Act No 56/2012 on Road Transport, as amended (zákon č. 56/2012 Z. z. o cestnej doprave v znení 

neskorších predpisov). 

247  Slovakia, Act No 513/2009 on Railways and on Changing and Supplementing Other Laws, as amended 

(zákon č. 513/2009 Z. z. o dráhach a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov). 

248  Decision of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, No. 7Sžo/83/2014, 24 September 2015. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
will  probably  have  wider  applicability  in  relation  to  reasonable  accommodation  in  other 
fields – given that the Supreme Court applied the CRPD and reiterated the constitutional 
principle  that  the  CRPD  is  a  part  of  the  national  legal  order,  has  priority  over  national 
legislation, and is even directly applicable.  

e) 

Failure to meet the duty of reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities 

In  Slovakia,  failure  to  meet  the  duty  of  reasonable  accommodation  does  count  as 
discrimination (or, more accurately, as a violation of the principle of equal treatment).  

A breach of the employer’s duty to provide reasonable accommodation for a person with a 
disability  as  well  as  a  refusal  or  failure  to  take  certain  measures  is  considered  to  be  a 
breach of the principle of equal treatment.249  

It  is  regarded  as  a  violation  of  this  principle  (which  is  broader  than  the  prohibition  of 
discrimination in its individual forms and encompasses also the duty to adopt measures to 
prevent discrimination) and it does not equate to direct or indirect discrimination. However, 
this  does  not  mean  that,  in  specific  situations,  the  actions  or  omission  of  an  employer 
cannot at the same time also fall under definitions of the specific forms of discrimination 
as  defined  by  the  Slovak  Anti-discrimination  Act  –  mainly  direct  discrimination,  indirect 
discrimination or harassment. 

In 2015, the Supreme Court held (referring to the CRPD and applying it, but not referring 
to the Anti-Discrimination Act) that the failure to provide reasonable accommodation is a 
form of discrimination (see also answer to the previous section 2.6.d). 

Given that the duty to provide reasonable accommodation is a part of the duty to observe 
the principle of equal treatment, it is judicially enforceable in accordance with Sections 9 
to 11 of the Anti-discrimination Act, and all procedural rules contained in these  sections 
apply, including the shift in burden of proof. In principle, this applies not only to the duty 
to provide reasonable accommodation in employment entrenched in the Anti-discrimination 
Act (see section 2.6.a), but also to fields falling outside the scope  of  employment  given 
that  the  duty  to  adopt  measures  to  prevent  discrimination  applies  across  all  fields  and 
grounds falling under the scope of the Anti-discrimination Act, and given that the Supreme 
Court has already held – referring to that CRPD and applying it – that the failure to provide 
reasonable accommodation is a form of discrimination.  

In  the  field  of  employment,  the  observance  of  all  the  duties  stipulated  by  the  Anti-
discrimination Act (and hence also of the duty to provide reasonable accommodation under 
Section 7) and also the observance of the specific duties on the protection of employees 
with  disabilities  contained  in  the  Labour  Code  (see  section  2.6(a)  above)  are  subject  to 
supervision by the national labour inspectorate, and hence also to the fines imposed by it. 
On finding breaches of the Labour Code provisions on the conditions of work of persons 
with disabilities, the labour inspectorate is obliged to impose a fine of EUR 1 000 to 200 000 
(see section 6.5(a) of this report for more details on labour inspection and on the fines).  

In the field of transport, for example, the Transport Office (a regulatory body for railways) 
shall impose a fine of EUR 800 to 10 000 on a railway operator who ‘has not carried out 
sufficient  measures  to  enable  the  use  of  public  transport  on  railways  to  persons  with 
disabilities and to persons with prams and animals’.250  

f) 

Duties to provide reasonable accommodation in respect of other grounds  

249  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 7(4). 
250  See Slovakia, Railways Act, No. 513/2009, Section 109(8)(d). 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  Slovakia  there  is  a  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  in  respect  of  other 
grounds in the public and the private sector. 

The Anti-discrimination Act sets out in its basic provisions the general characteristics of the 
principle  of  equal  treatment.  According  to  this  provision  (Section  2(3)  of  the  Anti-
discrimination  Act)  compliance  with  this  principle  will  also  (apart  from  prohibition  of 
discrimination  on  the  specified  grounds)  involve  the  adoption  of  measures  to  prevent 
discrimination. From this principle it can be inferred that the duty to provide reasonable 
accommodation applies not only to employers and people with disabilities in the area of 
employment  (for  which  a  specific  reasonable  accommodation  duty  exists  in  the  Anti-
Discrimination Act),251 but to all other areas and grounds that are regulated by the existing 
laws prohibiting discrimination. Therefore, the duty to provide reasonable accommodation 
applies  in  the  fields  of  employment,  social  security  (including  social  advantages), 
healthcare,  and  provision  of  goods  and  services  (including  housing  and  education).  It 
applies to the grounds of sex, religion or belief, race, affiliation with nationality (národnosť) 
or  an  ethnic  group,  disability,  age,  sexual  orientation,  marital  status  and  family  status, 
colour  of  skin,  language,  political  or  other  opinion,  national  or  social  origin,  property, 
lineage/gender or other status, or the reason of reporting criminality or other anti-social 
activity  (grounds  protected  under  the  Anti-discrimination  Act),  and  in  principle  also  to 
additional grounds contained in other legislation where the duty to observe the principle of 
equal  treatment  is  entrenched.  However,  this  general  duty  to  provide  reasonable 
accommodation following from the duty to prevent discrimination is definitely not of the 
same quality for all grounds, since for grounds other then disability, neither legislation nor 
case  law  provide  any  detail  on  how  the  duty  is  supposed  to  be  fulfilled  or  whether 
justification  is  possible.  To  the  best  knowledge  of  the  author  of  this  report  no  public  or 
academic discussion has been conducted in Slovakia on those issues.  

No guidelines have been issued by the equality body or by any other body on how the duty 
to prevent discrimination should be carried out.  

g) 

Accessibility of services, buildings and infrastructure  

In  Slovakia,  national  law  requires  services  available  to  the  public,  buildings  and 
infrastructure to be designed and built in a disability-accessible way.  

The  regulation  determining  details  of  general  technical  requirements  in  construction 
requires  buildings  (for  example,  residential  buildings,  non-residential  buildings  designed 
for use by the public, buildings in which people with limited mobility and orientation are 
likely  to  be  employed)  and  infrastructure  (for  example,  pavements  and  paths  for 
pedestrians, car parks, access to parks, access to post boxes and cash dispensers etc.) to 
be designed and built in a disability-accessible way.252 Buildings and infrastructure that do 
not meet the criteria set by the regulation should not receive approval from the relevant 
construction office (however, in reality, these rules are often ignored or violated).  

A  building  constructed  after  1  December  2002  (the  date  when  the  regulation  came  into 
force) and not made accessible for persons with disabilities could be considered in breach 
of the principle of equal treatment (although the link is only implicit and interpretative) in 
the  context  of  the  legal  definition  of  the  principle  of  equal  treatment,  which  also 
encompasses the duty to adopt measures to prevent discrimination, and also in the context 
of a decision of the Supreme Court of 2015 where the Supreme Court (albeit deciding a 
case  of  a  refusal  to  provide  disability-related  reasonable  accommodation  in  education), 

251  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 7(4). 
252  Regulation of the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic No 532/2002 Determining Details of 

General Technical Requirements in Construction and General Technical Requirements for Buildings used by 
Persons with Restricted Mobility and Orientation (Vyhláška Ministersta životného prostredia SR č. 532/2002 
Z. z. ktorou sa ustanovujú podrobnosti o všeobecných technických požiadavkách na výstavbu a 
všeobecných požiadavkách na stavby užívané osobami s obmedzenou schopnosťou pohybu a orientácie). 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
held that a refusal to provide reasonable accommodation is a form of discrimination and 
applied the CRPD, emphasising the constitutional principle of the precedence of the CRPD 
over  the  national  legislation  and  its  direct  applicability  (see  section  6.2.d)  for  further 
detail).253 This interpretation is basically applicable to all the areas covered by the Anti-
discrimination Act (employment and occupation, social security, healthcare and provision 
of  goods  and  services  including  housing  and  education).  Thus,  where  issues  of 
(in)accessibility  of  services,  buildings  and  infrastructure  arise,  they  will  also  have  to  be 
judged, as a matter of national law, in the light of the CRPD.  

In Slovakia, national law contains a general duty to provide accessibility by anticipation for 
people  with  disabilities.  However,  this  general  duty  is  not  explicit  and  is  a  result  of 
interpretation of the existing legislative provisions and the decision of the Supreme Court 
of 2015. 

In all the fields covered by the Anti-discrimination Act (employment and occupation, social 
security,  healthcare,  provision  of  goods  and  services  including  housing  and  education), 
account must be taken of the general duty to adopt measures aimed at the prevention of 
discrimination that is enshrined in  Section 2(3) of the Anti-discrimination Act and which 
represents, besides the prohibition of discrimination, a legally enforceable component of 
the principle of equal  treatment. Furthermore,  in light of the Supreme Court decision of 
2015  (see  above  and  in  section  6.2.d),  where  the  duty  to  provide  accessibility  by 
anticipation  for  people  with  disabilities  stems  from  the  CRPD,  it  should  also  be  directly 
applicable on the  national level. This also serves as an interpretative  framework for the 
legal duties mentioned below. 

In  fields  covered  by  the  directives  other  than  employment  (but  also  in  the  field  of 
employment to a significant extent), the regulation determining details of general technical 
requirements  in  construction  applies.  It  sets  out  special  technical  requirements  taking 
account  of  the  needs  of  people  with  disabilities  in  buildings  (for  example,  residential 
buildings,  non-residential  buildings  designed  for  use  by  the  public,  buildings  in  which 
persons with limited mobility and orientation are likely to be employed) and infrastructure 
(for example, pavements and paths for pedestrians, car parks, access to parks, access to 
post  boxes  and  cash  dispensers  etc.).  Anyone  who  is  involved  in  construction  (mainly 
architects,  builders  and  so  on)  is  bound  by  these  requirements.  Justification  for  non-
compliance  includes  ‘serious  cultural,  historical  or  technical/operational  reasons;  the 
justification must be contained in project documentation’.254 

Section 4(2) of the Road Transport Act255 stipulates that carriers are obliged to have written 
conditions of transport  that contain, inter alia, ‘the scope of  special rights and duties  of 
passengers  with  a  disability  and  of  passengers  with  limited  mobility  including 
accompanying persons, as well as of pensioners, pupils and students’.256 It also stipulates 
that the transport order should contain the ‘conditions of transport of a specially trained 
dog that provides assistance to a person with a serious disability’.257 Section 13(4) of the 
Road Transport Act also stipulates that ‘passengers with a disability who are accompanied 
by  a  specially  trained  dog  or  passengers  with  limited  mobility  shall  have  the  right  to  a 
reserved seat’. There is no justification clause applicable in case of a failure to satisfy the 
duties mentioned.  

253  Decision of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, No 7Sžo/83/2014, 24 September 2015. 
254  Section 2(4) of regulation No. 532/2002.  
255  Slovakia, Act No 56/2012 on Road Transport, as amended (zákon č. 56/2012 Z. z. o cestnej doprave v 

znení neskorších predpisov). 

256  Slovakia, Road Transport Act, 56/2012, Section 4(2)(f). 
257  Slovakia, Road Transport Act, 56/2012, Section 4(2)(h). 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
The Railways Act258 contains general rules for creating conditions for access for people with 
disabilities.  Special  regulations  allowing  reduced  fares  for  public  transport  have  been 
adopted by the self-governing regions. 

There is no case law on accessibility of services, buildings and infrastructure. 

In 2016, the Slovak ombudswoman259 conducted field research on the accessibility of public 
places to people with disabilities. She focused on three areas:  

- 
- 
- 

access to public schools (primary, secondary schools and universities); 
access to police buildings; 
access to state-run hospitals and other healthcare facilities.  

She  summarised  her  outcomes  in  three  separate  reports,260  in  which  she  described  the 
problems in respect of each area and also made relevant recommendations to the state 
authorities to remedy the situation.  

h) 

Accessibility of public documents 

There  is  no  universal  duty  on  the  state  administration  and  public  services  in  general  to 
translate all their documents into Braille and/or make their information automatically and 
universally accessible to all people with visual impairments. However, there are a few laws 
containing some partial duties in this regard. 

For  example,  the  Free  Access  to  Information  Act261  (enabling  inter  alia  requests  for 
information from public bodies and some other bodies about their everyday activities,262 
apart from a few exceptions stipulated by the law)263 makes it explicit that it is also possible 
to  request  information  in  Braille  and  in  an  enlarged  font.264  If  a  person  (who  has  to 
demonstrate  that  she  or  he  is  a  blind  person  or  a  person  with  visual  impairment  –  by 
submitting  the  corresponding  certificate  issued  by  the  relevant  state  body)265  requests 
information in Braille or in an enlarged font, the body addressed with the request is obliged 
to  provide  the  information  requested  in  the  form  requested.266  However,  in  case  of 
information requested in Braille, the standard maximum statutory period for providing the 
information requested extends from 8 working days to 15 working days,267 and it can even 
be extended (for example in cases when a higher amount of separated or different pieces 

258  Slovakia, Railways Act, 513/2009. 
259   The author of the report is using the word ‘ombudswoman’ in order to indicate gender sensitive language 
and highlight that in Slovakia this position is currently occupied by woman. Originally in Slovak language 
using terms “ verejná ochránkyňa práv” or “ ombudsmanka”.  

260  Office of the Public Defender of Rights (October 2016), Správa o výsledkoch prieskumu bezbariérového 

prístupu do budov škôl a bezbariérovosti v nich (Report on outcomes of the research on access to school 
buildings for the disabled), available at http://www.vop.gov.sk/files/Sprava%20bezbarierovost%20skoly.pdf 
(accessed 10 March 2017). Office of the Public Defender of Rights (September 2016), Správa o výsledkoch 
prieskumu zabezpečeniavbezbariérového prístupu v budovách, ktoré sú sídlami útvarov Policajného zboru a 
klientskych centier (Report on outcomes of the research on access to police buildings and their clients’ 
centres for the disabled), available at http://www.vop.gov.sk/files/Bezbarierovost_policia.pdf (accessed 10 
March 2017). Office of the Public Defender of Rights (September 2016), Bezbariérovosť v štátnych 
nemocniciach a iných zdravotníckych zariadeniach- správa o výsledkoch prieskumu. (Access to state run 
hospitals and other health care facilities for the disabled- report on outcomes of the research). Available at: 
http://www.vop.gov.sk/files/Spr%C3%A1va%20-%20bezbarierovost%20nemocnic.pdf (accessed 10 March 
2017).  

261  Act No 211/2000 on the Free Access to Information and on changing and supplementing other laws, as 

amended (Free Access to Information Act) (zákon č. 211/2000 Z. z. o slobodnom prístupe k informáciám a 
o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (zákon o slobode informácií) v znení neskorších predpisov). 

262  The list of the bodies obliged to provide information is contained in Slovakia, Free Access to Information Act, 

211/2000, Section 2.  

263  The list of exceptions is contained in Slovakia, Free Access to Information Act, 211/2000, Sections 8-13.  
264  Slovakia, Free Access to Information Act, 211/2000, Section 16(2)-(4).  
265  Slovakia, Free Access to Information Act, 211/2000, Sections 16(3) and 16(4). 
266  Slovakia, Free Access to Information Act, 211/2000, Section 16(5). 
267  Slovakia, Free Access to Information Act, 211/2000, Section 17(1). 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
of information is sought by one request, or in cases of technical problems with searching 
for the information by the public body concerned,  or in cases  of technical problems) for 
another  maximum  15  working  days  (instead  of  maximum  8  days  when  information  is 
requested in all other forms).268 

There are also some other partial duties and entitlements that relate to providing services 
to  people  who  are  blind  or  have  visual  impairments.  For  example  Act  308/2000  on 
Broadcasting  and  Re-Transmission  requires  the  broadcaster  to  ensure  that  for  every 
television  programme  service  that  is  broadcast  digitally  at  least  20 %  of  all  the 
programmes are accompanied by audio commentary for people who are blind.269  

The situation for people who are deaf or who have hearing difficulties is somewhat better 
as there is a special law on sign language  for the deaf.270 The act stipulates that people 
who  are  deaf  have  the  right  to  use  sign  language,  to  educate  themselves  using  sign 
language, and to access information with the help of sign language in television broadcasts 
of public institutions, in libraries and in film libraries.271 The act also stipulates that deaf 
people  have  the  right  to  a  sign language  interpreter  who  can  translate  into  or  from  the 
state language to resolve basic life problems of deaf people who are in contact with state 
bodies,  bodies  of  regional  self-administration  and  other  legal  entities  and  natural 
persons.272 These translation services are provided for free unless special legal regulations 
stipulate for compensation of costs (connected mainly to legal proceedings).273 Although 
this  law  is  relatively  complex  and  is  unambiguous  in  that  it  provides  the  right  to 
interpretation to deaf people in many everyday situations, the practice shows that there 
are  many  cases  where  people  are  unable  to  access  this  service,  mainly  because  of 
information and communication barriers. The service is used mainly by younger people, 
people  from  bigger  cities  and  people  with  a  higher  degree  of  education  as  compared  to 
people who are older, have a lower degree of education and live in rural places.  

The Free Access to information Act (cited above) also emphasises the right of a deaf person 
or a person with a hearing impairment to choose the way in which they want to receive 
the information requested in accordance with the act.274  

In  judicial,  administrative  and  other  proceedings  it  is  common  (at  least  in  theory  –  the 
practice has not yet been mapped) for an interpreter to be provided to anyone who does 
not  speak  the  language  of  the  proceedings.  For  example,  the  Act  on  the  Administrative 
Code and on the Office Code for Courts stipulates that ‘if a citizen acts before a court in a 
language other than Slovak, the court engages an  interpreter’ and that this applies also 
applies to hearings involving persons who are ‘deaf, dumb or deaf-dumb’.275  

As far as the communication of public authorities and their representatives is concerned, 
cases in which they translate their direct media communication (e.g. press conferences) 
into  sign  language  are  very  rare.  This  has  only  happened  in  few  instances  so  far  (for 
example, in some Ministry of Justice press conferences in 2011-2012, and in a few press 
conferences held by political parties).  

268  Slovakia, Free Access to Information Act, 211/2000, Section 17(2). 
269  See Slovakia, Act No 308/2000 on Broadcasting and Re-Transmission and on Changing the Act No 195/2000 
on Telecommunications, as amended (zákon č. 308/2000 Z. z. o vysielaní a retransmisii a o zmene zákona 
č. 195/2000 Z. z.o telekomunikáciách v znení neskoších predpisov), Section 18(2)(c). 

270  Slovakia, Act No 149/1995 on the Sign Language of Persons who are Deaf (zákon č. 149/1995 Z. z. o 

posunkovej reči nepočujúcich osôb). The act also considers a person who is not able to perform workaday 
audio communication even with a compensatory equipment as person who is deaf (see Section 2 of the act).  

271  Slovakia, Sign Language Act, 149/1995, Section 4. 
272  Slovakia, Sign Language Act, 149/1995, Section 5(1). 
273  Slovakia, Sign Language Act, 149/1995, Section 5(2). 
274  Slovakia, Free Access to Information Act, 211/2000, Section 16(5). 
275  Slovakia, Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic No 543/2005 on the Administrative 

Code and on the Office Code for Courts, as amended (vyhláška Ministerstva spravodlivosti SR č. 543/2005 
Z. z. o Spravovacom a kancelárskom poriadku pre okresné súdy, krajské súdy, Špeciálny súd a vojenské 
súdy v znení neskorších predpisov), Sections 51(1) and 51(2). 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
There  are  no  rules  on  providing  documents  in  easy-to-read  formats  for  people  with 
intellectual disabilities. 

66 

 
 
 
 
3 

PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE  

3.1  Personal scope 

3.1.1  EU  and  non-EU  nationals  (Recital  13  and  Article  3(2)  Directive  2000/43 

and Recital 12 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/78) 

In Slovakia, there are no residence or citizenship/nationality requirements for protection 
under  the  relevant  national  laws  transposing  the  directives.  In  other  words,  protection 
against  discrimination  in  the  national  legal  system  is  not  conditional  on  a  person’s 
citizenship or nationality and the Anti-discrimination Act has no specific requirements in 
this regard.  

However,  Section  4(1)(a)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  explicitly  stipulates  that  the 
provisions  of  the  act  will  not  apply  to  differences  of  treatment  resulting  from  the 
requirements for entry and residence for foreigners in Slovakia, including the treatment of 
these  foreigners  provided  for  under  separate  provisions,276  except  for  citizens  of  EU 
Member States, a state which is party to the European Economic Area Agreement, Swiss 
citizens and stateless persons and their family members.  

According to the Act on the Residence of Foreigners, a foreigner is anybody who is not a 
citizen of the Slovak Republic.277 

In addition, separate acts set out the requirement to be a citizen of the Slovak Republic 
for specific professions or employment.278 

Article 35 of the Constitution guarantees the right to choose a profession and appropriate 
training freely, the right to conduct entrepreneurial or other gainful activity, as well as the 
right  to  work  and  to  material  welfare  for  those  who,  through  no  fault  of  their  own,  are 
unable to enjoy the right to work. Article 35(4) states that the law may provide a different 
regulation of these rights for foreigners.279 

3.1.2  Natural and legal persons (Recital 16 Directive 2000/43) 

a) 

Protection against discrimination 

In Slovakia the personal scope of anti-discrimination law covers natural and legal persons 
for the purpose of protection against discrimination.  

The Anti-discrimination Act contains a specific definition of what constitutes discrimination 
against legal persons. According to Section 2a(9), discrimination against a legal person is  

‘a failure to comply with the principle of equal treatment in relation to this person on 
the grounds of discrimination listed in Section 2(1) of the Anti-discrimination Act280 
with  respect  to  its  members,  associates,  shareholders,  members  of  its  bodies, 

276  E.g. Slovakia, Act No. 404/2011 on the Residence of Foreigners and on amending and supplementing 

certain laws, as amended (zákon č. 404/2011 Z. z. o pobyte cudzincov a o zmene a doplnení niektorých 
zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov), Slovakia, Act No. 480/2002 on Asylum and on amending and 
supplementing certain laws, as amended (zákon č. 480/2002 Z. z. o azyle a o zmene a doplnení niektorých 
zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov). 

277  Slovakia, Act on the residence of foreigners, 404/2011, Section 2(2). 
278  Senior state officials, prosecutors, constitutional judges, judges, police officers, customs officers, fire and 

rescue service members, mountain rescue service members and professional soldiers. 

279  For example: Slovakia, Act on the residence of foreigners, 404/2011 and Slovakia, Asylum Act 480/2002. 
280  Sex, religion or belief, race, affiliation with nationality or an ethnic group, disability, age, sexual orientation, 
marital status and family status, colour of skin, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, 
property, lineage/gender or other status, or the reason of reporting criminality or other anti-social activity. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
employees, persons acting on its behalf or persons on behalf of which such a legal 
entity is acting’.  

Therefore,  with  regard  to  protection,  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  does  not  distinguish 
between natural and legal persons. The national provisions comply with the directives.  

b) 

Liability for discrimination  

In Slovakia the personal scope of anti-discrimination law covers natural and legal persons 
for the purpose of liability for discrimination.  

Section 3(1) of the Slovak Anti-discrimination Act introduced a general provision according 
to which the principle of equal treatment is binding on ‘everyone’. This means that in terms 
of  liability  for  discrimination,  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  does  not  distinguish  between 
natural and legal persons. The only explicit exception is housing where the duty to apply 
the  principle  of  equal  treatment  does  not  apply  to  natural  persons  who  are  not 
entrepreneurs.281 There is no case law on the issue.  

3.1.3  Private and public sector including public bodies (Article 3(1)) 

a) 

Protection against discrimination 

In Slovakia the personal scope of national law covers private and public sector including 
public bodies for the purpose of protection against discrimination. 

Under Section 2a(9), discrimination against a legal person is:  

‘a failure to comply with the principle of equal treatment in relation to this person on 
the grounds of discrimination listed in Section 2(1) of the Anti-discrimination Act282 
with  respect  to  its  members,  associates,  shareholders,  members  of  its  bodies, 
employees, persons acting on its behalf or persons on behalf of  whom such a legal 
entity is acting’.  

Therefore,  with  regard  to  protection,  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  does  not  distinguish 
between  natural  and  legal  persons,  and,  with  regard  to  legal  persons,  nor  does  it 
distinguish between the type of entity protected (i. e. whether it is public or private). The 
national provisions comply with the directives, although there is no case law on the issue, 
and the issue of protection of public bodies has not yet been subject to public discussion 
in Slovakia.  

b) 

Liability for discrimination  

In Slovakia the personal scope of anti-discrimination law covers private and public sector 
including public bodies for the purpose of liability for discrimination.  

The Anti-discrimination Act does not distinguish between public and private bodies in terms 
of liability. This can be inferred from the general rule contained in Section 3(1) of the Anti-
discrimination  Act,  which  stipulates  that  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  is  binding  on 
‘everyone’,  and  also  from  Sections  5  and  6  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  which  provide 
details on the material scope of the act (fields covered) without specifying what kind of 
bodies they cover (e.g. whether public or private). The only explicit exception where the 
liability does not apply to a part of the ‘private sector’ is housing, where the duty to apply 

281  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 5(2)(d). 
282  Sex, religion or belief, race, affiliation with nationality or an ethnic group, disability, age, sexual orientation, 
marital status and family status, colour of skin, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, 
property, lineage/gender or other status, or the reason of reporting criminality or other anti-social activity. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
the  principle  of  equal  treatment  does  not  apply  to  natural  persons  who  are  not 
entrepreneurs.283 

However, it is questionable whether some statutory duties that are carried out by public 
bodies  and  are  generally  perceived  as  services  to  the  public  (such  as  the  provision  of 
information  on  request  by  public  bodies,  or  aid  provided  by  the  state  in  case  of 
emergencies) can be perceived as ‘services’ in the sense of the directives. 

3.2  Material scope 

3.2.1  Employment, self-employment and occupation  

In  Slovakia,  national legislation  applies  to  all  sectors  of  private  and  public  employment, 
self-employment  and  occupation,  military  service,  holding  statutory  office,  for  the  five 
grounds.  If  contract  work  falls  outside  legal  relations  covered  by  the  Labour  Code,  it  is 
probably not covered by the anti-discrimination provisions. 

Section 6(1) of the Anti-discrimination Act stipulates that the principle of equal treatment 
must be applied in employment relationships, similar legal relationships and related legal 
relationships.284 Section 6(2)(a) states further that the principle of equal treatment will be 
applied only in connection with rights of persons provided for under special laws regulating 
mainly the field of employment, occupation and other gainful activities or functions, and 
contains a footnote referring (through a non-exhaustive list) to the Labour  Code (which 
regulates the whole sphere of private employment and a part of public employment) and 
to the Act on  Public Service (which regulates the sphere  of public service). Accordingly, 
employment for the purpose of the Anti-discrimination Act means a complex set of legal 
relations resulting from labour, service, contractual and other relations relating to gainful 
activities.  

Section  3(1)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  states  that  the  obligation  to  observe  the 
principle of equal treatment applies to ‘everybody’ in the field of (inter alia) employment 
relationships  and  related  legal  relationships.  Thus  it  covers  the  entire  sphere  of 
employment,  self-employment  and  occupational  relationships  in  the  private  and  public 
spheres,  including  customs  officers,  soldiers  performing  military  service,  police  officers, 
members  of  the  Slovak  intelligence  service,  the  prison  and  court  guard,  railway  police 
officers and members of the fire and rescue service performing civil service.285 

Article 1 of the general principles of the Labour Code stipulates the right of natural persons 
to  free  choice  of  their  employment,  to  fair  and  satisfying  working  conditions,  and  to 
protection against arbitrary dismissal in accordance with the principle of equal treatment 
enshrined in the Anti-discrimination Act. Section 13 of the Labour Code stipulates the duty 
of  an  employer  to  treat  employees  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  equal  treatment 
constituted  by  the  Anti-discrimination  Act.  The  duty  to  observe  the  principle  of  equal 
treatment  (with  reference  to  the  Anti-discrimination  Act)  in  relation  to  civil  servants  is 
enshrined in Section 4 of the Civil Service Act.  

283  See Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 5(2)(d).  
284  Neither the Anti-discrimination Act nor case law stipulates the meaning of ‘similar legal relationships and 
related legal relationships’. However, given the content of Section 6(2) and references to other pieces of 
legislation contained therein (by means of footnotes), it is arguable that ‘similar legal relationships and 
related legal relationships’ comprise a broad range of relationships in the field of paid work (such as the 
public service, employment services – such as vocational training or counselling provided to jobseekers, or 
legal relationships connected to membership and functioning in employees´ or employers´ organisations, or 
in professional organisations (such as legal or medical professionals´ bars). 

285  The most relevant acts are Slovakia, Labour Code, 311/2001, Slovakia, Civil Service Act, 400/2009, and 

some special laws on performing public service in special fields (the judiciary, military service, Police Corps, 
Slovak Information Service, etc).  

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Act 455/1991 on Licensed Trades (the Small Business Act), states in Section 5a that the 
rights provided for in the act are guaranteed equally to all persons in conformity with the 
principle of equal treatment in labour relations and similar legal relations provided for under 
separate  provisions  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act.  However,  this  act  only  regulates  the 
conditions for licensed trades for self-employed persons in relation to the state – i. e. for 
setting  up  and  running  their  business.  It  does  not  regulate  the  relations  between  the 
freelancers  and  their  purchasers,  which  are  regulated  either  by  the  Civil  Code286  or  the 
Commercial Code.287 However, neither the Civil Code nor the Commercial Code contain an 
anti-discrimination clause with regard to entering into contracts, and, interpreted also in 
the  light  of  Section  6(2)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  (the  applicability  of  the  Anti-
discrimination Act only in connection with the rights of persons provided for under special 
laws  –  see  above),  it  is  debatable  what  rights  self-employed  persons  (or  businesses  in 
general) have as against those of potential purchasers, especially in the period prior to the 
start  of a contract  relationship or after it has  ceased.  It is true that  Section 5(2)  of the 
Anti-discrimination Act stipulates the duty to observe the principle of equal treatment in 
access  to  and  providing  social  security  services  and  insurance  and  social  advantages, 
healthcare,  education  and  services,  including  housing  (which  is  moreover  again  only  in 
connection with rights of persons provided for under special laws), but the wording of the 
provision  applies  most  likely  to  ‘contracting  parties’,  meant  in  the  sense  of  service 
receivers, entitled to proper and non-discriminatory services by their providers.  

There is no case law that would deal with the issues discussed above.  

3.2.2  Conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, 
including  selection  criteria,  recruitment  conditions  and  promotion, 
whatever  the  branch  of  activity  and  at  all  levels  of  the  professional 
hierarchy (Article 3(1)(a))  

In Slovakia, national legislation prohibits discrimination in the following areas: conditions 
for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, including selection criteria, 
recruitment conditions and promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of 
the  professional  hierarchy  for  the  five  grounds  in  both  private  and  public  sectors  as 
described in the directives. 

Under Sections 6(1) and 6(2)(a)(b) of the Anti-discrimination Act, the principle of equal 
treatment is applicable (on all the grounds prohibited by the Anti-discrimination Act – see 
section 2.1 of this report) to the rights of persons under the provisions of acts regulating 
access  to  employment,  occupation,  other  gainful  activities  or  functions,  including  job 
specifications, selection criteria, recruitment conditions and promotion. In other words, the 
Anti-discrimination  Act  refers  to  the  existing  laws  in  the  area  of  employment,  self-
employment and occupation without making any distinction between legal relationships in 
the private and the public sector. At the same time, all laws regulating the public and the 
private  sector  employment  refer  to  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  and/or  are  based  on  it 
and/or supplement it. The applicable provisions (apart from the ones contained in the Anti-
discrimination Act) are, for example, Article 6 (on the basic principles) and Section 41 of 
the Labour Code, Section 4(2) of the Civil Service Act, and Section 5a of the Act on Licensed 
Trades (Small Business Act).288  

There is no case law specifically concerning the applicability of provisions relating to access 
to employment, self-employment or occupation.  

286  Slovakia, Civil Code, 40/1964. 
287  Slovakia, Commercial Code, 513/1991.  
288  Slovakia, Small Business Act, 455/1991. 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.3  Employment and working conditions, including pay and dismissals (Article 

3(1)(c)) 

In  Slovakia,  national  legislation  prohibits  discrimination  in  the  following  area:  working 
conditions including pay and dismissals, for all five grounds and for both private and public 
employment. 

Section  6(2)(b)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  expressly  covers,  for  the  whole  area  of 
employment relationships, similar relationships and related legal relationships, and on all 
the  grounds  contained  in  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  (see  section  2.1  above),  ‘the 
performance of employment289 and working conditions, including remuneration, promotion 
and dismissal’, in which the principle of equal treatment applies (Section 6(1) of the Anti-
discrimination Act).  

According to the third sentence of Article 8 of the Basic Principles of the Labour Code, and 
Section  158  of  the  Labour  Code,  the  employer  must  create  such  working  conditions  for 
employees with disabilities as to enable them to apply and upgrade their work skills, taking 
account of their state of health.  

As  far  as  equal  pay  is  concerned,  Section  119a(1),  first  sentence  of  the  Labour  Code 
provides  that  ‘wage  conditions  must  be  agreed  without  any  form  of  sex  discrimination’. 
This  applies  to  ‘all  remuneration  for  work  and  benefits  that  are  paid  or  will  be  paid  in 
relation  to  employment  according  to  the  other  provisions  of  this  act  or  special 
regulations’.290  According  to  Section  119a(2),  first  sentence,  ‘women  and  men  have  the 
right to equal pay for equal work or for work of equal value’. These provisions also apply 
to  employees  of  the  same  sex  if  they  carry  out  equal  work  or  work  of  equal  value.291 
Therefore  it  can  be  argued  that  these  provisions  apply  equally  to  all  other  prohibited 
grounds of discrimination. 

3.2.3.1  Occupational pensions constituting part of pay 

Occupational pensions constitute part of pay. This can be inferred from the provisions on 
equal pay for equal work or work of equal value of women and men that also apply to other 
non-discrimination grounds (see the previous paragraph) and those that indirectly define 
pay, for the purposes of guaranteeing equal pay for equal work and work of equal value, 
as  ‘all  remuneration  for  work  and  benefits  that  are  paid  or  will  be  paid  in  relation  to 
employment according to the other provisions of this act or special regulations’.292  

The Anti-discrimination Act does not cover the prohibition of discrimination with regard to 
occupational pensions explicitly, although it contains an explicit reference to remuneration 
(see the introductory part to section 3.2.3 above), and hence also to occupational pensions 
(see also the previous paragraph).  

In respect of occupational pension schemes, it should be noted that regular entitlements 
to  old-age,  sickness,  disability,  industrial  accident  and  occupational  disease  and 
unemployment benefits do not generally come under the system of occupational pension 
schemes in Slovakia. Instead, they are covered by the state social security system. Only 
‘supplementary pension insurance’ could be identified as a legally regulated occupational 
pension.  The  purpose  of  supplementary  pension  saving  is  to  enable  a  participant in  the 
pension  scheme  to  acquire  a  supplementary  retirement  income  in  old  age  and  a 
supplementary  retirement  income  after  termination  of  a  hazardous  occupation  (in 

289  The term ‘employment’ includes occupation, other gainful activity or function. 
290  Slovakia, Labour Code, 311/2001, Section 119a(1), second sentence. 
291  See Slovakia, Labour Code, 311/2001, Section 119a(4).  
292  Slovakia, Labour Code, 311/2001, Section 119a(1), second sentence. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
accordance with the legal classifications)293 or after termination of work as a dance artist 
(without  regard  to  the  style  and  technique)  or  a  musician  playing  a wind instrument.294 
Within  the  framework  of  supplementary  pension  insurance,  an  employer  pays,  on  the 
ground  of  a  contract,  a  regular  contribution  for  employees  to  a  supplementary  pension 
company.  

Under  Section  7  of  the  Act  on  Supplementary  Pension  Saving,  discrimination  in  the 
performance  of  supplementary  pension  saving  is  prohibited,  pursuant  to  the  Anti-
discrimination Act, unless the Act on Supplementary Pension Saving states otherwise.  

3.2.4  Access  to  all  types  and  to  all  levels  of  vocational  guidance,  vocational 
training,  advanced  vocational  training  and  retraining,  including  practical 
work experience (Article 3(1)(b)) 

In  Slovakia,  national  legislation  applies  to  vocational  training  outside  the  employment 
relationship, such as that provided by technical schools or universities, or  such as adult 
lifelong learning courses.  

Section 6(2)(c) of the Anti-discrimination Act stipulates the duty to observe the principle 
of equal treatment on all the grounds prohibited within it (see section 2.1 above) and in 
connection with the rights for which provision is made in separate acts in the area of access 
to vocational training, further vocational training and participation in active labour market 
policy programmes, including access to guidance services regarding employment selection 
and change of employment. 

By  defining  ‘further  education’  in  Section  2(3), the  Act  on  Lifelong  Learning295  indirectly 
defines what is to be understood under the term ‘vocational training’. Further education is 
defined as: 

‘education  in  educational  institutions  of  further  education,  which  follows  school 
education or other education following school education. Further education facilitates 
the acquisition of a partial or full qualification or the opportunity to complete, renew, 
expand or deepen the qualifications acquired through school education or to satisfy 
interests and acquire the capacity to participate in the life of society. The successful 
completion of further education does not confer a higher education degree’.  

The Act on  Lifelong Learning does not contain any equality/anti-discrimination clause or 
any reference to the Anti-discrimination Act.  

The  Act  on  Higher  Education,  regulating  university  education,  stipulates  that  the  rights 
provided  under  the  act  will  be  guaranteed  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  equal 
treatment.296  

There is no case law that would be relevant with regard to the applicability of vocational 
training provisions.  

293  See Slovakia, Act No 355/2007 on the Protection, Support and Development of Public Health, as amended 
(zákon č. 355/2007 Z. z. o ochrane, podpore a rozvoji verejného zdravia a o zmene a doplnení niektorých 
zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov), Sections 31(4) and 31(5). 

294  Slovakia, Act No 650/2004 on Supplementary Pension Saving and on amending and supplementing certain 

laws (zákon č. 650/2004 Z. z. o doplnkovom dôchodkovom sporení a o zmene a doplnení niektorých 
zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov), Section 2(2). 

295  Slovakia, Act No 568/2009 on Lifelong Learning and amending and supplementing certain laws, as amended 

(zákon č. 568/2009 Z. z. o celoživotnom vzdelávaní a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení 
neskorších predpisov). 

296  Slovakia, Higher Education Act, 131/2002, Section 55(2).  

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.5  Membership  of,  and  involvement  in,  an  organisation  of  workers  or 
employers,  or  any  organisation  whose  members  carry  on  a  particular 
profession,  including  the  benefits  provided  for  by  such  organisations 
(Article 3(1)(d)) 

In Slovakia, national legislation prohibits discrimination in the following area: membership 
of, and involvement in workers or employers’ organisations as formulated in the directives 
for all five grounds and for both private and public employment. 

Sections 6(1) and 6(2)(d) of the Anti-discrimination Act prohibit discrimination on all the 
grounds covered by the Anti-discrimination Act (see section 2.1 above) in connection with 
rights  provided  for  by  separate  acts  in  the  spheres  of  membership  of  and  activity  in 
employees’  organisations,  employers’  organisations  and  organisations  bringing  together 
people  of  certain  occupations,  including  the  benefits  that  these  organisations  provide  to 
their members. 

There is no case law regarding the issue. 

3.2.6  Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 3(1)(e) 

Directive 2000/43) 

In  Slovakia,  national  legislation  prohibits  discrimination  in  the  following  area:  social 
protection,  including  social  security  and  healthcare  as  formulated  in  the  Racial  Equality 
Directive. 

Sections 5(1) and 5(2)(a)(b) of the Anti-discrimination Act prohibit discrimination on all 
the grounds contained in the Anti-discrimination Act (see section 2.1 above) in conjunction 
with special laws existing in the area of access to and provision of social assistance (now 
redefined as social services in the relevant legislation),297 social insurance, old-age pension 
insurance, supplementary pension insurance, state social support, social advantages and 
healthcare.  

As  there  is  a  significant  overlap  between  social  advantages  as  defined  by  the  Court  of 
Justice and some benefits as established by the legislation on  ‘state  social support’, the 
state is also frequently a provider of benefits which, although legislatively defined as ‘state 
social support’, de facto represent ‘social advantages’ as specified by the Court of Justice 
(see also section 3.2.7 below).  

In the field of ‘state social support’, an Act on Aid in Material Need298 was adopted on 26 
November  2013  (in  effect  from  1  January  2014),  which  regulates  inter  alia  providing 
financial aid to those who are deemed to be in material need.299 Material need is defined 
as a situation where the income of members of a household does not reach the level of the 
so-called  ‘minimum  living  threshold’  (a  sum  stipulated  by  a  special  law;300  in  2016,  the 
sum for one adult was  EUR 198.09 per month). The allowance (financial aid in material 
need) is supposed to secure basic living conditions.301  

297  Slovakia, Act No 448/2008 on Social Services and on amending and supplementing Act No 455/1991 on 
Licensed Trades (Small Business Act), as amended (zákon č. 448/2008 Z. z. o sociálnych službách a o 
zmene a doplnení zákona č. 455/1991 Z. z. o živnostenskom podnikaní (živnostenský zákon) v znení 
neskorších predpisov). 

298  Slovakia, Act No 417/2013 on Aid in Material Need and on changing and supplementing other laws, as 

amended (zákon č. 417/2013 Z. z. o pomoci v hmotnej núdzi a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov 
v znení neskoších predpisov).  

299  See Slovakia, Act on aid in material need, 417/2013, Section 1(1).  
300  Slovakia, Act No 601/2003 on the Living Minimum and on changing and supplementing other laws, as 

amended (zákon č. 601/2003 Z. z. o životnom minime a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení 
neskorších predpisov).  

301  Slovakia, Act on Aid in Material Need, 417/2013, Section 10(1,2). Under the act, the basic sum of this 

allowance for an adult living alone is EUR 61.60 per month, for a couple without children it is EUR 107.10 
per month, for an individual with one to four children it is EUR 117.20 per month, for a couple with one to 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
The act contains a provision (Section 10(3)) that reduces the payment of the material need 
allowance by a sum of EUR 61.60 per each adult person (living in a household which is in 
consideration for a payment of the allowance) who does not carry out some kind of ‘work 
in the public interest’ (for example, works organised by municipalities to maintain public 
premises), some kind of voluntary work (pursuant to a special law on  voluntarism)302 or 
some kind of work that prevents or solves emergency situations, for at least 32 hours per 
month.  This  provision  was  presented  by  Government  representatives  as  a  way  of 
motivating the Roma to work and ‘deserve’ the payments that they receive from the state, 
and to prevent people from getting something from the state  ‘for free’. There is also no 
doubt  that  Roma  represent  a  significant  group  of  people  who  are  in  material  need  in 
Slovakia, due to structural discrimination in all fields including education, employment and 
housing – therefore it is also very clear on whom the act has impact.  

The act was criticised very heavily by civil society and NGOs303 and in 2014 led also to the 
submission  of  a  constitutional  complaint  by  the  Public  Defender  of  Rights  (the  Slovak 
ombudswoman) alleging the infringement of, among other rights, the right to equality and 
the  right  not  to  be  subject  to  forced  labour.  The  Constitutional  Court  rejected  the  case, 
arguing, quite unpersuasively, that the Public Defender of Rights was not entitled to submit 
it.304  

The basic law on the state social security scheme is the Social Insurance Act.305 An integral 
part of the state social security system is also formed by the old-age pension scheme. The 
Social Insurance Act states that policyholders have rights in the exercise of social insurance 
in  compliance  with  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  in  social  security  established  in  the 
Anti-discrimination Act.  

The same applies to police officers, professional soldiers and soldiers in preparatory service 
under the Act on Social Security for Police Officers and Soldiers.306 

The Social Services Act307 regulates legal relations in connection with the provision of social 
services.308 The Social Services Act contains a principle of equal treatment clause and refers 
to  the  Anti-discrimination  Act,  as  does  the  Act  on  Benefits  for  Compensation  of  Serious 
Disability,309  which  regulates  legal  relationships  connected  with  providing  financial 
contributions aimed at compensating for the social consequences of ‘serious disabilities’. 

four children it is EUR 160.40 per month and so on (with the principle being the more people who are 
assessed together, the lower the average payment per person). 

302  Slovakia, Act No 406/2011 on Volunteerism and on changing and supplementing other laws (zákon č. 

406/2011 Z. z. o dobrovoľníctve a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov).  
303  See for example Balážová, G., Gallová Kriglerová, E., Chudžíková, A., Lajčáková, J., Surová, S., Števulová, 
Z. (2013), Menšinová politika na Slovensku v roku 2013 : Výročná správa (Minority Policies in Slovakia in 
2013 : Annual Report), Centrum pre výskum etnicity a kultúry, 2013, pp. 65-78, available at 
http://cvek.sk/mensinova-politika-na-slovensku-v-roku-2013-vyrocna-sprava/ (accessed 10 March 2017).  

304  Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, No. PL. ÚS 36/2015, 10 June 2015.  
305  Slovakia, Act No 461/2003 on Social Insurance as amended (zákon č. 461/2003 Z. z. o sociálnom poistení v 

znení neskorších predpisov). 

306  Slovakia, Act No 328/2002 on Social Security for Police Officers and Soldiers and on amending and 

supplementing certain acts as amended (zákon č. 328/2002 Z. z. o sociálnom zabezpečení policajtov a 
vojakov a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov). 

307  Slovakia, Act No 448/2008 on Social Services and on amending and supplementing Act No 455/1991 on 
Licensed Trades (Small Business Act), as amended (zákon č. 448/2008 Z. z. o sociálnych službách a o 
zmene a doplnení zákona č. 455/1991 Z. z. o živnostenskom podnikaní (živnostenský zákon) v znení 
neskorších predpisov). 

308  A social service is defined as `expert activity, service activity or other activity or activities aimed at a) the 

prevention of the development of an unfavourable social situation, resolving an unfavourable social situation 
or mitigating the unfavourable social situation of a natural person, family or community; b) sustaining, 
renewing or developing the capacity of a natural person to conduct an independent life and supporting their 
integration into society; c) maintaining the conditions necessary to satisfy the basic needs of a natural 
person; d) resolving a critical social situation affecting a natural person and their family; e) the prevention 
of social exclusion of a natural person and their family´. See Slovakia, Social Services Act, 448/2008, 
Section 2(1).  

309  Slovakia, Act on benefits for compensation of serious disability, 447/2008. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
The  Act  on  Old-Age  Pension  Saving  contains  a  prohibition  of  discrimination  clause 
formulated as a referral to the Anti-discrimination Act.310 Similarly, according to the Act on 
Supplementary  Pension  Saving,  discrimination  in  the  performance  of  supplementary 
pension saving is prohibited in compliance with the Anti-discrimination Act, unless the Act 
on Supplementary Pension Saving states otherwise.311  

The  right  to  healthcare  guaranteed  under  the  Act  on  Healthcare,  like  the  right  to  social 
security, goes beyond the scope of Directive 2000/43 in terms of the grounds covered. The 
act contains a principle of equal treatment clause and refers to the Anti-discrimination Act 
(for grounds, see section 2.1 above).312 

Policyholders (in the field of health insurance) have rights in the exercise of public health 
insurance in accordance with the principle of  equal treatment in healthcare regulated in 
the Anti-discrimination Act.313 

The only case dealing with multiple discrimination in the  field of social protection, social 
security and healthcare decided by a national court based on anti-discrimination legislation 
is  the  case  on  the  discrimination  against  Roma  women  in  state  social  support/social 
advantages  in  connection  with  birth  benefits  decided  by  District  Court  Bratislava  I  (see 
section 3.2.7 below) now pending before the appeal court.314 Another case of discrimination 
against Roma women in the provision of healthcare (segregation in maternity hospitals) is 
still pending before the first instance court.  

3.2.6.1  Article 3.3 exception (Directive 2000/78) 

The  social  insurance,  old-age  pension  insurance  and  state  social  support  schemes  are 
guaranteed and administered by the state. The providers of social services are, to a large 
extent, public bodies (municipalities, self-governing regions  or legal persons established 
by them). This means that national law does not rely on the exception in Article 3(3) of 
Directive 2000/78 and the principle of equal treatment is also guaranteed in the state social 
security and social protection schemes. 

3.2.7  Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43) 

In  Slovakia,  national  legislation  prohibits  discrimination  in  the  following  area:  social 
advantages as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive, although judicial interpretation 
is required regarding social advantages provided by pieces of legislation/regulations other 
than laws. 

Section 5(2)(a) (to be read in conjunction with Section 5(1)) of the Anti-discrimination Act 
prohibits discrimination on all the grounds contained within it (see  section 2.1 above) in 
the area of, inter alia, access to and provision of social advantages. However, the duty to 

310  Slovakia, Act No 43/2004 on Old-Age Pension Saving and amending and supplementing certain laws, as 
amended (zákon č. 43/2004 Z.z. o starobnom dôchodkovom sporení a o zmene a doplnení niektorých 
zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov), Section 9. 

311  Slovakia, Act on Supplementary Pension Saving, 650/2004, Section 7(1). The purpose of supplementary 
pension saving is to enable a participant in the pension scheme to acquire a supplementary retirement 
income in old age and a supplementary retirement income after termination of a hazardous occupation (in 
accordance with the legal classifications), or after termination of work as a dance artist or a musician 
playing a wind instrument. Within the framework of supplementary pension insurance, an employer pays, 
on the ground of a contract, a regular contribution for employees to a supplementary pension company.  
312  Slovakia, Act No 576/2004 on Healthcare, Services Related to the Provision of Healthcare and on amending 
and supplementing certain acts, as amended (zákon č. 576/2004 Z. z. o zdravotnej starostlivosti, službách 
súvisiacich s poskytovaním zdravotnej staroslivosti a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov), Section 
11(2)-(6). 

313  Slovakia, Act No 580/2004 on Health Insurance and on amendment and supplementation of Act No 95/2002 
on Insurance and on amending and supplementing certain laws, as amended (zákon č. 580/2004 Z. z. o 
zdravotnom poistení a o zmene a doplnení zákona č. 95/2002 Z. z. o poisťovníctve a o zmene a doplnení 
niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov), Section 29. 

314   Decision of the District Court Bratislava I, No 12C 231/2010, 16 May 2014. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
observe the principle of equal treatment in the area of social advantages only applies  ‘in 
connection with special laws’ in this field (see below for a more detailed explanation). 

The  Anti-discrimination  Act  does  not  contain  any  definition  of  social  advantages.  The 
interpretation of the concept will therefore depend on future practice and potential judicial 
interpretation.  

Some of the categories within the concept of social advantages as defined by the CJEU are 
defined  and  regulated  under  the  statutory  system  of  the  state  social  security  scheme 
(constituting ‘state social support’) for which the principle of equal treatment as defined 
by the Anti-discrimination Act also applies (see section 3.2.6 above). This is the case, for 
example, for childbirth grants and funeral grants. 

Within the context of state social support as defined by Slovak legislation and at the same 
time  within  the  context  of  social  advantages  as  defined  by  CJEU,  Act  383/2013  on 
Childbirth Allowance and on Allowance for More Concurrently Born Children appears to be 
very problematic as it is in breach of Directive 2000/43. In particular, it contains provisions 
on providing childbirth allowance that have discriminatory effects on Roma women (but in 
principle, also on all women in general).  

Section 3(4)(b) of the act conditions a payment of a state childbirth allowance upon not 
leaving the maternity hospital in a way that conflicts with a legal regulation on releasing a 
patient  from  a  facility-based  healthcare.315  The  provision  referred  to  is  the  Act  on 
Healthcare,  which  stipulates  that  in  situations  when  a  release  is  not  medically 
substantiated, healthcare providers are obliged to release a patient from a facility-based 
healthcare  if  the  patient  requests  them  to  do  so.316  However,  the  formulation  of  the 
relevant provisions,  the lack  of  mechanisms guaranteeing  that  requests  for  release  are 
handled by the hospital staff, and the common and normalised practice of detaining all 
women in maternity hospitals for 3 to 5 days upon childbirth, all create an impression that 
women must follow a special procedure when they wish to leave a maternity hospital, or 
that they have special duties to  fulfil in order to leave a hospital. Such legal regulation 
creates  situations  of  uncertainty  and  a  power  imbalance  that  prevents  women  from 
deciding freely and voluntarily about the length of their stay in a maternity hospital after 
childbirth.  The  situation  has  a  disproportionate  effect  on  Roma  women,  who,  in  many 
cases, leave the hospital because of caring responsibilities for other children and as a result 
of  discrimination  and hostility  in  the  hospital  –  in  most  cases  they  come  back  to  collect 
their child.317  

Although  some  of  the  Roma  women  affected  by  this  measure  have  filed  law  suits  and 
received their childbirth allowances, the courts deciding the cases, including the Supreme 
Court of the Slovak Republic, did not deal with the  claimants’ argumentation concerning 
indirect discrimination. The challenged provision is now subject to proceedings initiated by 
an  actio  popularis  that  was  filed  by  the  Centre  for  Civil  and  Human  Rights  (see  section 
2.1.2). The case is pending before the second instance court, after having been dismissed 
by the court of first instance.318  

315  This is the wording of Section 3(4)(b) as of 30 June 2014 (after an amendment of the act No 185/2014). 
Before this amendment, Section 3(4)(b) of the Act on Childbirth Allowance and on Allowance for More 
Concurrently Born Children, 383/2013 stipulated that a woman who leaves her child in the maternity 
hospital following his or her birth, without prior consent from the maternity hospital, has no right to 
childbirth allowance. 

316  Slovakia, Healthcare Act, 576/2004, Section 9(6)(c). Section 9(6)(c) of the Healthcare Act reads as follows: 
‘[A healthcare provider shall release a person from a facility-based care] upon her own request, or upon the 
request of her legal representative if she, despite an adequate amount of information received, refuses the 
facility-based care, unless the facility-based care is ordered by a court or unless a facility-based care the 
legality of which is decided upon by a court is at stake.’ 

317  If women want to leave maternity hospital, they are often told that they may leave, but that the child has to 

remain in the hospital (which is, of course, against the law).  

318  Decision of the District Court Bratislava I, No 12C 231/2010, 16 May 2014.  

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Other  provisions  of  the  same  act  can  also  be  held  to  be  discriminatory  towards  Roma 
women (but they can also be discriminatory towards other women). For example, Section 
3(4)(a)  of  the  act  states  that  entitlement  to  the  childbirth  allowance  only  exists  if  the 
mother has visited a gynaecologist once a month from the fourth month of her pregnancy 
until giving birth. For the reasons outlined above (discrimination against Roma women in 
healthcare  facilities,  caring  responsibilities  etc.),  this  provision  is  equally  discriminatory 
and should be abolished.319  

In 2015, the Centre for Civil and Human Rights issued  analyses of specific provisions of 
domestic  legislation  that  are  incompatible  with  anti-discrimination  legislation  and 
constitute indirect discrimination. Aside from the provisions mentioned above, the centre 
also identified other discriminatory provisions, specifically Section 4(3) of the Parental Care 
Allowance Act, 571/2009 and Article 12a of the Child Allowance Act, 600/2003.320  

In Slovakia, the lack of definition of social advantages does not raise problems. This may, 
however, also be a result of the fact that so far, there have not been any cases where non-
discrimination in the field of social advantages would be invoked.  

However, a problem with regard to social advantages is the statutory provision contained 
in Section 3(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act, stipulating that the right to equal treatment 
only applies in connection with another substantive right provided for by  law. Given the 
fact that many of the benefits that come within the scope of social advantages would be 
provided by generally binding legal enactments other than laws (for example, Government 
decrees, ministerial ordinances, generally binding ordinances of self-governing bodies or 
municipalities  etc.),  this  legislative  solution  raises  serious  doubts  as  to  whether  the 
transposition of the directives is correct.  

By  reducing  the  scope  of  rights  to  be  applied  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  equal 
treatment  to  those  that  are  regulated  by  special  ‘laws’,  the  public  authorities  can  easily 
circumvent the directives by adopting measures of lower legal force than laws (although 
this particular issue has not yet been raised in the courts). 

3.2.8  Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43) 

In Slovakia, national legislation prohibits discrimination in the following area: education as 
formulated in the Racial Equality Directive. 

Sections 5(1) and 5(2)(c) of the Anti-discrimination Act stipulate the duty to observe the 
principle of equal treatment and prohibit discrimination on all the grounds contained within 
the act, including in the area of  education. The  section refers (in its footnotes) to  other 
acts  that  regulate  legal  relations  in  education,  in  particular  to  Act  131/2002  on  Higher 
Education,  Act  386/1997  on  Further  Education  (abolished  by  Act  568/2009  on  Lifelong 
Learning  which  contains  no  anti-discrimination  clause),  and  Act  5/2004  on  Employment 
Services, as amended. The list of such acts is not exhaustive. 

319  It is also discriminatory against all women in principle, as it interferes with their right to decide freely on 

various aspects of their reproductive health.  

320  Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva (Centre for Civil and Human Rights) (2015), ‘Monitoring vybraných 
právnych predpisov a analýza ich nesúladu s antidiskriminačným právom’ (The monitoring of specific 
legislation and analyses of their incompatibility with anti-discrimination law) available in Slovak at 
https://www.poradna-prava.sk/sk/dokumenty/monitoring-vybranych-pravnych-predpisov-a-analyza-ich-
nesuladu-s-antidiskriminacnym-pravom/ (accessed 10 March 2017); see also European Roma Rights Centre 
and Center for Civil and Human Rights (2015), Written Comments Concerning Slovakia for Consideration by 
the Committee on the Rights of the Child at the 72nd Pre-Sessional Working Group (5 - 9 October 2015) 
available at https://www.poradna-prava.sk/en/documents/written-comments-for-the-un-committee-on-the-
rights-of-the-child/ (accessed 10 March 2017).  

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
The  Schools  Act  establishes  ‘equal  access  to  education,  taking  into  account  the  special 
educational needs of the individual and her/his responsibility for her/his education’,321 as 
well as the ‘prohibition of all forms of discrimination, and especially segregation’,322 as two 
of  the  principles  on  which  education  should  be  based.  The  act  also  defines  ‘school 
integration’ as ‘education of children and pupils with special educational needs in school 
classes  and  school  facilities  designed  for  children  or  pupils  without  special  educational 
needs’.323 

Foreigners/migrants  and  nationals  benefit  equally  from  domestic  anti-discrimination 
legislation law enforcement and implementation in education.  

Children  of  foreigners/migrants  with  residence  in  the  territory  of  the  Slovak  Republic, 
asylum  seekers  and  Slovaks  living  abroad  are  provided  with  upbringing  and  education, 
accommodation and meals at schools under the same conditions as citizens of the Slovak 
Republic,  which  means  that  they  can  study  at  state  (not  private  nor  religious  schools) 
schools free of charge and they may also borrow basic textbooks free of charge. Basic and 
advanced Slovakian language courses are organised for children of foreigners/migrants to 
eliminate language barriers at primary and secondary schools.324 

The Schools Act has a specific provision on education of foreigners in Section 146, which 
establishes the definitions and conditions of providing education for children of foreigners, 
as mentioned above.325 

As  for  providing  education  for  adult  foreigners,  the  Constitution  of  the  Slovak  Republic 
entitles  foreigners,  among  other  things,  to  education-related  rights.  According  to  Article 
33 of the Slovak Constitution, the fact of belonging to any national minority or ethnic group 
must not be used to the detriment of any individual. This principle is also reflected in the 
legislation governing education and applies to access to education for adult foreigners.  

Under  Article  34  of  the  Slovak  Constitution,  citizens  belonging  to  national  minorities  or 
ethnic  groups  in  the  Slovak  Republic  are  guaranteed  their  universal  development, 
particularly the rights to promote their culture together with other members of the minority 
or group, to disseminate and receive information in their mother tongues, to associate in 
national  minority  associations  and  to  establish  and  maintain  educational  and  cultural 
institutions.  In  addition  to  the  right  to  learn  the  official  language,  citizens  belonging  to 
national minorities or ethnic groups are, under the conditions laid down by law, guaranteed 
the right to be educated in their own language. 

An  especially  important  area  is  the  recognition  of  certificates  and  diplomas,  which  is 
regulated by Act No. 422/2015.326 

a) 

Pupils with disabilities  

In  Slovakia,  the  general  approach  to  education  for  pupils  with  disabilities  does  raise 
problems.  In  general,  it  can  be  said  that  the  way  in  which  the  system  of  education  is 
designed  (not  only  in  terms  of  legislation  but  also  in  terms  of  the  everyday  practice) 
perpetuates the exclusion of pupils with disabilities from mainstream education.  

Sections 94-102 of the Schools Act contain provisions on children and pupils with a ‘health 
disadvantage’. A child or pupil with a ‘health disadvantage’ is defined, in Section 2(k) of 

321  Slovakia, Schools Act, 245/2008, Section 3(c). 
322  Slovakia, Schools Act, 245/2008, Section 3(d).  
323  Slovakia, Schools Act, 245/2008, Section 2(s). However, the act does not define in more detail what such 

integration would mean.  

324  For more details see also http://www.mic.iom.sk/en/social-issues/education/266-education-in-slovakia.html 

(accessed 10 March 2017).  

325  Slovakia, Schools Act, 245/2008, Section 146.  
326  For more details see information available at http://www.mic.iom.sk/en/social-issues/education/266-

education-in-slovakia.html (accessed 10 March 2017). 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
the act, as a child or pupil with a ‘disability’, who is ‘ill or their health is impaired’, who has 
‘developmental disorders’, or a ‘behavioural disorder’. A child or a pupil with disability is 
defined  in  Section  2(l)  to  mean  a  child  or  a  pupil  with  a  ‘mental327  disability,  hearing 
impairment,  visual  impairment,  physical  impairment,  communication  ability  disorder, 
autism,  or  with  other  pervasive  developmental  disorders,  or  with  multiple  disabilities’. 
Section 94 states that the education of children and pupils with health disadvantage should 
take place in schools for children with health disadvantages (called ‘special schools’) or in 
other  schools  (kindergarten,  primary  school,  secondary  schools,  practical  schools  and 
training institutions), either in special classes or in classes or educational groups together 
with other children/pupils of the school (in which case the child/pupil can have an individual 
educational programme).  

The  act  itself  does  not  state  on  what  criteria  the  choice  between  these  three  forms  of 
schooling for children/pupils with health disadvantages should be made. Given the fact that 
many schools – in terms of premises, facilities and staff – are not adapted to the needs of 
children with health disadvantages, it is likely that many children are put in special schools 
unnecessarily, and in breach of the principle of inclusive education and non-segregation. 
However, that allegation can only be substantiated with anecdotal and empirical evidence, 
rather than with complex and reliable data.  

Another matter of serious concern is diagnostics. A type of institution authorised to carry 
out  diagnostics  is  a  centre  for  special  pedagogical  counselling;  such  centres  are  often 
attached  to  special  schools  or  are  staffed  by  employees  of  special  schools.  This  raises 
serious concerns about the possibility of a conflict of interests.328 

In  2015,  the  Supreme  Court  decided  an  important  case  regarding  the  right  to  inclusive 
education  of  children  with  disabilities.329  The  claimant  was  a  female  child  with  an 
intellectual  disability  and  a  hearing  impairment  who  was  refused  enrolment  at  a 
mainstream primary school.  

The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the director of the mainstream school and that 
of the local government district and ordered the latter to continue conducting proceedings 
in the case. It applied the CRPD and noted that, according to the Slovak Constitution, the 
CRPD is a part of the Slovak legal order and takes precedence over the national legislation, 
and  hence  it  was  the  duty  of  the  school  director  and  the  local  government  district  to 
interpret the provisions of the Schools Act in accordance with it. The Supreme Court noted 
that the defendant’s argument that the inability of a mainstream school to provide special 
conditions for a child with special educational needs justifies non-enrolment of such a child 
at this school cannot be accepted in this case, mainly because the case file did not contain 
any evidence on whether the school director was actively trying to create special conditions 
for the complainant. The Supreme Court also noted that neither the school director, nor 
the  local  government  district,  nor  the  regional  court  specified  what  comprised  the 
disproportionate or excessive burden for the realisation of reasonable accommodation.  

For further detail about the case, see section 2.6.d.  

b) 

Trends and patterns regarding Roma pupils 

In Slovakia, there are specific patterns existing in education regarding Roma pupils, such 
as segregation. 

327  In Slovak, the act uses the word `mental´ (and not, for example,`intellectual´).  
328  See Kubánová, M., Košťál, C., Beblavý, M. (2009), 'Základné a stredné školstvo´ (Primary and Secondary 
Schooling), in: Kollár, M., Mesežnikov, G., Bútora, M. (eds.), Slovensko 2008: Súhrnná správa o stave 
spoločnosti (Slovakia 2008: A Global Report on the State of Society), Bratislava, Inštitút pre verejné otázky, 
p. 539.  

329  Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, No. 7Sžo/83/2014, 24 September 2015. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
The  segregation  of  Roma  children  in  education  is  a  very  widespread  problem,  already 
documented  in  many  reports  by  national  and  international  NGOs,330  as  well  as  by  the 
reports  of  the  Slovak  National  Centre  for  Human  Rights  (the  equality  body)331  and  the 
Slovak  ombudswoman.332  Notably,  Slovakia  faces  infringement  proceedings  by  the 
European  Commission  for  violating  the  EU  Racial  Equality  Directive  in  the  practice  of 
discriminating against Roma children in special and mainstream education systems.333 

One form of segregation of Roma children in education is their placement in ‘special classes’ 
or  ‘special  schools’.  The  legal  provisions  listed  in  the  section  above  on  educating  pupils 
with  disabilities  and  with  a  health  disadvantage  in  special  schools  or  special  classes  are 
also often relied upon when placing Roma pupils in these schools or classes. This happens 
after misdiagnosing Roma children with intellectual disabilities (in Slovak, the term ‘mental 
disability’ is used).  

The amendment of the Schools Act of 30 June 2015 introduced the ability to establish so-
called ‘specialised classes’. Under Section 29(11) of the Schools Act, primary schools may, 
after  obtaining  approval  from  the  school  founder,  establish  a  ‘specialised  class’  for  the 
education  of  those  pupils  who  are  ‘not  likely  to  successfully  manage  the  content  of 
education in the corresponding year, in order to compensate them for the lacking content 
of  education’.  Pursuant  to  this  provision,  the  decision  to  place  a pupil  in  the  specialised 
class  is  taken  by  the  school  director  upon  a proposal  from  the  class  teacher,  following 
consultation  with  an  educational  counsellor,  and  after  informed  consent  from  a legal 
representative  of  the  pupil has  been  obtained.  The  placement  in  a  specialised  class  can 
only last for the period of unavoidable need and it cannot exceed one school year.  

The Schools Act stipulates that ‘a child or a pupil whose educational needs stem exclusively 
from  their  development  in  a socially  disadvantaged  environment  cannot  be  placed  in 
special schools or special classes’ (meaning special schools or special classes for children 
with disabilities or a health disadvantage – see the previous section),334 and the education 
of children from socially disadvantaged environments must be pursued through ‘individual 
conditions’,  meaning  the  adjustments  of  the  organisation  of  education  on  the  one  hand 
and the environment in which education is taking place on the other, as well as the use of 
special  methods  and  forms  of  education.335  Children  from  socially  disadvantaged 
backgrounds are to be placed into classes ‘together with other children or pupils’. This rule, 
however, does not apply to cases of placing pupils in zero grade classes336 (with informed 
consent of the legal representative; for more information on zero grade classes, see section 

330  See for example European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (2014), ECRI Report on Slovakia 

(fifth monitoring cycle), CRI(2014)37, points 125-132, available at 
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Slovakia/SVK-CbC-V-2014-037-ENG.pdf 
(accessed 10 March 2017).  

331  See Slovenské národné stredisko pre ľudské práva (2016), Správa o dodržiavaní ľudských práv vrátane 

zásady rovnakého zaobchádzania v Slovenskej republike za rok 2015 (Report on the observance of human 
rights including the observance of the principle of equal treatment in the Slovak Republic for the year 2015), 
p. 40, available in English at 
http://www.snslp.sk/CCMS/files/2015_Report_on_the_observance_of_human_rights_including_the_principl
e_of_equal_treatment.pdf (accessed 10 March 2017).  

332  See for example Kancelária verejného ochrancu práv (2013), Správa verejnej ochrankyne práv 

o uplatňovaní práva na vzdelanie detí/žiakov príslušníkov rómskej národnostnej menšiny so špeciálnymi 
výchovno-vzdelávacími potrebami (Report of the Public Defender of Rights on the Observance of the Right 
to Education of Pupils/Children, Representatives of Roma National Minority, with Special Educational Needs), 
available at http://www.vop.gov.sk/files/Sprava%20VOP-Vzdelavanie%20Romov.pdf (accessed 10 March 
2017).  

333  The European Commission gave formal notice about starting these infringement proceedings against the 

Slovakia on 29 April 2015. For more information see e.g. Equinet (2015), ‘European Commission’s decision 
to initiate infringement proceedings against Slovakia’, www.euroactiv.com, 30 April 2015. Available at: 
http://www.equineteurope.org/European-Commission-s-decision-to, (accessed on 20 April 2017). 

334  Slovakia, Schools Act, 245/2008, Section 107(2).  
335  Slovakia, Schools Act, 245/2008, Section 107(1).  
336  Zero grade classes can be established pursuant to Section 60(4) of the Schools Act. 

80 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
5.b),  and  to  placing  pupils  in  a  ‘specialised  class’  pursuant  to  Section  29(11)  (see  the 
previous paragraph).337  

In  summary,  Slovakian  domestic  legislation  still  retains  the  concept  of  a child unable  to 
meet the demands of the system, instead of pursuing the concept of adjusting the system 
to meet the different needs of different children. Furthermore, the main problem, which is 
the  misdiagnosis  and  stigmatisation  of  Roma  children  as  ‘mentally  disabled’  and 
subsequently  placing  them  in  ‘special’  classes/schools,  as  well  as  other  forms  of 
segregation of Roma children in education still persists (for other forms of segregation, see 
below for more detail).  

The lowest estimations for the percentages of Roma children in special schools and special 
classes  are  59.4  %  for  special  primary  schools  and  85.8  %  for  special  classes  within 
standard schools.338 Special classes/special schools for children with intellectual disabilities 
follow reduced curricula and thus offer very limited opportunities for subsequent education. 
The poor diagnostics leading to the placement of Roma children in these classes/schools 
results  from,  for  example:  universal  diagnostic  tools  not  being  adjusted  to  the  specific 
social circumstances and needs of Roma children; the relative inability of Roma people to 
speak the official language of Slovakia; the fact that their social skills may not be adapted 
to the conventions of the majority population; the general cultural bias of the diagnostic 
tests  and  the  lack  of  time  that  the  person  conducting  the  diagnostic  tests  has  for  each 
child339 etc.340 Due to various factors (such as fear of discrimination and stigmatisation and 
hence  poor  performance,  distance  from  the  mainstream  school  and  so  on),  sometimes 
parents  also  support  the  education  of  their  children  in  special  schools.  Another  factor 
contributing to the segregation of Roma children in special schools/classes is the system 
of subsidies for children in special schools/classes, in which the subsidies are higher than 
the subsidies for children in mainstream schools.341 

School  segregation,  however,  exists  not  only  through  the  placing  of  Roma  children  in 
special schools or classes. It very often happens within standard mainstream schools (for 
example, segregated classes and floors, segregation within classes and segregated dining, 
all  of  which  are  usually  also  of  lower  quality  when  compared  to  the  education  and 
education-related benefits provided to non-Roma children).  

This  type  of  segregation  also  happens  because  school  authorities  are  afraid,  due  to  the 
racial bias/hatred that is omnipresent in society, of losing non-Roma children and thereby 

337  Slovakia, Schools Act, 245/2008, Section 107(3).  
338  See Friedman, E., Gallová Kriglerová, E., Kubánová, M., Slosiarik, M. (2009) Škola ako geto: Systematické 
nadmerné zastúpenie Rómov v špeciálnom vzdelávaní na Slovensku [School as ghetto: A systemic over-
representation of Roma in special education in Slovakia], Roma Education Fund, p. 22.  

339  On racially discriminatory diagnostics, see the report of the Slovak ombudswoman of 2014 - Verejná 

ochrankyňa práv (Public Defender of Rights) (2014), Správa verejnej ochrankyne práv: Vplyv testovania 
školskej spôsobilosti na základné práva dieťaťa z nepodnetného prostredia s kultúrnou, sociálnou, jazykovou 
bariérou, najmä z rómskej národnostnej menšiny (Report of the Public Defender of Rights: The Impact of 
Testing of the School Eligibility on the Fundamental Rights of the Child from a Non-Challenging Environment 
with a Cultural, Social, Language Barrier, Mainly from the Roma National Minority), p. 9, available at 
http://www.vop.gov.sk/files/Sprava%20VOP%20FINALNA%20VERZIA.pdf (accessed 10 March 2017). 
Anecdotal evidence shows that the person doing the diagnostic tests sometimes examines as many as 30 
children per day. 

340  The law does not stipulate any clear rules for re-diagnostics. The report of the Slovak ombudswoman of 

2014 (Verejná ochrankyňa práv (Public Defender of Rights) (2014), Správa verejnej ochrankyne práv: Vplyv 
testovania školskej spôsobilosti na základné práva dieťaťa z nepodnetného prostredia s kultúrnou, sociálnou, 
jazykovou bariérou, najmä z rómskej národnostnej menšiny (Report of the Public Defender of Rights: The 
Impact of Testing of the School Eligibility on the Fundamental Rights of the Child from a Non-Challenging 
Environment with a Cultural, Social, Language Barrier, Mainly from the Roma National Minority), pp. 9 and 
13, available at http://www.vop.gov.sk/files/Sprava%20VOP%20FINALNA%20VERZIA.pdf (accessed 10 
March 2017), also showed that in majority of the cases, in the diagnostic facilities that were surveyed for 
the purposes of drafting the report, the diagnostics and re-diagnostics are carried out by the same person 
(see p. 11 of the report).  

341  Every year, each school receives a certain amount of money per pupil from the public funds. This represents 

the main source of income for schools to enable their everyday functioning.  

81 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
the subsidies from the state that are based on the numbers of children on school rolls. It 
is also not unusual to find purely Roma schools.342 According to the results of the EU-MIDIS 
II  survey  from  November  2016,  22  %  of  Roma  children  in  Slovakia  are  educated  in 
segregated Roma-only schools.343 

The first, and so far the only final case on the segregation of Roma children in education 
was  decided  by  the  district  court  in  Prešov  in  December  2011  and  the  regional  court  in 
Prešov in October 2012, based on the actio popularis lawsuit filed by the NGO Centre for 
Civil and Human Rights.344 The courts decided that education of Roma children in separate 
mainstream classes amounts to racial discrimination and undermines the human dignity of 
segregated Roma children.  

The decision of the regional court also addressed the wider societal context and offered its 
views  and  arguments  on  why  segregation  is  unacceptable,  on  the  meaning  of  human 
dignity  in  the  context  of  (non-)segregation,  on  the  importance  and  benefits  of  inclusive 
education, and on the importance of actio popularis.  

The court decisions attracted a lot of media attention, which not only publicised the case 
but also served as a forum for heated debate by many of the parties involved. However, 
things have not changed in practice and there are no systemic and systematic attempts on 
the  part  of  the  Slovak  Government  to  eliminate  the  practice  of  segregation  of  Roma 
children in education. The Government has since introduced measures and allows practices 
that show clear signs of being new methods of segregation of Roma children in education 
and  ways  of  perpetuating  such  segregation.  One  of  them  is  the  concept  of  ‘container 
schools’ – schools of a lighter building structure that are relatively easy and fast to build. 
These  schools  are  often  built  in  segregated  Roma  settlements  (the  current  unofficial 
estimates state that there are  already tens  of  such schools) where the capacities of the 
existing schools do not meet the educational needs of the child population and where public 
money  is  used  for  the  school’s  construction.345  In  the  author’s  view,  the  Government  is 
supporting  a  practice  that  perpetuates  further  segregation  of  Roma  children,  instead  of 
supporting  solutions  that  would  include  the  children  in  mainstream  education  (e.g.  by 
subsidising school buses that would transport children from these settlements on a daily 
basis).  

Another emerging practice is that of establishing external branches to vocational schools 
that are already a part of the official secondary education system. Many of these external 
branches are placed very close to segregated Roma settlements.346 In March 2015, 56 of 
such branches were relocated away from 25 state schools, and at the end of 2014, 36 of 

342  For more information on the segregation of Roma children in education, see also Centre for Civil and Human 
Rights, European Roma Rights Centre (2015), Written Comments concerning Slovakia for Consideration by 
the Committee on the Rights of The Child, pp. 4 - 7. Available online at: https://www.poradna-
prava.sk/en/documents/written-comments-for-the-un-committee-on-the-rights-of-the-child// (accessed 10 
March 2017). See also Rafael, V. (ed.); various authors (2011), (De)segregation of Roma pupils in Slovak 
educational system: Questions and answers, Bratislava, Nadácia otvorenej spoločnosti. The publication is 
available at http://www.eduroma.sk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/desegregacia.pdf (accessed 10 March 
2017).  

343  Second European Union and Discrimination Survey - Roma - Selected Findings (2016), section 2.3.2. 
344   The English translation of the decisions of the first and second instance courts is available online at 

https://www.poradna-prava.sk/en/documents/?type=decisions (accessed 10 March 2017).  

345  The project of container schools introduced by the Government in 2013 was also criticised by Amnesty 
International in its article from March 2015 based on its realised field monitoring. Available online at: 
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/03/slovakia-segretation-of-roma-schoolchildren-worsens/ 
(accessed 10 March 2017). The Centre for Civil and Human Rights is litigating a case against this type of 
school segregation, by an actio popularis, decided by the District Court Bratislava III, No 11 C 351/2015, on 
6 October 2016.  

346  For details about the policy and its implementation, see Balážová, Z. (2015) Elokované pracoviská 

stredných odborných škôl pri marginalizovaných rómskych komunitách: Cesta k začleneniu alebo vylúčeniu 
rómskej mládeže? (Elocated Branches Of Secondary Trade Schools Situated Near Marginalised Romani 
Communities: A path toward inclusion or exclusion of Romani youth?), CVEK – Centrum pre výskum etnicity 
a kultúry, available at http://cvek.sk/publikacie/ (accessed 10 March 2017).  

82 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
such branches were relocated away from 14 private schools.347 Apart from the geographical 
and ethnic segregation, the problem is that such schools offer courses/programmes with 
very low employability prospects (and some of them only last for two years), which often 
perpetuate gender stereotypes and stereotypes about the Roma (for example, one of the 
courses taught, called  ‘practical woman’, is aimed at teaching,  among other things, ‘the 
basics of hygiene’, ‘keeping and maintaining a household’, ‘basic principles of household 
economy’, ‘correct ways of storing and processing foodstuffs and preparing meals’, ‘correct 
uppbringing  and  caring  for  children’,  etc.),  and  are  generally  of  very  poor  quality.348  In 
addition, the state subsidy for a pupil enrolled at this type of external branch to a vocational 
school is about a double the subsidy for a pupil attending a regular secondary grammar 
school.349 Thus the system of financing these external branches does nothing but serve as 
an incentive for further segregation of Roma pupils in secondary education.  

Given  the  inability  of  the  Slovak  Government  to  effectively  address  the  segregation  of 
Roma children in education and facilitate their school inclusion, the NGO  Centre for Civil 
and  Human  Rights  is  currently  litigating  four  actio  popularis  cases  addressing  different 
forms  of  segregation  of  Roma  children  in  education.  Two  of  those  cases  address 
segregation of Roma children in segregated mainstream schools. Another case specifically 
addresses the segregation of Roma children in special classes for pupils with intellectual 
disabilities,  placed  separately  near  a  segregated  local  Roma  settlement,  and  which  is 
attended by 90 % of all school-age Roma children living in this settlement. The last case 
challenges the decision of a regional school office that has organised a local school district 
in  a  way  that  concentrates  Roma  children  in  one  school,  instead  of  supporting  their 
integration in other local schools.  

One  of  the  actio  popularis  cases  was  dismissed  by  the  district  court  in  Bratislava  on  6 
October 2016.350 In that case, the Centre for Civil and Human Rights argued that by not 
adopting effective measures to eliminate the segregation in a primary school in the town 
Stara  Ľubovňa,  the  municipality  and  the  responsible  State  authorities,  including  the 
Ministry  of  Education,  are  violating  domestic  and  international  anti-discrimination 
legislation.  Instead  of  adopting  remedial  measures  to  eliminate  discrimination,  they 
expanded  the  capacity  of  this  primary  school  by  adding  a  new  container  following  the 
Government  project  mentioned  above.  In  its  decision,  the  district  court  reasoned  that 
Roma children are not segregated at the school since they are educated there based on 
their permanent residence in a given school district and not based on their ethnic origin. 
According to the court, no evidence had been presented that would prove Roma children 
are treated less favourably than children in other schools and thus are disadvantaged. For 
further detail about the case, see section 12.2 of this report.  

The other actio popularis cases litigated by the Centre for Civil and Human Rights are 
currently pending at first-instance courts.  

In addition, there are two cases currently pending before Slovak first-instance courts that 
specifically  address  the  illegal  placement  of  Roma  children  in  the  special  educational 

347  Balážová, Z. (2015) Elokované pracoviská stredných odborných škôl pri marginalizovaných rómskych 

komunitách: Cesta k začleneniu alebo vylúčeniu rómskej mládeže? (Elocated Branches Of Secondary Trade 
Schools Situated Near Marginalised Romani Communities: A path toward inclusion or exclusion of Romani 
youth?), CVEK, pp. 12-14.  

348  Balážová, Z. (2015) Elokované pracoviská stredných odborných škôl pri marginalizovaných rómskych 

komunitách: Cesta k začleneniu alebo vylúčeniu rómskej mládeže? (Elocated Branches Of Secondary Trade 
Schools Situated Near Marginalised Romani Communities: A path toward inclusion or exclusion of Romani 
youth?), CVEK, pp. 62-64, 65-66.  

349  Balážová, Z. (2015) Elokované pracoviská stredných odborných škôl pri marginalizovaných rómskych 

komunitách: Cesta k začleneniu alebo vylúčeniu rómskej mládeže? (Elocated Branches Of Secondary Trade 
Schools Situated Near Marginalised Romani Communities: A path toward inclusion or exclusion of Romani 
youth?), CVEK, pp. 64-65.  

350   Decision of the District Court Bratislava III in the case brought by the Centre for Civil and Human Rights 
against the State represented by the Ministry of Education and the city of Stara Lubovna from 6 October 
2016. No. 11C/351/2015-387. 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
system, which have been initiated directly by the affected individuals based on the Anti-
discrimination Act. The Centre for Civil and Human Rights provides representation for three 
Roma children arguing their illegal enrolment in special classes in the primary school in a 
village Hermanovce. To the knowledge of the author of this report another case addresses 
the  illegal  placement  of  Roma  children  in  a  special  school  in  a  village  called  Plavecký 
Štvrtok. The legal representation for the child affected in this case is provided by the NGO 
European Roma Rights Centre.  

To the best knowledge to the author of this report no cases regarding discrimination of 
migrants in education are pending before Slovak courts.351 

3.2.9  Access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services  which  are  available  to  the 

public (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) 

In Slovakia, national legislation in principle prohibits discrimination in the following area: 
access to and supply of goods and services as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive, 
although judicial interpretation is required regarding goods and services provided  on the 
basis of legislation/regulations other than laws (in practice, this would be mainly the case 
of public services provided by municipalities and self-governing regions). 

Sections 5(1) and 5(2)(d) of the Anti-discrimination Act prohibit discrimination on all the 
grounds  contained  in  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  (see  section  2.1  above)  in  conjunction 
with special laws in the area of access to and provision of  ‘goods and services including 
housing which are provided to the public by legal entities and natural persons [who are] 
entrepreneurs’. The formulation ‘in conjunction with special laws’ is very problematic, since 
it may potentially exclude goods and services provided on the basis of legal acts of lower 
legal  force  than  laws  (e.g.  governmental  regulations  or  ordinances  of  ministries)  or 
generally binding regulations of municipalities or self-governing regions (see section 3.2.7 
above for more details).  

3.2.9.1  Distinction between goods and services available publicly or privately 

In Slovakia, national law distinguishes between goods and services available to the public 
(e.g.  in  shops,  restaurants,  banks)  and  those  only  available  privately  (e.g.  limited  to 
members of a private association). 

The  wording  of  Sections  5(1)  and  5(2)(d)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  (see  the 
introductory text to this section, above) clearly shows that the application of the prohibition 
of discrimination will be limited to the sale of goods and provision of services carried out 
in public and targeted at the public. The provisions of the Anti-discrimination Act do not 
apply  to  goods  and  services  offered  or  provided  on  a  private  basis  (e.g.  providing  or 
offering goods to members of a private association, family etc.). 

3.2.10  Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) 

In Slovakia, national legislation in principle prohibits discrimination in the following area: 
housing as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive, although judicial interpretation is 
required regarding goods and services provided on the basis of legislation/regulations other 
than laws. 

Sections 5(1) and 5(2)(d) of the Anti-discrimination Act prohibit discrimination on all the 
grounds  contained  in  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  (see  section  2.1  above)  in  conjunction 
with  special  laws  existing  in  the  area  of  access  to  and  provision  of  ‘goods  and  services 

351   Information provided by NGOs working with foreigners/ migrants in Slovakia (League for Human Rights, 

International Organisation for Migration Bratislava and Marginal) to the author of this report in March 2017.  

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
including housing which are provided to the public by legal entities and natural persons 
[who are] entrepreneurs’. 

The act does not provide any definition of ‘housing’.  

What  is  problematic  is  the  link  to  ‘special  laws’,  which  must  contain  the  right  to 
housing/associated  rights  in  order  to  be  able  to  be  invoked  in  cases  of  breaches  of  the 
equal treatment principles (in connection to housing). This may hinder the rights stemming 
from  the  directives  being  invoked  in  cases  when  the  right  to  housing  and  related  rights 
would be regulated under types of generally binding legal acts other than laws (such as 
governmental  decrees,  ministerial  ordinances,  generally  binding  ordinances  of  self-
governing bodies or municipalities etc.; see also section 3.2.7). 

The  following  forms  of  accommodation  are  available  for  foreigners/migrants  living  in 
Slovakia:  rented  property,  personally  owned  flats  or  houses  and  facilities  providing 
accommodation services, such as hotels, guesthouses and hostels. There are also reception 
camps and accommodation centres of the Ministry  of  Interior of the Slovak Republic for 
asylum  seekers  and  various  integration  facilities  for  refugees  (those  who  have  been 
granted asylum) and children’s homes for unaccompanied minors. 

Asylum seekers and foreigners/migrants who have been granted asylum, may apply for a 
social flat within the existing allocation of these flats in some towns of the Slovak Republic. 
Asylum seekers also have the option to decide to find accommodation, according to their 
own means and abilities. Groups of migrants who are able to find living accommodation 
relatively easily are international students, interns or acquaintances of Slovak nationals. 

The  state  does  not  provide  assistance  with  finding  accommodation  to  other  groups  of 
migrants,  such  as  employed  foreigners  with  permanent  or  temporary  residence  permits 
and people with tolerated residence permits, although for some of them, proof of arranged 
accommodation  is  a  pre-condition  for  the  granting  of  a  residence  permit  in  the  Slovak 
Republic.352 Responsibility for acquiring one’s housing in the Slovak Republic is  given to 
the individual citizen. The state’s essential role is to create a stable market environment, 
allowing  households  to  procure  a  dwelling  adequate  to  their  income.  In  terms  of  state 
support,  foreigners  and  migrants  are  included  among  the  disadvantaged  groups  in  the 
housing market and are eligible to apply for rental dwellings designated for social housing. 
Third-country nationals may obtain a loan on preferable terms for the acquisition of housing 
provided by municipalities, when requirements stipulated by law are met. 

Foreigners/migrants  and  nationals  benefit  equally  from  domestic  anti-discrimination 
legislation law enforcement and implementation in housing.  

3.2.10.1  Trends and patterns regarding housing segregation for Roma 

In Slovakia there are patterns of housing segregation and discrimination against the Roma. 

The issue of Roma housing segregation has been increasing in scope and severity in recent 
years and comprises various aspects. Generally speaking, out of the 400 000 Roma living 
in  Slovakia,  only  46.5  %  live  scattered  among  the  majority.  The  rest  live  concentrated 
either  inside  municipalities  (11.5  %),  at  the  edge  of  municipalities  (23.6 %),  or  in 
(18.4  %).353  There  are  altogether  231  segregated 
segregated  settlements 
‘concentrations’,354 with the average distance from the closest municipality being 900 m 
(and the biggest distance being 7 km). Of the people living in the concentrations, 11 per 

352  For more details see http://www.mic.iom.sk/en/social-issues/housing/263-accommodation-options-for- 

foreigners-in-slovakia.html (accessed 10 March 2017). 

353 ATLAS rómskych komunít na Slovensku 2013 (Atlas on Roma Communities in Slovakia 2013) (2013), 

Available at: http://www.minv.sk/?atlas_2013, (accessed 10 March 2017).  

354  `Concentration´ is the term used in the Atlas on Roma Communities in Slovakia 2013. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
cent do not have access to drinking water. For 75 concentrations, there are only gravel or 
other country roads leading to the settlement.355 The further away a concentration  with 
Roma  inhabitants  is  from  a  municipality,  the  poorer  the  housing  conditions  of  its 
inhabitants.356  The  Slovak  Constitution  does  not  entrench  the  right  to  housing,  and  the 
Slovak Republic opted out of the provision on the right to housing in the Revised European 
Social Charter.  

Furthermore, Roma in Slovakia living in segregated settlements face  an increased threat 
of  forced  eviction. This  is due to changes in land-ownership and limited legal protection 
against  forced  evictions.  In  the  past  many  Roma  built  their  houses  on  state-owned 
property. However, due to the processes of land privatisation and decentralisation in the 
last  three  decades,  from  which  Roma  rarely  benefitted,  these  lands  are  now  owned  by 
private persons or municipalities who may at any time initiate demolition proceedings.357  

Governments in Slovakia have been implementing housing development programmes by 
means  of  which  low-cost  municipal  rental  apartments  and  technical  infrastructure  have 
been funded, and these programmes have proved to have some positive results (including 
increased quality of life and school attendance). However, at the same time they have also 
contributed  to  a  deepening  segregation  of  Roma  communities,  because  the  new 
apartments  were  not  built  within  municipalities  but  in  distant  localities,  often  with  very 
poor infrastructure. The construction quality of the newly built housing has also frequently 
been very poor and the housing is expensive to maintain.  

Another problem is that municipalities and towns often develop their local planning policies 
in an ethnically segregating manner.  

Under  Act  443/2010  on  Subsidies  for  Housing  Development  and  on  Social  Housing,  the 
state provides, inter alia, subsidies for obtaining rental apartments for the purposes of so-
called social housing.358 The entities entitled to such subsidies are, inter alia, municipalities 
or  higher  regional  units.359  When  applying  for  subsidies  under  the  act,  there  are  two 
different types of social housing between which the municipalities can decide: a) regular 
standard housing, b) lower standard housing.360 

Although complex and exhaustive data does not exist on the issue, it can be said that it is 
beyond any doubt that, in practice, it is almost exclusively Roma people who get lower-
standard social housing, and that it is very likely that it is mainly socially disadvantaged 
non-Roma people who benefit from regular standard social housing. 

The evidence (presented for example by NGO representatives) confirming the allegation 
that the lower-standard social housing is provided, almost exclusively, to Roma people, is 
mostly  anecdotal,  but  some  research  on  the  issue  has  been  conducted,  the  findings  of 

355  Prvé výsledky ATLASU rómskych komunít na Slovensku 2013 (The First Results of the Atlas on Roma 

Communities in Slovakia 2013) (2013). The first results provided selected summarised data from the Atlas 
(the document is available at http://www.minv.sk/?atlas_2013, accessed 10 March 2017).  

356  See for example Filadelfiová, J.(2013), Situačná analýza vybraných aspektov životnej úrovne domácností 
vylúčených rómskych osídlení (Situational Analysis of Selected Aspects of the Living Standard in Excluded 
Roma Settlement Households), Bratislava, UNDP, p. 8.  

357  See European Roma Rights Centre and Centre for Civil and Human Rights (2015), Written Comments 

concerning Slovakia for the UN Committee on the Rights of Child. Available online at: https://www.poradna-
prava.sk/en/documents/written-comments-for-the-un-committee-on-the-rights-of-the-child/ (accessed 10 
March 2017).  

358  See Slovakia, Act No 443/2010 on Subsidies for Housing Development and on Social Housing (zákon č. 

443/2010 Z. z. o dotáciách na rozvoj bývania a o sociálnom bývaní v znení neskorších prepdisov), Sections 
1 and 3(a), in conjunction with Section 4. 

359  See Slovakia, Act on Subsidies for Housing Development and on Social Housing, 443/2010, Section 7.  
360  These two types are defined in more detail in Slovakia, Act on Subsidies for Housing Development and on 

Social Housing, 443/2010, Section 2(1)(e) and (f).  

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
which confirms the anecdotal evidence.361 The research undertaken confirmed that in the 
great majority of cases in which housing provided for inhabitants of Roma settlements and 
that were subject to monitoring, municipalities preferred to provide lower-standard housing 
(49 out of 52 cases).362 

There are also other  structural barriers that  contribute to the fact that regular standard 
social  housing  is  practically  inaccessible  to  the  Roma.  The  regular  standard  of  social 
housing  is  often  conditioned  by  a  requirement  for  employment  (of  at  least  one  family 
member) or of a minimum level of income. Roma people are much less likely to meet such 
requirements than the non-Roma population.  

In  connection  with lower-standard  social  housing  and  its  almost  exclusive  availability  to 
Roma  people  only,  it  is  also  important  to  note  that  the  overall  funding  for  this  type  of 
housing provided by the Government has been dramatically reduced in the last few years. 
Also the requirements on the standards for such housing are reducing (e.g. a reduction in 
the  minimum  size  of  the  apartments,  a  lowering  of  the  requirements  in  relation  to 
equipment and sanitation etc.). When considered together with the fact that it is almost 
exclusively the Roma who are provided with this type of social housing, it is clear that the 
regulation and practice is, at least, indirectly discriminatory. 

During  2016,  the  Office  of  the  Plenipotentiary  of  the  Slovak  Government  for  the  Roma 
Communities facilitated the process of updating action plans in relation to the ‘Strategy of 
the Slovak Republic for Roma Itegration to 2020’. The action plans cover housing and its 
goals include reducing residential segregation of marginalised Roma communities. By 31 
December 2016 the updated action plans had not been adopted by the Slovak Government.  

A  case  alleging  discrimination  in  housing  has  been  pending  before  national  courts  since 
2008. The case concerns moving Roma families who previously lived in the centre of the 
town of Sabinov (Eastern Slovakia) in commercially attractive houses (mainly by virtue of 
their  location)  to  a  new  location  one  kilometre  from  the  town  boundary.  The  new  area 
chosen  by  the  municipality  was  totally  isolated  from  the  town  and  had  very  poor 
infrastructure. At the beginning of 2008, the claimants’ representative submitted a legal 
action claiming discrimination in provision of housing based on the intentional segregation 
of a group of people of Roma origin, making reference to the prohibition of discrimination 
in  the  provision  of  housing  in  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  and  to  the  International 
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. After several decisions 
of the district court were overturned by the appeal court’s decision to dismiss the claim, 
the case is now pending before the Slovak Supreme Court.363 

To the author’s best knowledge there are no cases of discrimination  against migrants in 
housing pending before domestic courts.364  

361  Hojsík, M. (2008), Evaluácia programu obecných nájomných bytov v rómskych osídleniach (Evaluation of 

the Programme of Municipal Rental Apartments in Roma Settlements), Bratislava, Nadácia Milana Šimečku, 
available at 
http://www.nadaciamilanasimecku.sk/fileadmin/user_upload/dokumenty/Ine/Evalu__cia_FINAL.pdf 
(accessed 10 March 2017).  

362  Hojsík, M. (2008), Evaluácia programu obecných nájomných bytov v rómskych osídleniach (Evaluation of 

the Programme of Municipal Rental Apartments in Roma Settlements), Bratislava, Nadácia Milana Šimečku, 
pp. 3-4 and 21, available at 
http://www.nadaciamilanasimecku.sk/fileadmin/user_upload/dokumenty/Ine/Evalu__cia_FINAL.pdf 
(accessed 10 March 2017).  

363  Decision of the District Court in Prešov, No. 25 C 197/2007 – 585, 15 June 2009; Decision of the Regional 
Court in Prešov, No. 13 Co/44/2009 – 655, 13 May 2010; Decision of the Supreme Court of the Slovak 
Republic, No. 5 Cdo 257/2010, 22 February 2012; Decision of the District Court in Prešov, No. 25C 1/12 – 
33, 22 October 2012. Decision of the Regional Court in Prešov, No. 2Co/11/2013-134, 11 March 2014. 
364   Information provided by NGOs working with foreigners/ migrants in Slovakia (League for Human Rights, 

International Organisation for Migration Bratislava and Marginal) to the author of this report in March 2017.  

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4 

EXCEPTIONS 

4.1  Genuine and determining occupational requirements (Article 4) 

In  Slovakia  national  legislation  provides  for  an  exception  for  genuine  and  determining 
occupational requirements. 

The Anti-discrimination Act defines genuine and determining occupational requirements in 
Section 8(1), stipulating that  

‘a  treatment  that  is  justified  by  the  nature  of  occupational  activities  or  by  the 
circumstances under which such activities are carried out, if the ground constitutes 
a  genuine  and  determining  occupational  requirement,  shall  not  constitute 
discrimination,  provided  that  the  objective  is  legitimate  and  the  requirement  is 
proportionate’. 

There is no explicit reference to which particular grounds this exception is applicable to, 
although  it  can  be  assumed  that  it  will  apply  to  all  the  grounds  mentioned  in  the  Anti-
discrimination Act (see section 2.1 above). Nevertheless, there has not yet been any case 
law on this matter and it will be interesting to see whether the courts will impose a strict 
interpretation of the ‘grounds’ context that would follow from the wording of the act (‘on 
the ground of’) or will apply the wording of the provisions of the directives (‘related to any 
of the grounds …’). 

4.2  Employers with an ethos based on religion or belief (Article 4(2) Directive 

2000/78) 

In Slovakia national law provides for an exception for employers with an ethos based on 
religion or belief. 

Section 8(2) of the Anti-discrimination Act stipulates that  

‘in the case of registered churches, religious societies and other legal entities whose 
activities are based on religion or belief, differences of treatment based on religion 
or belief shall not constitute discrimination where they are related to employment by 
or to carrying out activities for such organisations and where, by reason of the nature 
of  occupational  activities  or  the  context  in  which  they  are  carried  out,  a  person’s 
religion  or  belief  constitute  a  fundamental  legitimate365  and  justified  occupational 
requirement.’  

The current version of the Anti-discrimination Act does not contain any provision that would 
explicitly  entitle  the  above-defined  organisations  to  require  the  individuals  who  are 
employed by them or carry out activities for them to act in good faith and with loyalty to 
the organisation’s ethos.  

There is no case law on the issue.  

- 

Conflicts between rights of organisations with an ethos based on religion or belief and 
other rights to non-discrimination 

In Slovakia there are no specific provisions that would explicitly deal with conflicts between 
rights of organisations with an ethos based on religion or belief and other rights to non-
discrimination. However, the absence of any provisions enabling religious organisations to 
exercise  exceptions  that  would  impact  on  other  rights  to  non-discrimination  and  the 

365  A comma is missing between the words ‘fundamental’ and ‘legitimate’ in the act.  

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
existing  case  law indicate  that  in (potential)  conflicts,  other  rights  to  non-discrimination 
would take precedence.  

As regards organisations with a special ethos connected with their religion or belief,  the 
relevant legislation states that there will be no right to interfere with such an organisation’s 
internal matters.366  

However,  internal  orders  of  religious  organisations  should  not  violate  generally  binding 
legal acts (including the Constitution and the Anti-discrimination Act). There is one known 
case relating to the conflict between the rights (and rules) of churches, religious or similar 
organisations  and  the  rights  of  individuals  who  enter  into  real  or  potential  relationships 
with  such  organisations.  The  case,  decided  by  the  Constitutional  Court  in  2001,367 
concerned  a  priest  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  who  had  made  a  claim  related  to  his 
employment rights (right to remuneration)368 before the ordinary courts against his church, 
which  was  also  his  employer.  The  ordinary  courts  (district  and  regional  courts  in  Nitra) 
dismissed  the  case,  stating  that  they  could  not  deal  with  it  and  apply  Slovak  labour 
legislation, due to the fact that ecclesiastical law has priority in this case.  

The Constitutional Court refused this argumentation, confirming that all citizens have the 
right to access courts that make rulings pursuant to the laws of Slovakia (and not to, for 
example,  religious  rules),369  and  holding  that  the  district  and  regional  courts  in  Nitra 
violated the applicant’s right to seek the protection of his rights before an independent and 
impartial court without discrimination (in accordance with Article 46(1) of the Constitution).  

- 

Religious institutions affecting employment in state funded entities 

In  Slovakia  religious  institutions  are  permitted  to  select  people  (on  the  basis  of  their 
religion) to hire or to dismiss from a job when that job is in a state entity, or in an entity 
financed by the state. 

In  addition  to  a  teaching  qualification,  teachers  of  religion  in  state  schools  must  obtain 
authorisation from the church or a religious society, issued by the relevant church/religious 
authorities. This follows the Agreement between the Slovak Republic and the Holy See on 
Catholic  Upbringing  and  Education.370  Subsequently,  an  agreement  between  the  Slovak 
Republic  and  Registered  Churches  and  Religious  Societies  on  Religious  Upbringing  and 
Education  was  signed  with  identical  provisions  regarding  religious  education  in  state 
schools.371 Due to the strict rules for the registration of churches and religious societies in 
Slovakia (see section 2.1.1 above), only Christian and Jewish churches and organisations 
are  currently  registered.  Students  at  state  secondary  schools  have  the  right  to  choose 
between religious education and ethics. The authorisation of teachers of religious education 
is  exercised  mostly  by  the  two  biggest  churches  –  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  and  the 
Evangelical Church. 

There is no case law on the issue. 

366  Slovakia, Act on Freedom of Religious Belief and Status of Churches or Religious Societies, 308/1991, 

Section 5(2) stipulates that `Churches and religious societies administer their own affairs and, in particular, 
appoint their bodies, their priests and establish orders and other institutions independently of state 
authorities´.  

367  Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, No III. ÚS 64/00-65, 31 January 2001. 
368  However, the decision of the Constitutional Court does not make it clear whether the original labour dispute 

was discrimination-related. 

369  The Constitutional Court stated that ‘...[i]f a spiritual activity is carried out in the framework of a legal 

relationship, this kind of employment relationship, similar or civil relationship is ruled by the respective laws 
of the Slovak Republic and the internal rules of churches and religious societies can be applied only within 
its framework’. 

370  Published in the Collection of Laws under No 394/2004.  
371  Published in the Collection of Laws under No 395/2004.  

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.3  Armed  forces  and  other  specific  occupations  (Article  3(4)  and  Recital  18 

Directive 2000/78) 

In Slovakia, national legislation provides for an exception for the armed forces in relation 
to age or disability discrimination (Article 3(4), Directive 2000/78).  

Section  4(1)(b)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  stipulates  that  the  provisions  of  the  Anti-
discrimination Act do not apply to  

‘differential  treatment  based  on  disability  or  age  that  follows  from  provisions  of 
special  legal  acts  regulating  the  service  of  armed  forces,  armed  security  services, 
armed  corps,  the  National  Security  Office,  the  Slovak  Information  Service  and  the 
Fire and Rescue Service.’  

The  exception  does  not  apply  to  employees  who  carry  out  activities  for  the  above 
institutions  within  the  framework  of  employment  relationships  regulated  by  the  Labour 
Code (e.g. auxiliary staff).  

Section 4(1)(c) stipulates that the provisions of the Anti-discrimination Act do not apply to  

‘differential  treatment  based  on  disability  or  age  that  follows  from  provisions  of 
special legal acts regulating the training for the defence of the State by soldiers of 
voluntary military training, the training for the exercise  of extraordinary  service in 
the armed forces of the Slovak Republic, and the exercise of tasks of armed forces 
by reservists who are categorised as active reservists’.  

4.4  Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) 

a)  Discrimination on the ground of nationality 

In Slovakia, national law includes exceptions relating to difference of treatment based on 
nationality.  

Differential treatment based on a person’s nationality (meaning ‘citizenship’ under Slovak 
legislation)  is  permitted  under  the  Anti-discrimination  Act,  insofar  as  it  results  from  the 
legal  requirements  for  the  entry  and  residence  of  foreigners  in  Slovakia,  including  the 
treatment  of these  foreigners, which is provided for under  separate legal regulations.372 
This is not applicable to citizens of the European Union, citizens of any state that is party 
to the European Economic Area Agreement, Swiss citizens and stateless persons and their 
family members.373 

Separate  legal  conditions  regarding  foreigners  apply  mostly  to  the  fulfilment  of  special 
requirements  for  granting  permission  for  business  activity,  employment  or  study  in 
Slovakia.  Restrictions  also  apply  to  access  to  certain  occupational  positions  and  social 
assistance services. However, in other areas, discrimination on the ground of nationality 
(‘citizenship’  under  Slovak  legislation)  is  prohibited  under  the  legal  regime  of  the  Anti-
discrimination  Act.  This  follows  from  the  open-ended  list  of  prohibited  grounds  of 
discrimination  contained  in  the  act,  which  implicitly  includes  nationality  (‘citizenship’) 
among the prohibited grounds  of discrimination in most areas covered by the directives 
(see section 2.1 above). 

In Slovakia, nationality (as in citizenship) is not explicitly mentioned as a protected ground 
in national anti-discrimination law. 

372  Slovakia, Act on the residence of foreigners, 404/2011 and Slovakia, Asylum Act 480/2002. Both of these 

acts regulate legal status, conditions for granting permission for business activities, employment, study and 
stay of foreigners and asylum seekers.  

373  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 4(1)(a).  

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
b) 

Relationship between nationality and ‘race or ethnic origin’ 

The  Slovak  language  and  Slovak  legislation  draw  a  distinction  between  citizenship, 
nationality (národnosť) and ethnicity.  

In practice, a member of the Hungarian minority, being a Slovak national, would fall within 
the ground ‘national origin’, whereas Roma people are considered to be an ethnic group. 

There  is  no  case  law  that  deals  with  distinctions  or  overlaps  between  citizenship, 
nationality, and ‘race or ethnic origin’.  

4.5  Work-related family benefits (Recital 22 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Benefits for married employees 

In Slovakia it would constitute unlawful discrimination in national law if an employer only 
provides benefits to those employees who are married. 

The Anti-discrimination Act does not explicitly lay down any rules as far as work-related 
benefits for spouses or life partners are concerned. However, it can be argued that work-
related benefits in respect of spouses or life partners fall under the employment-related 
list of areas for which the duty to observe the principle of equal treatment applies, as the 
list of these areas in Section 6(2)(b) of the act is non-exhaustive. Given the fact that the 
Anti-discrimination Act explicitly prohibits discrimination on the ground of family status and 
marital  status,  it  can  be  argued  that  if  an  employer  provided  benefits  limited  to  those 
employees who are married, this would constitute unlawful discrimination.  

In addition, the Labour Code stipulates the duty of the employer to act in conformity with 
the principle of equal treatment and refers to the Anti-discrimination Act (which contains 
the above-mentioned grounds).374 Therefore, any discriminatory rules or measures in the 
provision of work-related family benefits are prohibited.  

On  the  other  hand,  the  Labour  Code  contains  a  few  specific  provisions  that  are 
discriminatory (either directly or indirectly or both) in relation to family/marital/personal 
status. Under Section 141(2)(d) of the Labour Code, an employee is entitled to paid leave 
of an overall duration of three days on the death of their husband or wife. In the case of 
the death of a cohabiting different-sex partner, there is no entitlement to any leave.  

There is no case law on potentially discriminatory provision of family benefits with regard 
to marital and/or family status. The ‘Action Plan for LGBTI People for 2016-2019’ published 
by  the  Ministry  of  Justice  in  2015  generally  also  aimed  to  address  the  barriers  that 
unmarried couples face in realising their rights and its measures included  a proposal for 
relevant legislative changes, if necessary. However, as of the end of 2016, the action plan 
has not yet been adopted (see chapter 9).  

b) 

Benefits for employees with opposite-sex partners 

In Slovakia it would constitute unlawful discrimination in national law if an employer only 
provides benefits to those employees with different-sex partners (sexual orientation is a 
prohibited ground of discrimination for all fields covered by the act). 

In  contrast  to  this,  the  Labour  Code  contains  a  few  specific  provisions  that  are 
discriminatory (either directly or indirectly or both) with regard to sexual orientation.  

Under Section 141(2)(d) of the Labour Code, an employee is entitled to paid leave of an 

374  Slovakia, Labour Code, 311/2001, Section 13.  

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
overall duration of three days on the death of their husband or wife (there is no mention 
of a same-sex marriage nor of any other officially registered partnership). In the case of 
the death of a cohabiting same-sex partner there is no entitlement to any leave. Similarly, 
the Labour Code grants time off from work when a child is born to an employee – for the 
time necessary to transport the child’s mother to hospital and back (but not for the time 
needed to attend the birth).375 In practice, this covers only male employees whose partners 
(whether marital or not) go to maternity hospitals, since lesbian couples do not have the 
right  to  joint  parenthood  (or  the  right  to  register  their  partnership).  This  therefore 
undoubtedly discriminates against non-married lesbian couples. 

There is no case law on the issue.  

4.6  Health and safety (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78) 

In Slovakia there are exceptions in relation to disability and health and safety (Article 7(2), 
Directive 2000/78). 

Under  Section  8(5)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act,  objectively  justified  differential 
treatment  grounded  in  specific  health  requirements  in  relation  to  access  to  a  job  or  to 
performing  certain  activities  in  a  particular  job,  do  not  constitute  discrimination  on  the 
ground of disability, provided that this is required by the character of the job or job activity.  

The Labour Code provides some extra protection to workers with disabilities, for example 
there  are  special  conditions  for  employers  when  giving  the  notice  to  an  employee  with 
health disability and setting working time.376  

Another exception on the ground of disability also applies in the area of the provision of 
insurance services (see also section 4.7.1 below). 

There is no case law yet on the issue of health and safety exceptions related to disability.  

There are no exceptions for grounds other than disability with regard to health and safety. 

4.7  Exceptions related to discrimination on the ground of age (Article 6 Directive 

2000/78) 

4.7.1  Direct discrimination 

In Slovakia national law provides an exception for direct discrimination on age.  

The exception for age is provided both within the framework of genuine and determining 
occupational requirements (Section 8(1) of the Anti-discrimination Act – see section 4.1 
above) and under Section 8(3) of the Anti-discrimination Act, which allows for differential 
treatment on the ground of age provided objective justification exists and provided other 
conditions are met (see below for further details). 

a) 

Justification of direct discrimination on the ground of age 

In  Slovakia  it  is  possible,  generally,  or  in  specified  circumstances,  to  justify  direct 
discrimination on the ground of age. The test as stipulated by the legislation (Section 8(3) 
of the Anti-discrimination Act – see below for more details) almost follows the wording of 
Article 6 of Directive 2000/78 and hence is compliant with the test in Article 6, Directive 
2000/78 (and probably also with the CJEU case law – although there is still very limited 
case law that would interpret the Slovak legislative provisions).  

375  See Slovakia, Labour Code, 311/2001, Section 141(2)(b).  
376   Slovakia, Labour Code, 311/2001, Sections 66, 68 (3), 87(3), 158 and 159. 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
b) 

Permitted differences of treatment based on age 

In Slovakia national law permits differences of treatment based on age for any activities 
within the material scope of Directive 2000/78. 

The exception for age is provided both within the framework of genuine and determining 
occupational requirements (Section 8(1) of the Anti-discrimination Act – see section 4.1) 
and  under  Section  8(3)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act.  Section  8(3)  of  the  Anti-
discrimination Act reads as follows:  

‘Differential  treatment  on  the  ground  of  age  shall  not  be  deemed  to  constitute 
discrimination if it is  objectively  justified  by  a legitimate  aim  and if it is  necessary 
and appropriate for the achievement of that aim and if this is provided for by a specific 
legal regulation. Differences of treatment on grounds of age shall not be deemed to 
constitute discrimination if they consist of: 

- 
- 

- 

fixing a minimum or maximum age as a recruitment criterion; 
setting special conditions for access to employment or vocational training, and 
special  conditions  for  employment,  including  remuneration  and  dismissal,  for 
persons of a certain age bracket or persons with caring responsibilities, where 
such special conditions are intended to promote work integration or protection 
of such persons; 
fixing minimum conditions of age, professional experience or seniority in service 
for access to employment or to certain advantages linked to employment.’ 

From the structure and content of the above-quoted provision, it is not quite clear whether 
each of the exceptions specified in the three points must, in a particular case, meet the 
general test of justification provided by the introductory sentence to Section 8(3) of the 
Anti-discrimination  Act,  or  whether  the  introductory  sentence  simply  provides  a  general 
context for the exceptions specified in the three points (and perhaps further in other pieces 
of legislation).  

Depending on the character of the relevant legislation, and also depending on the (limited) 
judicial practice that has developed on the issue over the course of time (the courts have 
only ruled on one case on this matter, see below), it is more likely that the second approach 
(where  the  introductory  sentence  simply  provides  a  general  context  for  the  exceptions 
specified in the three points) will apply under the current wording of Section 8(3) of the 
Anti-discrimination  Act.  For  example,  according  to  Section  5(1)(a)  of  Act  385/2000  on 
Judges and Lay Judges, only a citizen who has reached at least 30  years  of age  can be 
appointed as a judge. The provision is of a cogent nature and as such seems to offer no 
room for justification in the light of the introductory sentence of Section 8(3) of the Anti-
discrimination Act (which, per se, does not necessarily mean that the transposition of the 
2000/78 Directive is incorrect in this point).  

An example confirming the interpretation outlined above is a judgment of the District Court 
Banská  Bystrica  of  20  November  2007377  (upheld  by  a  judgment  of  the  Regional  Court 
Banská Bystrica of 27 March 2008),378 where the claimant sued a potential employer for 
discrimination on the ground of age. The claimant was a 38-year-old unemployed man who 
saw a violation of the prohibition of discrimination in the publication of a job advertisement 
by  the  defendant  in  which  the  defendant  sought  to  fill  a  vacancy  for  a  technician.  The 
condition for the technician job was that the applicant must be a ‘disadvantaged job seeker 
under the age of 25’. This was in accordance with the defendant’s contract with an office 

377  District Court Banská Bystrica, No. 8C/119/2006 – 107, 20 November 2007. 
378  Regional Court Banská Bystrica, No. 12 Co/6/08, 27 March 2008. The Court probably made a mistake in the 
official judgment as it states the date of issue of the judgment of the regional court as 27 March 2007. 
However, this would not have been possible as the district court issued its decision on 20 November 2007 
and regional court decisions always follow district court ones. 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
of  labour,  social  affairs  and  family  (concluded  under  the  Act  on  Employment  Services) 
under  which  the  defendant  had  committed  to  create  four  jobs  for  ‘disadvantaged 
applicants’ (i.e. for applicants under the age of 25 who have completed their training for 
an  occupation  through  a  daily  form  of  study  less  than  two  years  ago  and  have  not  yet 
acquired  their  first  regularly  paid  job)  and  the  labour  office  committed  to  grant  non-
returnable  financial  support  to  create  these  jobs.  The  claimant  alleged  that  the  age 
condition contained in the job advertisement was the only reason that had deterred him 
from applying for the job.  

The  court  arrived  at  the  decision  that  the  defendant  had  not  breached  the  Anti-
discrimination Act. For the court, the fact that the defendant acted in  accordance with a 
contract with a labour office (and hence also legislation providing for exceptions based on 
age)  was  in  itself  sufficient  reason  to  state  that  ‘the  defendant  has  therefore  pursued  a 
legitimate  aim  and  acted  in  accordance  with  special  regulations’  (i.e.  the  court  did  not 
question the nature of the legislatively provided exception as such). 

It  is  also  worth  noting  that,  for  example,  Section  77(6)  of  Act  131/2002  on  Higher 
Education stipulates that employment of university teachers terminates at the end of the 
academic year in which they reach 70 years of age, although extension of the employment 
relationship is possible for one year (even repeatedly, but with no details on the criteria 
for  doing  so).  It  is  very  likely  that  the  provision  is  in  violation  of  CJEU  case  law  on 
exceptions  relating  to  age  (see  sections  4.7.4(c)  and  (f)  below  for  more  details).  In 
addition, the provision also has the potential to be indirectly discriminatory on the ground 
of sex/gender, as the apparently neutral provision may have a greater impact on women, 
mainly due to their generally lower positions in academic hierarchies.  

There are other similar cases in the Slovak legal system where an employment relationship 
must or may be terminated on reaching the age of 65 (see section 4.7.3). Social partners, 
however,  are  not  authorised  by  law  to  agree  the  age  at  which  an  employment  contract 
must or can be terminated (so the decision of  the CJEU in  Prigge379 is not applicable to 
Slovakia).  

c) 

Fixing  of  ages  for  admission  or  entitlements  to  benefits  of  occupational  pension 
schemes 

In Slovakia, national law allows occupational pension schemes to fix ages for admission to 
the scheme or entitlement to benefits, taking up the possibility provided for by Article 6(2) 
of Directive 2000/78. 

With  regard  to  occupational  social  security  schemes,  differences  of  treatment  in  such 
schemes on grounds of age will not be considered as discrimination where they consist of 
fixing age limits for entitlement to old age pensions and disability pensions, including the 
fixing of different age limits in such schemes for employees or groups of employees, and 
the use of different calculation methods for these pensions based on age criteria, provided 
that this does not result in discrimination on the ground of sex.380 Also, under Section 8(6) 
of the Anti-discrimination Act, differences of treatment on grounds of age or disability in 
the provision of insurance services will not be deemed to constitute discrimination where 
such treatment results from different levels of risk, verifiable by statistical or similar data, 
and where the terms of insurance services adequately reflect such risk. Different treatment 
on the ground of age is permitted in areas regulating the service of members of the armed 
forces,  armed  security  services,  armed  corps,  the  National  Security  Office,  the  Slovak 
Information Service, the Fire and Rescue Service, voluntary military training, training for 
the  exercise  of  extraordinary  service  in  the  armed  forces,  and  the  exercise  of  tasks  of 
armed forces by reservists who are categorised as active reservists.381 

379  CJEU, C-447/09 Reinhard Prigge and Others v Deutsche Lufthansa AG, judgment of 13 September 2011. 
380  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 8(4). 
381  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Sections 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c). 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.7.2  Special conditions for young people, older workers and persons with caring 

responsibilities  

In Slovakia there are special conditions set by law for older and younger workers in order 
to  promote  their  vocational  integration,  and  for  persons  with  caring  responsibilities  to 
ensure their protection.  

According  to  Sections  171-173  of  the  Labour  Code,  an  employer  is  obliged  to  create 
favourable conditions for the overall development of the physical and mental capabilities 
of young employees (the Labour Code uses the term  ‘juvenile employees’), including by 
adapting their working conditions. A young employee is, according to Section 40(3) of the 
Labour Code, defined as an employee under the age of 18. Any notice given to a young 
employee,  or  termination  of  employment  with  immediate  effect  on  the  employer’s 
initiative,  must  be  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  young  employee’s  legal  guardian. 
Employers may only assign young employees to jobs that are appropriate to their physical 
and  mental  development  and  do  not  jeopardise  their  morality.  In  addition,  they  must 
provide them with enhanced care at work.382  

Sections 174-175 of the Labour Code stipulate the prohibition of night work and standby 
duty for young employees. Young employees over the age of 16 may exceptionally perform 
night  work  not  exceeding  one  hour  if  it  is  necessary  for  their  vocational  training.  The 
employer must not apply a system of wages and benefits that could endanger the health 
and safety of young employees, due to increased work performance. A young employee 
must not be assigned to work that is inadequate, dangerous or harmful to their health, due 
to their age-related, specific anatomical, physiological and psychological features. Lists of 
the  kinds  of  work  and  workplaces  forbidden  for  young  employees  are  set  out  by  a 
government regulation.383  

Specific protective measures contained in the Labour Code apply to the prohibition of the 
immediate dismissal of an employee on maternity or parental leave, a solitary employee384 
responsible for caring for a child under the age of three or an employee who personally 
cares for a relative or other close person with a severe disability (Section 68(3)).  

For an employee with a disability, a pregnant woman, a woman or man permanently caring 
for a child under three or a solitary employee who permanently cares for a child under 15, 
working time may only be arranged unevenly upon agreement with them (Section 87(3); 
note the absence of this benefit in relation to employees who personally care for relatives 
or other close persons with a severe disability).  

The employer is obliged to excuse the absence from work of an employee for periods of 
maternity  leave  and  parental  leave,  periods  for  attending  to  a  sick  family  member  and 
periods for caring for a child under the age of ten who, for substantive reasons, may not 
be in the care of a children’s educational facility or school which the child is otherwise in 
the care of (Section 141(1)). When designating employees to work shifts, the employer is 
obliged to take into account the needs of pregnant women and of women and men caring 
permanently for children.  

If a pregnant woman, or a man or a woman caring permanently for a child under the age 
of  15  requests  a  reduction  in  working  hours  or  other  arrangement  to  the  fixed  weekly 

382  Slovakia, Labour Code, 311/2001, Sections 172 and 173.  
383  Government Regulation No 286/2004 regulating the list of work and workplaces forbidden for juvenile 
employees and setting certain duties of employers regarding the employment of juvenile employees 
(nariadenie vlády č. 286/2004 Z.z., ktorým sa ustanovuje zoznam prác a pracovísk, ktoré sú zakázané 
mladistvým zamestnancom, a ktorým sa ustanovujú niektoré povinnosti zamestnávateľom pri zamestnávaní 
mladistvých zamestnancov). 

384  Under the Labour Code, a solitary employee is understood as an `employee who lives alone and is a single, 
widowed or divorced man or a single, widowed or divorced woman´ (Section 40(1)) or a `solitary man or a 
woman for other substantive reasons´ (Section 40(2)). 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
working  hours,  the  employer  is  obliged  to  accommodate  their  request,  if  this  is  not 
prevented for substantive operational reasons (Section 164(2)). This provision also applies 
to an employee who personally cares permanently for a relative or other close person who 
is mostly or completely helpless and who is not provided with care in social care facilities 
or institutional care in healthcare facilities (Section 165).  

The  Act  on  Employment  Services  expressly  defines  employment  services  as  well  as  the 
implementation  of  active  measures  within  the  labour  market.  Among  others,  the  act 
provides  specific  support  to  the  category  of  ‘disadvantaged  job  seekers’.  This  category 
comprises, inter alia, solitary citizens living with one or more persons who are reliant on 
them or caring for at least one child still attending school, people over the age of 50 and 
people under 26 who have completed their training for an occupation through a daily form 
of study less than two years ago and have not acquired their first regularly paid job after 
completing the training.385 

In accordance with this act, the Government may provide a job seeker under the age of 
26  who  has  completed  secondary  school  or  university  studies,  with  a  ‘practical  training 
allowance’  aimed  at  widening  the  opportunities  for  this  person  to  find  a  job  within  the 
labour market. The practical training is carried out in the workplace of a particular employer 
and corresponds to the level of education attained for a period of no less than three months 
and no more than six months. During the practical training the young trainee receives a 
state-funded monthly allowance of the subsistence amount for one adult person set by a 
special regulation (EUR 198.09 as of July 2013).386  

The act also introduced a ‘subsidy for the employment of a disadvantaged job seeker’.387 
An employer who creates a new workplace and employs a ‘disadvantaged job seeker’ is 
entitled to a subsidy of up to 40 % (depending on the region) of the monthly cost of labour 
of  one  employee,  calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  average  wage  of  an  employee  in  the 
national economy.  

4.7.3  Minimum and maximum age requirements 

General rules for the justification of direct discrimination in employment on the ground of 
minimum  or  maximum  age  requirements  are  set  in  Section  8(3)(a)  of  the  Anti-
discrimination Act (see section 4.7.1 above). 

There  are  several  laws  stipulating  minimum  or  maximum  ages  in  employment 
relationships. None of the laws have been subject to specific public discussion  or judicial 
review as to whether they are compatible with Directive 2000/78.  

The  Constitution  of  the  Slovak  Republic  regulates  the  requirements  applicable  to  the 
holders of high public office, including their age. This applies to the President of the State, 
for whom a minimum age of 40 has been set, to judges, judges of the Constitutional Court, 
the  ombudsperson  and  members  of  parliament  (the  National  Council  of  the  Slovak 
Republic).388  

Other laws regulate, for example, the minimum age limit for a work assistant for a person 
with a disability (18 years),389 the minimum age of a prosecutor (25 years),390 the general 

385  Slovakia, Employment Services Act, 5/2004, Section 8.  
386  Slovakia, Employment Services Act, 5/2004, Section 51.  
387  Slovakia, Employment Services Act, 5/2004, Section 50. 
388  See Articles 74, 103, 134, 145 and 151a of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic. 
389  Slovakia, Employment Services Act, 5/2004, Section 59(3). 
390  Slovakia, Act No 154/2001 on Prosecutors and Prosecutor Candidates, as amended (zákon č. 154/2001 Z. z. 

o prokurátoroch a právnych čakateľoch prokuratúry v znení neskorších predpisov), Section 6. 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
prosecutor  (40  years)391  and  judges  (30  years  –  see  also  section  4.7.1  above).392  The 
President may, upon a recommendation of the Judicial Council, withdraw a judge who has 
reached the age of 65.393 Seventy is the maximum age limit for a university teacher to be 
in  an  employment  relationship  with  a  university  (although  extensions  are  allowed  –  see 
section 4.7.1 above). The Labour Code stipulates a minimum age of 15 for a natural person 
to be subject to the rights and duties of an employee. However, the employer must not 
agree upon a starting day for work before the applicant has completed compulsory school 
education.394  Civil  servants  must  be  at  least  18  years  old.  The  law  also  stipulates  a 
minimum age for obtaining a permit to run a business (18 years).395 

Although the law does not say anything about age requirements for training connected to 
some of the professions described above, it follows logically that if training is designed for 
people in these professions only, then de facto age limits apply with regard to training as 
well.  

In accordance with the Act on Employment Services, the Government may provide a job 
seeker under the age of 26 who has completed secondary school or university studies with 
a ‘practical training allowance’, aimed at widening the opportunities for this person to find 
a job within the labour market.396 

4.7.4  Retirement  

a) 

State pension age 

In Slovakia there is a state pension age, at which individuals are entitled (but not obliged) 
to collect their state pensions.  

If  an  individual  wishes  to  work  longer,  she  or  he  can  collect  a  pension  and  still  work 
(however, this does not fully apply to early pensions). Therefore, although a pension can 
be  deferred  in  principle  if  an  individual  wishes  to  work  longer  (since  no-one  can  be 
compelled to collect their pension), pensions are not being deferred in practice  because 
receiving income from a wage or salary and a pension simultaneously is allowed.  

The age of entitlement to a state pension is fixed by law. Under the Social Insurance Act,397 
the pensionable age is fixed at the age 62 years for both men and women. However, this 
provision is not fully implemented yet, due to changes in the retirement security scheme 
that were introduced in 2004 by transitional provisions in the Social Insurance Act that set 
the  retirement  ages  progressively  (and  differently  for  men  and  women),  starting  at  60 
years for men and 53 to 57 years for women (depending on the number of children  the 
woman has had).398 

Pensionable  age  and  collection  of  a  pension  does  not  prevent  someone  from  working  if 
they wish to continue their employment or start a new one. Thus a person entitled to a 
state pension can work and collect their old age pension from the social security scheme 
and a wage from their employer. 

391  Slovakia, Act No. 153/2001 on Prosecution, as amended (zákon č. 153/2001 Z. z. o prokuratúre v znení 

neskorších predpisov), Section 7(3). 

392  Slovakia, Act No 385/2000 on Judges and Lay Judges and on Amending and Aupplementing Certain Acts, as 
amended (zákon č. 385/2000 Z. z. o sudcoch a prísediacich a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v 
znení neskorších predpisov), Section 11. 

393  Article 147(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic. 
394  Slovakia, Labour Code, 311/2001, Section 11. 
395  Slovakia, Small Business Act, 455/1991, Section 6. 
396  Slovakia, Employment Services Act, 5/2004, Section 51.  
397  Slovakia, Social Insurance Act, 461/2003. 
398  Slovakia, Social Insurance Act, 461/2003, Section 65.  

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
In  special  circumstances  an  individual  can  start  to  collect  their  pension  early.399  As  of 
January  2013,  the  simultaneous  collection  of  an  early  pension  and  a  wage  or  salary 
(including  payments  for  services  carried  out  by  people  who  are  self-employed)  that  is 
subject to compulsory pension insurance, is no longer possible, with some minor exceptions 
(for example a simultaneous collection of an early pension and of a salary is possible if the 
sum  of  the  monthly  income  of  the  person  concerned  received  from  her  employment  or 
public service does not exceed 67 % of the average monthly wage in the national economy 
in  a  year  preceding,  by  two  years,  the  year  in  which  the  person  concerned  started  the 
employment or public service in question).400  

There is no case law on any of these issues yet.  

b)  Occupational pension schemes 

In  Slovakia  there  is  a  normal  age  when  people  can  begin  to  receive  payments  from 
occupational pension schemes and other employer-funded pension arrangements.  

An individual can collect an occupational (‘supplementary’) pension and still work, unless 
she or he collects an early occupational pension, which excludes the option to work (apart 
from some minor exceptions – see section 4.7.4.a above). Therefore, although a payment 
from an occupational pension scheme can be deferred in principle if an individual wishes 
to work longer (since no-one  can be compelled  to collect their occupational pension),  in 
practice these payments are not being deferred because gaining income from a wage or 
salary and an occupational pension scheme simultaneously is allowed. 

Occupational pension schemes and their corresponding entitlements do not represent the 
main and compulsory source of pensionable income (this role is fulfilled by the state social 
security  scheme)  but  are  a  supplementary  source  of  income  based  on  a  voluntary 
agreement between employers and employees. For this reason, an individual can collect a 
pension and still work.  

The functioning of the occupational social security schemes in Slovakia is regulated by Act 
650/2004 on Supplementary Pension Saving401 (see section 3.2.3 above for more details 
on the act).  

Under  Section  16(1)  of  the  Act  on  Supplementary  Pension  Saving,  a  participant  in  this 
supplementary  pension  saving  scheme  who  requests  to  receive  payments  from  a 
supplementary  pension  can  receive  this  supplementary  pension  in  the  event  that  they 
become entitled to receive old age pension under Act 461/2003 on Social Insurance (see 
section 4.7.4(a) above), in the event that they become entitled to receive an early pension 
according  to  Section  67  of  the  Act  on  Social  Insurance  (see  section  4.7.4(a)  above),  or 
when they reach 62 years of age. An individual who collects an early pension, and hence 
is  entitled  to  a  supplementary  pension,  cannot  work  and  at  the  same  time  collect  a 
supplementary  pension  (apart  from  some  minor  exceptions),  because  supplementary 
pension entitlement is conditioned upon early pension entitlement, and an early pension 
entitlement is conditioned upon the person concerned not working.  

c) 

State imposed mandatory retirement ages 

399  Slovakia, Social Insurance Act, 461/2003, Section 67. The general conditions are that an individual was 

insured for at least 15 years, that she or he is supposed to reach the regular statutory pensionable age in 
no more than 2 years, and that the sum of the early pension she or he would acquire is no less than 1.2 
times the `living minimum´ per one adult person as stipulated by a special law.  

400  See Slovakia, Social Insurance Act, 461/2003, Section 67(4), in conjunction with Section 4(1)(d).  
401  Slovakia, Act No 650/2004 on Supplementary Pension Saving and on amending and supplementing certain 
laws, as amended (zákon č. 650/2004 Z. z. o doplnkovom dôchodkovom sporení a o zmene a doplnení 
niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov), see Section 2(2). 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In Slovakia there is no state-imposed mandatory retirement age(s). However, with respect 
to some professions in the field of public service, some de facto exceptions apply.  

A de facto state-imposed mandatory age for retirement is stipulated by Section 77(6) of 
Act  131/2002  on  Higher  Education,  which  stipulates  that  employment  of  university 
teachers terminates at the end of the academic year in which they reach the age of 70. 
Although  this  provision  allows  the  employment  relationship  of  university  teachers  aged 
over 70 to be extended for one year (even repeatedly, but with no details on the criteria 
for doing so), a university teacher whose contract is not extended has practically no option 
other than to retire (see section 4.7.3 above for more details).  

A  state-imposed  mandatory  retirement  age  can,  in  certain  circumstances,  also  apply  to 
judges. Although there is no mandatory retirement age for judges, the President can, upon 
a proposal from the Judicial Council, remove a judge from office if they have reached the 
age of 65. It is unclear from the law whether the Judicial Council is obliged to propose to 
the President the removal from office of every judge who reaches the age of 65. There are 
no criteria in the Constitution or in law for the President to follow when deciding whether 
to remove from office a judge who has reached the age of 65.402  

A similar situation emerges with prosecutors. The Prosecutor General can, in accordance 
with  Section  15(3)(b)  of  Act  154/2001  on  Prosecutors  and  Legal  Trainees  of  the 
Prosecutor’s Office, remove a prosecutor from office if they have  reached the age of 65. 
The  law  does  not  stipulate  any  further  conditions  for  the  Prosecutor  General  to  decide 
whether or not to remove the prosecutor concerned from office.403 

There are otherwise no state-imposed mandatory retirement ages.  

There is no case law on the issue.  

d) 

Retirement ages imposed by employers 

In  Slovakia  national  law  does  not  permit  employers  to  set  retirement  ages  (or  ages  at 
which  the  termination  of  an  employment  contract  is  possible)  by  contract,  collective 
bargaining or unilaterally.  

e) 

Employment rights applicable to all workers irrespective of age 

The law on protection against dismissal and other laws protecting employment rights apply 
to all workers irrespective of age, if they remain in employment. These rights are not lost 
on attaining pensionable age or another age. 

An employer may not therefore terminate a contract after an employee attains pensionable 
age on the ground of age alone. This means that anyone can continue in employment so 
long as they enjoy sufficient capacity (except for the age limitations mentioned above and 
in section 4.7.3, the limitations connected to early pensions – see section 4.7.4(a) and, of 
course, except for cases such as incompetence or misconduct, which are generally legally 
accepted  grounds  for  job  termination  by  an  employer).  Thus,  the  state  pensionable 
(‘retirement’) age stipulated by Slovak legislation simply refers to pension entitlement that 
a worker can collect while still working.  

402  See Article 147(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, and Slovakia, Act on Judges and Lay-

Judges, 385/2000, Section 18(2)(b) and Section 18(3).  

403  See Slovakia, Act on prosecutors and prosecutor candidates, 154/2001, Sections 14-17 for more detailed 

information.  

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
The  Anti-discrimination  Act  explicitly  states  that  objectively  justified  differences  of 
treatment on the ground of sex where they consist of fixing different retirement ages for 
men and women are not considered to be discriminatory.404 

f) 

Compliance of national law with CJEU case law 

In  Slovakia  national  legislation  is  in  line  with  the  CJEU  case  law  on  age  regarding 
compulsory retirement, apart from the cases listed in section 4.7.4(c) above.  

In the case of all the occupations listed in  section 4.7.4(c) (university teachers, judges, 
prosecutors), the law might be following a legitimate aim (quality of performance of public 
service, generational balance etc.). However, it does not require that the person affected 
by  the  compulsory  dismissal  be  entitled  to  an  old-age  pension,  which  is  in  conflict  with 
CJEU  case  law  on  age  regarding  compulsory  retirement  (e.g.  Palacios  de  la  Villa).405  In 
addition,  the  conditions  for  non-renewal  of  a  labour  contract  (in  the  case  of  university 
teachers)  or  for  removing  a  judge  or  prosecutor  from  office,  are  arbitrary  and  non-
transparent,  which  certainly  does  not  meet  the  requirement  for  reasonableness  of  the 
measures in question and the condition for proportionality of the means used. 

4.7.5  Redundancy 

a) 

Age and seniority taken into account for redundancy selection 

In  Slovakia,  national  law  does  not  permit  age  or  seniority  to  be  taken  into  account  in 
selecting workers for redundancy.  

b) 

Age taken into account for redundancy compensation 

In Slovakia, national law provides compensation for redundancy. If so this is not directly 
affected by the age of the worker.  

In  principle,  the  redundancy  payment  does  not  depend  on  the  age  of  the  employee 
concerned. However, as the calculations of the redundancy payment depend on the length 
of employment with a particular employer, the age of the worker can indirectly influence 
the sum of the redundancy payment (the longer the employment relationship, the higher 
the redundancy payment).406 

4.8  Public  security,  public  order,  criminal  offences,  protection  of  health, 
protection  of  the  rights  and  freedoms  of  others  (Article  2(5),  Directive 
2000/78) 

In Slovakia national law does not include exceptions that seek to rely on Article 2(5) of the 
Employment Equality Directive. 

4.9  Any other exceptions 

In Slovakia, other exceptions to the prohibition of discrimination provided in national law 
are the following:  

According to Section 8(4) of the Anti-discrimination Act: 

‘differential  treatment  in  occupational  pension  systems  based  on  age  shall  not  be 
deemed to constitute discrimination if it consists in the fixing of different age limits 

404  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 8(7)(a). 
405  CJEU, C-411/05 Félix Palacios de la Villa v. Cortefiel Servicios SA, judgment of 16 October 2007. 
406  Slovakia, Labour Code, 311/2001, Section 76. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
for entitlement to old age pension and disability pension in such systems, if it consists 
in the fixing of different age limits in such schemes for  [different]407 employees or 
groups of employees, and if it consists in using different ways of calculation of these 
pensions that are based on the criterion of age, provided that these calculations are 
not simultaneously discriminatory on the ground of sex.’ 

According to Section 8(5) of the Anti-discrimination Act:  

‘objectively justified differential treatment based on specific health requirements in 
relation to application for a job or performing certain activities in a particular job shall 
not be deemed to constitute discrimination on the ground of disability, provided that 
this treatment is required by the nature of the job or of the job activity.’  

According to Section 8(6) of the Anti-discrimination Act:  

‘differential treatment based on age or disability in the provision of insurance services 
shall not be deemed to constitute discrimination if the differential treatment follows 
from a different level of risk verifiable by statistical or similar data and the terms of 
the insurance services are proportionate to this risk.’ 

Section 8a of the Anti-discrimination Act is an enabling provision for the use of ‘temporary 
equalising measures’ - positive action measures – (see Section 5 below for more details).  

Section  166  of  the  Labour  Code  obliges  an  employer  to  extend  an  employee’s  parental 
leave, upon their request, to an overall duration of up to six years if they care for a child 
with  a  long-term  unfavourable  state  of  health  (as  compared  to  parental  leave  of  a 
maximum duration of three years provided to employees caring for a child without a long-
term unfavourable state of health). 

People with disabilities enjoy special protection against dismissal: a person with a disability 
can only be given notice after prior endorsement from the labour office responsible.408 

407  The provision of Section 8(4) of the Anti-discrimination Act is very unclear as to what categories of 

`employees´ and `groups of employees´ it has in mind when stipulating this exception.  

408  Slovakia, Labour Code, 311/2001, Section 66. However, the endorsement requirement does not apply in the 

case of employees with disabilities who have attained pensionable age.  

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5 

POSITIVE ACTION (Article 5 Directive 2000/43, Article 7 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Scope for positive action measures 

In  Slovakia  positive  action  in  respect  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  disability  and  age  is 
permitted  in  national  law.  Positive  action  in  respect  of  religion  or  belief  and  sexual 
orientation is not permitted in national law.  

The ability to adopt positive action measures (known as ‘temporary equalising measures’) 
is provided for by Section 8a of the Anti-discrimination Act.409 The act stipulates that the  

‘adoption of temporary equalising measures by public administration bodies or other 
legal entities that are aimed at removing disadvantages following from the ground of 
racial or ethnic origin, affiliation with a national minority or an ethnic group, gender 
or sex, age or disability, the aim of which is to guarantee equality of opportunities in 
practice, is not deemed to be discrimination.’410  

The  Anti-discrimination  Act  lists  the  possible  temporary  equalising  measures  in  a  non-
exhaustive list to contain measures:  

a) 

b) 

c) 

aimed  at  removing  social  or  economic  disadvantage  that  disproportionally  affects 
representatives of disadvantaged groups; 
consisting of supporting the interests of representatives of the disadvantaged groups 
in employment, education, culture, healthcare and services; 
aimed  at  generating  equality  in  access  to  employment,  education,  healthcare  and 
housing,  mainly  through  targeted  training  programmes  for  representatives  of  the 
disadvantaged  groups  or  through  the  dissemination  of  information  about  these 
programmes  or  through  opportunities  to  apply  for  jobs  or  places  in  the  education 
system’.411 

The temporary equalising measures can only be adopted if there is ‘provable inequality’, if 
their aim is reducing or removing this inequality and if they are appropriate and necessary 
to achieve the set aim.412 The temporary equalising measures can only be adopted in the 
fields falling under the material scope of the Anti-discrimination Act413 (employment and 
occupation, social security and social advantages, healthcare, education and access to and 
provision of goods and services including housing).414 They can only be in force while the 
inequality that has led to their adoption exists. Otherwise the bodies  that have  adopted 
such measures are obliged to stop them.415 

Bodies  that  adopt  the  measures  are  obliged  to  monitor  and  evaluate  them  continuously 
and to publish information about them with a view to reappraising their further duration, 
and must provide the relevant information to the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights 
(the equality body).416 According to the Centre, so far no body provided information about 
taking  such  measures,  although in  the  most  recent  research  published  by  the  Centre  in 
2016, 8.93 % of the bodies that are entitled to adopt these measures that were questioned 
(the  sample  was  1  198  entities),  informed  the  Centre  that  they  are  adopting  or  have 

409  This provision gained its current shape after an amendment of the Anti-discrimination Act by Act No 

32/2013 of 5 February 2013, effective from 1 April 2013.  

410  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 8a(1), first sentence.  
411  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 8a(1), second sentence. 
412  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 8a(2).  
413  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 8a(3), first sentence.  
414  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Sections 3(1), 6 and 5.  
415  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 8a(3), second sentence. 
416  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 8a(4). 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
adopted temporary equalising measures in the past. Out of those questioned, as many as 
55.18 % reported that they do not know the term ‘temporary equalising measures’ at all.417  

Positive action measures were subject to Constitutional Court review in 2004-2005, upon 
adoption of the Anti-discrimination Act in 2004, which contained a positive action provision 
(Section 8(8) at that time), which read:  

‘With a view to ensuring full equality in practice and compliance with the principle of 
equal  treatment,  specific  equalising  measures  to  prevent  disadvantages  linked  to 
racial or ethnic origin may be adopted.’418 

The  Constitutional  Court  decided  in  2005  that  the  former  Section  8(8)  of  the  Anti-
discrimination  Act  was  not  in  compliance  with  the  Constitution.419  It  argued  that  the 
disputed  provision  constituted  more  favourable  treatment  (positive  discrimination)  of 
persons linked to racial or ethnic origin. It also argued that it did not set out criteria for 
taking the specific equalising measures, and that it contained no rules that would limit the 
measures  in  terms  of  duration,  which  meant  that  they  could  become  a basis  for 
discrimination (so-called ‘reverse discrimination’) against other groups without there being 
a constitutional basis for it. Therefore, the Constitutional Court deemed these provisions 
to have contravened the principle of the rule of law.  

The Constitutional Court did not reject the application of the specific equalising measures 
(positive  action)  in  principle.  However,  it  stated  that  taking  such  action  must  have  a 
constitutional basis, which is not the case when speaking about racial and ethnic origin. 
The Constitutional Court was of the opinion that the only constitutional basis for positive 
action is in Article 38 (paragraphs 1 and 2) of the Constitution under which women, minors 
and  persons  with  disabilities  may  enjoy  more  extensive  health  protection  at  work  and 
special working conditions. In accordance with Article 38 of the Constitution, minors and 
people with disabilities also have the right to special assistance in training. 

It seems from the current wording of Section 8a of the Anti-discrimination Act, enabling 
the adoption of the temporary equalising measures, that the Constitutional Court decision 
was simply ‘overruled’ by legislators with regard to racial or ethnic origin, affiliation with a 
national minority or an ethnic group, and age being the eligible grounds for positive action 
(since they are not covered by Article 38 of the Constitution), and in principle also with all 
other grounds contained in the provision, since Article 38 of the Constitution only covers 
health protection at work and working conditions (and the material scope of the positive 
action as regulated by the Anti-discrimination Act currently covers all fields that fall under 
the  scope  of  Anti-discrimination  Act).  However,  no-one  contests  the  current  wording  of 
Section 8a of the Anti-discrimination Act and the Constitutional Court decision used to be 
a subject of constant criticism for its inconsistency and illegitimacy.  

In autumn 2013, the Centre for the Research of Ethnicity and Culture (an NGO based in 
Slovakia) in cooperation with the Ministry of Justice initiated the formation of a working 
group composed of various representatives of governmental bodies, the Slovak National 
Centre for Human Rights and NGOs. The work of this group resulted in written guidelines 
for  the  implementation  of  temporary  equalising  measures  with  regard  to  ethnicity, 
nationality (národnosť), sex or gender.420  

417  See Slovak National Centre for Human Rights (2016), Monitorovanie a vyhodnocov anie účinnosti dočasných 
vyrovnávacích opatrení v podmienkach Slovenskej republiky (Monitoring and Evaluation of the effectiveness 
of temporary equalizing measures in Slovakia 2016), available at: 
http://www.snslp.sk/CCMS/files/DVO_Vyskum_FINAL.pdf (accessed 10 March 2017). 
418  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 8(8), as adopted on 20 May 2004.  
419  Decision of the Constitutional Court, PL. ÚS 8/04, 18 October 2005, http://www.concourt.sk/, (accessed 10 

March 2017). 

420  Lajčáková, J. (2015) Prijímanie dočasných vyrovnávacích opatrení na základe etnicity, národnosti, pohlavia 
alebo rodu na Slovensku: PRÍRUČKA (Adopting Temporary Equalising Measures with Regard to Ethnicity, 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
b)  Main positive action measures in place on national level 

There are various measures that can be perceived as positive action, although not all of 
them are perceived as such by those who introduced and/or implement them.  

On a broad policy level (often also backed by corresponding legislation), there are or have 
been a few measures that could, in principle, be categorised as positive action (mainly with 
regard to ethnicity), although they are formulated rather neutrally (i.e. they do not refer 
specifically to ethnicity/Roma communities) and are based largely on the concept of ‘social 
disadvantage’.  An  example  of  this  approach  in  education  is  the  so-called  zero-grade 
classes, which primary schools are allowed to run for children ‘from socially disadvantaged 
backgrounds  in  whose  case  it  can  be  assumed  that  their  development  will  equalise  by 
placing them in zero-grade classes’421 and for children who ‘on reaching the age of six do 
not  have  the  capacity  for  school  attendance  and  come  from  socially  disadvantaged 
backgrounds’.422 Although formulated seemingly neutrally, these measures appear to have 
been aimed particularly at Roma children, and it is almost exclusively Roma children who 
are placed in such classes. 

The overall practical efficiency of these measures is very questionable, not only because 
many of the children who would be eligible for education in the zero-grade classes are, due 
to  discriminatory  diagnostics  and  discriminatory  legislation,  placed  in  special/specialised 
classes/schools (see  section 3.2.8 above), but also because of the fact that the existing 
school system is unable to include Roma children properly later on and mainstream their 
equality. In addition, these measures are criticised as a tool of further segregation (it is 
almost exclusively Roma children who are placed in the zero-grade classes), labelling and 
stigmatisation of Roma children: Roma children are the ‘problem’ and need to be ‘civilised’ 
and made ‘normal’ in order to be eligible for further education with non-Roma children and 
there is no reflection on the non-inclusive and culturally dominant majoritarian system of 
education.423 

As  a  broad  policy  measure  in  the  field  of  health,  the  programme  of  health  mediators 
(‘health  awareness  assistants’)  based  in  marginalised  Roma  communities  was  re-
introduced in 2013 (after some breaks in the previous programmes of this kind, which has 
operated  in  some  form  and  extent  since  2000).  The  programme  that  started  in  2013, 
entitled ‘Healthy Communities’, is a joint initiative of NGOs associated in the Platform for 
the Support of Health of Disadvantaged Groups who officially partnered with the Ministry 
of Health to jointly found a non-profit organisation (the organisation that the Platform and 
the  Ministry  founded  jointly  has  the  same  name  as  its  programme,  i.  e.  ‘Healthy 
Communities’).  In  December  2015,  the  programme  aimed  at  improving  the  access  of 
marginalised  Roma  communities  to  healthcare  employed  234  health  mediators  of  Roma 
origin in 299 Roma communities (the mediators come from these communities) to assist 
people from marginalised Roma communities with everyday health-related situations (such 
as assisting them with making a doctor’s appointment, providing information relating to 
health and on personal hygiene, care for children, the importance of vaccination, calling 
an ambulance, etc.) but who also act as intermediaries between the marginalised Roma 
communities  and  healthcare  professionals  and  facilities  (the  health  mediators  cooperate 

Nationality, Sex or Gender in Slovakia: GUIDELINES), Centrum pre výskum etnicity a kultúry, available at 
http://cvek.sk/publikacie/ (accessed 10 March 2017).  

421  Slovakia, Schools Act, 245/2008, Section 60(4). 
422  Slovakia, Schools Act, 245/2008, Section 19(4).  
423  This was also one of the main findings of a qualitative research study carried out by the Ethnicity and 

Culture Research Centre (Centrum pre výskum etnicity a kultúry. in late 2011 and early 2012. The findings 
of the research were published in Gallová Kriglerová, E., Gažovičová, T. (eds.) (2012): Škola pre všetkých? 
Inkluzívnosť opatrení vo vzťahu k rómskym deťom (School for Everybody? The Inclusiveness of Measures 
Relating to Roma Children), Bratislava, Centrum pre výskum etnicity a kultúry. The publication is also 
available online at: http://cvek.sk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/skola_pre_vsetkych_web.pdf (accessed 10 
March 2017).  

104 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
with more then 750 doctors and with tens of other health professionals).424 The programme 
was funded by the European Social Fund and by the European Regional Development Fund. 
In August 2015 funding for the continuation of the project up to 2018 was allocated from 
the  European  Social  Fund  (operational  programme  human  resources),  but  due  to  the 
inability of the Government institutions responsible to manage to draw down these funds, 
the project lacked funding. From January 2016 the programme was operationally funded 
by  the  Ministry  of  Health  from  the  state  budget,  which  proved  to  be  insufficient  and, 
according  to  reported  information  from  November  2016,  the  continuation  of  the  project 
seemed questionable.425 

At  an  institutional  level  (although  as  a  project  offering  narrowly  tailored  preferential 
treatment), a rather innovative initiative entitled ‘You also have a chance!’ has been taking 
place at the University of Economics in Bratislava since autumn 2013. Together with the 
Centre for the Research of Ethnicity and Culture (an NGO based in Slovakia), the university 
is carrying out a set of temporary equalising measures that should increase opportunities 
for  Roma  applicants  to  get  enrolled  and  successfully  complete  university  studies.  These 
measures  comprise  outreach  programmes  to  promote  the  university  among  Roma  high 
school pupils, providing free access to  courses preparing them  for  entrance  exams, and 
providing individual assistance and support to each of the Roma applicants (and in some 
cases their parents) before the exams as well as upon enrolment at the university (e. g. 
assistance  with  obtaining  accommodation,  applying  for  scholarships,  or  with  finding 
student  jobs,  assigning  a  special  mentor  and  a  coordinator,  etc.).  The  conditions  of 
entrance exams remain the same for all applicants (no quotas are applied), although Roma 
applicants are exempt from paying entrance exams fees. The preparatory courses in school 
year 2014-2015 were completed by three Roma pupils and all of them succeeded in the 
entrance exams in June 2015 and were enrolled at the university. As of the end of 2015, 
another three Roma students received support from the programme for entrance exams.426 
The project continued in the school year 2016-2017 with financial support from a private 
foundation and is preparing eight Roma students for the exams in June 2017. The initiative 
also provides additional tutoring for Roma students who were enrolled at the university in 
previous years.427  

Employment legislation provides for special protection for people with disabilities. There is 
a special quota system established for employers who employ at least 20 employees. Under 
Sections 63-65 of the Act on Employment Services, any employer who employs at least 20 
employees428 is obliged to ensure that at least 3.2 % of its workforce is made up of people 
with disabilities, provided that the local labour office has job seekers with disabilities on its 
register. Instead of employing a person with a disability, an employer can also decide to 
buy  goods  or  services  from  a  sheltered  workshop  or  a  sheltered  workplace  or  a  self-
employed person with a disability. If an employer fails to meet both of these obligations, 
they are obliged to pay a levy to the labour office. The levy is a public revenue and is not 

424  Some information about the project can be found in English at http://www.zdravekomunity.sk/?q=en (last 

accessed 10 March 2017).  

425  See press release published by the Platform for Supporting the Health of Disadvantaged Communities 

available on the website of this programme from November 2016. Available at: 
http://zdravekomunity.sk/sk/projekt-ktory-je-pre-ine-krajiny-prikladom-konci-kvoli-byrokratickym-
prietahom (accessed 10 March 2017). 

426  Some information about the initiative can be found at http://cvek.sk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Aj-ty-
mas-sancu-info-2016.pdf (accessed 10 March 2017), or in Lajčáková, J. (2015) Prijímanie dočasných 
vyrovnávacích opatrení na základe etnicity, národnosti, pohlavia alebo rodu na Slovensku: PRÍRUČKA 
(Adopting Temporary Equalising Measures with Regard to Ethnicity, Nationality, Sex or Gender in Slovakia: 
GUIDELINES), Centrum pre výskum etnicity a kultúry, pp. 50-51, available at http://cvek.sk/publikacie/ 
(accessed 10 March 2017).  

427  Updated information provided by Jarmila Lajčakova from the Centre for the Research of Ethnicity and 

Culture on 1 March 2017 to the author of this report. 

428  Excluding some categories of employees such as members of the police, prison guards, firefighters etc. 

105 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
redistributed further to e. g. support the employment of people with disabilities. The actual 
statistics on this special quota for 2016 are not yet publicly available.429  

There are no specific measures related to discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation 
and religion and belief. 

To the best knowledge of the author of this report there are no specific measures related 
to  migrants  (third-country  nationals  and  stateless  persons  who  are  currently  residing in 
Slovakia).  

429   Response of the Central Office of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of 2 May 2017 to a request for 

information of 24 April 2017 (on file with the author). 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6 

REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT  

6.1  Judicial  and/or  administrative  procedures  (Article  7  Directive  2000/43, 

Article 9 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Available procedures for enforcing the principle of equal treatment 

In Slovakia, the following procedures exist for enforcing the principle of equal treatment: 
judicial,  administrative,  alternative  dispute  resolution  (in  the  form  of  mediation),  and 
internal complaint procedures (mainly in workplaces).  

There are no different procedures for employment in the private and the public sectors.  

- 

Civil judicial procedures  

Under  the  Anti-discrimination  Act,  a  natural  person  and/or  legal  entity  who  consider(s) 
themselves wronged in relation to their rights and interests protected by law because the 
principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them, may pursue their claim through 
judicial proceeding before the civil court of the first instance (there are no special labour 
courts in Slovakia). Persons discriminated against have the right to sue the perpetrator – 
be it a natural person or a legal entity, a public or private body – and request a number of 
remedies,  including  (the  list  is  not  exhaustive)  that  they  be  made  to  refrain  from  such 
conduct and, where possible, rectify the illegal situation or provide adequate satisfaction. 
If  the  adequate  satisfaction  is  insufficient  –  generally  if  the  violation  of  the  principle  of 
equal treatment has considerably impaired the dignity, social status or social achievement 
of the victim — they may also seek non-pecuniary damages in cash. The amount of the 
non-pecuniary  damages  is  determined  by  the  court,  which  must  take  into  account  the 
seriousness  of  the  non-pecuniary  damage  and  all  underlying  circumstances.  Material 
damages resulting from such treatment may also be claimed.430 There is no difference in 
the procedure, whether a public or private entity is being sued. The procedure has legally 
binding rules and the outcome is also legally binding.  

Civil judicial proceedings under the Anti-discrimination Act followed the Civil Procedure Act 
until 30 June 2016.431 With effect from 1 July 2016, the Civil Procedure Act was abolished 
and replaced with the new Civil Dispute Act,432 which contains some special provisions on 
anti-discrimination  proceedings.  The  act  is  a  general  civil  dispute  procedural  code,  with 
deviations for, inter alia, proceedings concerning alleged violations of the principle of equal 
treatment. The act introduces the concept of ‘Disputes with Protection of a Weaker Party’ 
where  it  departs  from  some  of  the  general  rules  contained  in  the  act,  with  the  aim  of 
mitigating  the  power  imbalance  between  the  parties  to  such  proceedings.  Consumer 
disputes,  anti-discrimination  disputes,  and  individual  labour  disputes  (including  disputes 
connected  to  violations  of  the  principle  of  equal  treatment)433  are  the  three  types  of 
disputes that incur protection of a weaker party.434 In the regulation of anti-discrimination 
disputes,435  the  act  refers  to  anti-discrimination  legislation  (in  practice  mainly  the  Anti-
Discrimination  Act),436  and  stipulates  that  the  procedural  provisions  contained  in  anti-
discrimination  legislation  (e.g.  on  the  burden  of  proof)  take  precedence  over  the  Civil 
Dispute Act.437 Among the exemptions from the general procedural rules contained in the 
act that apply to anti-discrimination disputes are: a broader duty of the court to instruct 
the  complainants  on  their  rights;438  the  ability  of  the court  to  seek  evidence  on  its  own 

430  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 9. 
431  Slovakia, Civil Procedure Act, 99/1963. 
432  Slovakia, Civil Dispute Act, 160/2015. 
433  Slovakia, Civil Dispute Act, 160/2015, Section 316(2).  
434  Slovakia, Civil Dispute Act, 160/2015, Sections 290-323.  
435  Slovakia, Civil Dispute Act, 160/2015, Sections 307-315.  
436  Slovakia, Civil Dispute Act, 160/2015, Section 307.  
437  Slovakia, Civil Dispute Act, 160/2015, Section 315(2).  
438  Slovakia, Civil Dispute Act, 160/2015, Section 309.  

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
initiative;439 the right of the complainant to submit evidence until the decision on the merits 
is delivered (as compared to other proceedings where the period for submitting evidence 
is  shorter);440  and  the  duty  of  courts  to  conduct  hearings  in  all  anti-discrimination 
proceedings (except for when the complainant agrees to omitting the hearing).441 The act 
also introduced a provision entitling NGOs and the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights 
to represent complainants when referring an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court 
(in disputes concerning violations of the principle of equal treatment).442  

- 

Administrative procedures 

Since  all  public  authorities  are  obliged  to  follow  the  principle  of  equal  treatment,  either 
pursuant  to  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  (if  the  scope  of  their  activities  falls  under  the 
material scope of the act), or pursuant to the Constitution (or both), they are all subject 
to administrative complaint proceedings. There is a special act on administrative complaint 
proceedings  that  deals  with  complaints  against  unlawful  conduct  by  public  authorities 
(discrimination  falls  under  such  conduct).443  Some  public  bodies  have  special  complaint 
mechanisms,  which  are  regulated  by  laws.  Generally  speaking,  the  outcomes  of  these 
procedures are binding, but they are not legally bindings for courts. Furthermore, the facts 
stated in documents issued by public bodies within their powers and public documents are 
considered to be truthful, if the opposite has not been proved to be the case.444  

In some instances when public bodies/institutions are obliged to observe the principle of 
equal treatment (such as a school, the State Social Insurance Company), decisions taken 
by  these  institutions  (e.g.  on  (non)admission  to  a  school,  on  (non)granting  of  a  social 
insurance benefit) are subject to special administrative rules, and the decisions themselves 
are  subject  to  appeal,  either  by  administrative  bodies,  or  by  courts.  If  the  appeal 
procedures  are  carried  out  by  administrative  bodies,  the  appellate  decisions  are  usually 
subject to judicial review. All decisions are, generally speaking, binding.  

In  some  fields  (e.g.  employment,  provision  of  goods  and  services),  the  performance  of 
entities  operating  in  these  fields  (employers,  service  providers,  etc.)  are  subject  to 
supervision through inspections. The inspections follow a type of administrative procedure. 
However, no shift of the burden of proof applies to inspection legislation and moreover, in 
most  cases  there  is  a  lack  of  effective  methodology  for  identifying  discrimination  (see 
section 6.3 of this report for more information). The investigations by labour inspectorates, 
for  example,  into  breaches  of  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  have,  in  most  cases, 
ultimately found no breaches of this principle. Trade inspections also rarely find violation 
of  the  principle.  In  cases  where  breaches  of  the  principle  were  identified,  the  labour 
inspectorates did not impose fines but ordered the entities responsible for the breach to 
remove  the  shortcomings  identified.445  The  decisions  of  inspectorates  are,  generally 
speaking, binding and are subject to judicial review.  

- 

Internal complaint mechanisms 

439  Slovakia, Civil Dispute Act, 160/2015, Section 311.  
440  Slovakia, Civil Dispute Act, 160/2015, Section 312. 
441  Slovakia, Civil Dispute Act, 160/2015, Section 314.  
442  Slovakia, Civil Dispute Act, 160/2015, Section 429(2)(b).  
443  Slovakia, Act No 9/2010 on Complaints (zákon č. 9/2010 Z. z. o šťažnostiach). Complaints against a public 
body are usually dealt with by a higher public authority. The complaint should be processed within a time 
limit of 60 days. 

444  Slovakia, Civil Dispute Act, Sections 193 and 205.  
445  See for example Debrecéniová, J., Pufflerová, Š. (2011), Inšpektoráty práce a ich pôsobenie pri plnení 

záväzkov SR týkajúcich sa presadzovania dodržiavania zásady rovnakého zaobchádzania 
v pracovnoprávnych a štátnozamestnaneckých vzťahoch (Labour Inspectorates and their Roles in Fulfilling 
Obligations of the Slovak Republic Concerning the Promoting of the Observance of the Principle of Equal 
Treatment in Private and Public Employment relations), Bratislava, Občan, demokracia a zodpovednosť, pp. 
1-2, available at: http://www.oad.sk/sites/default/files/downloads/Analyza_inspektoraty_prace.rtf 
(accessed 10 March 2017).  

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Section 13(5) of the Labour Code sets out the right of employees to submit a complaint to 
their employer against the infringement of the principle of equal treatment. The employer 
is obliged to respond to such a complaint without undue delay, provide redress, abstain 
from  such  conduct  and  eliminate  the  consequences  thereof.  The  importance  of  this 
provision  is  in  setting  the  obligation  of  a  private  employer  to  deal  with  complaints  of 
discrimination in employment relationships. The procedure is binding for the employer (if 
he or she receives such a complaint) but not for outside entities, including state bodies. 
The effect of this particular remedy is questionable; it is not much used in practice, and 
when it is used, it is often not to the benefit but to the detriment of the person discriminated 
against.  

- 

Mediation 

The  Anti-discrimination  Act  makes  explicit  reference  to  the  right  of  people  suffering 
breaches of the principle of equal treatment to mediation.446 The process of mediation is 
regulated  by  the  Act  on  Mediation,447  which  does  not  cover  discrimination-specific 
mediation.  Although  the  possibility  of  mediation  undoubtedly  extends  (at  least 
theoretically)  the  scope  of  remedial  options  for  victims  of  discrimination,  it  is  highly 
questionable whether the concept is suitable for some types of discrimination or cases of 
discriminatory behaviour (mainly harassment and sexual harassment, but also any kind of 
intentional  discrimination)  and  whether  it  might  not,  in  some  cases,  perpetuate  the 
inequality. The mediation agreement is binding for the parties to the mediation.448 If the 
agreement is written in the form of notary minutes or approved by a court, it is also legally 
enforceable.449  

- 

Criminal proceedings 

Some of the gravest violations of the principle of equal treatment also constitute crimes. 
Criminal  convictions  and  subsequent  criminal  proceedings  can  only  be  initiated  by  the 
state. The judgments of criminal courts are legally binding.  

b) 

Barriers and other deterrents faced by litigants seeking redress 

Claiming invalidity of an employment termination can only be done within a period of two 
months  from  the  due  date  of  the  termination  of  the  employment  relationship.450  This  is 
certainly a barrier to seeking effective remedies in cases of discriminatory dismissals.  

There is also case law indicating that claiming financial compensation  for non-pecuniary 
damage can be subject to a three-year lapse period.451  

Another potential barrier to initiating anti-discrimination judicial proceedings may be the 
court fees, especially when seeking non-pecuniary damages in cash. This fee derives from 
the amount requested (3 %; and is always paid in addition to the judicial fees for the other 
claims made) and, in the author’s view, is a barrier to seeking amounts that would really 
be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.  

Socially  disadvantaged  applicants  can  be  exempted  from  payment  of  court  fees  on  the 
decision of the judge. However, the criteria for exempting a claimant from judicial fees are 

446  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 9(5).  
447  Slovakia, Act No 420/2004 on Mediation and supplementing certain acts (zákon č. 420/2004 Z. z. o mediácii 

a o doplnení niektorých zákonov). 

448  Slovakia, Mediation Act, 420/2004, Section 15(1).  
449  Slovakia, Mediation Act, 420/2004, Section 15(2). 
450  Meaning two months after the (invalidly terminated) employment relationship would have ended (as a 

consequence of the invalid termination). See Slovakia, Labour Code, 311/2001, Section 77.  

451  See the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, No. 2 Cdo 278/2007, 1 November 2008.  

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
not fixed; the relevant provision states that an ‘exemption can be granted if the situation 
of the party to the proceeding justifies it’.452 

In practice, the physical accessibility of courts is not guaranteed for people with disabilities, 
particularly in old court buildings. Newly constructed or reconstructed court buildings, as 
well as all other public buildings, must be accessible for people with disabilities. Information 
provided in Braille script is mandatory only for the service panels in lifts.  

There is also a lack of qualified legal assistance in the field of anti-discrimination (as well 
as a lack of accessible legal aid in general, in terms of  financial accessibility). Access to 
free legal representation for those whose income is very low is provided by the state,453 
although  this  legal  representation  can  only  be  provided  in  civil  judicial  proceedings 
(including  proceedings  in  the  field  of  employment  and  including  judicial  review  of 
administrative  decisions)  and  not  in  administrative  proceedings/proceedings  before 
inspectorates, or criminal proceedings.454 The threshold for entitlement to free legal aid or 
for  legal  aid  with  a  symbolic  financial  contribution  from  the  person  affected  is  relatively 
low,455 but there is still a relatively significant group of people who would not be able to 
pay for legal services (i.e. they do not fall under the threshold and hence are not entitled 
to the free/symbolically paid legal aid, but are still unable to pay it by themselves).456  

In cases  of breaches  of the principle of  equal treatment, the Slovak  National Centre  for 
Human Rights should arrange legal assistance for victims of discrimination (no matter what 
their income) but the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights does not fulfil this task very 
efficiently.  Out  of  524  complaints  of  discrimination  received  by  the  Centre  in  2016,457  it 
provided legal representation before courts in  only three cases of discrimination (on the 
grounds of language, disability and other status).458  

There is no obligatory legal representation in proceedings concerning discrimination (apart 
from proceedings before the Constitutional Court).  

In  2012,  the  Centre  for  Civil  and  Human  Rights,  an  NGO  active  in  the  field  of  non-
discrimination,  published  a  study  of  access  barriers  to  efficient  legal  protection  against 
discrimination.459  Part  of  the  study  presented  a  nationwide  survey  on  the  barriers 
encountered by people who subjectively feel that they have been discriminated against but 
do not seek legal aid or use legal means to defend themselves against discrimination. The 
survey showed that just a tiny percentage (4.7 %) of respondents who felt that they have 

452  Slovakia, Civil Dispute Act, 160/2015, Section 254.  
453  Slovakia, Act No. 327/2005 on Providing Legal Aid to Persons in Material Need, as amended (zákon č. 

327/2005 Z. z. o poskytovaní právnej pomoci osobám v materiálnej núdzi, v znení neskorších prepdisov).  

454  Slovakia, Act on providing legal aid to persons in material need, 327/2005, Section 3(1).  
455  Slovakia, Act on providing legal aid to persons in material need, 327/2005, Sections 6 and 6a.  
456  In addition, family members living in one household are, for the purposes of determining the level of their 
income, considered jointly unles they are opposing parties to a proceeding (see Section 4(2) of the act). 
This may exclude certain groups of persons from applying for the free legal aid/legal aid with a symbolic 
financial contribution (e. g. women subject to intimate partner violence, pupils/students living in one 
household with higher income parents who might not be supporting their children in pursuing legal 
proceedings in cases of discrimination, etc.). 

457  Responses from the Centre of 21 February 2017 and 27 February 2017 to a request for information of 17 

February 2017 filed by the NGO Centre for Civil and Human Rights (the author cooperates with the NGO and 
holds the responses are on file).  

458  In 2016, the Centre provided representation in case No. 7 Cpr/2/2014 pending before the Regional Court in 
Prešov, case No. 6 cpr/4/2015 pending before the District Court in Humenné and case No. 19 c 446/2015 
currently pending before the Regional Court in Bratislava. The information on these cases was provided by 
the Centre in responses to the requests for information filed by the Centre for Civil and Human Rights on 17 
and 23 February 2017.  

459  Durbáková, V., Holubová, B., Ivanco, Š., Liptáková, S. (2012), Hľadanie bariér v prístupe k účinnej právnej 
ochrane pred diskrimináciou, Košice: Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva, pp. 78-79. The publication is 
also available at https://www.poradna-prava.sk/sk/dokumenty/diskriminacia-na-slovensku-hladanie-barier-
v-pristupe-k-ucinnej-pravnej-ochrane-pred-diskriminaciou/ (accessed 10 March 2017).  

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
been discriminated against have sought legal assistance or sought to lodge a claim against 
discrimination by legal means. Over 92 % have not taken any steps to defend themselves.  

The  reasons why those discriminated against decided not to  challenge discrimination by 
legal means and not to seek legal assistance were relatively evenly distributed across the 
population of Slovakia. They included lack of trust in the institutions that might successfully 
resolve discrimination (13.1 % of responses), lack of evidence (11.8 % of responses), the 
fact that people who felt discriminated against did not consider it important to resolve their 
case (11.6 %), lack of information as to where and to whom to turn for legal assistance 
(over 10 %). The Centre for Civil and Human Rights concluded: 

‘[t]he  nationwide  research  results  indicated  an  overall  scepticism  and  even 
resignation with regard to any solution, as well as the conviction that discrimination 
in Slovakia is so normal and widespread that it makes no sense to oppose it and that 
it is not possible to obtain justice in Slovakia.’460 

c) 

Number of discrimination cases brought to justice 

In Slovakia there are no available statistics on the number of cases related to discrimination 
brought  to  justice.  There  are  some  data  on  finalised  cases  collected  by  the  Ministry  of 
Justice but the data is very inaccurate and insufficient (for reasons explained in more detail 
in section 6.1(d) below).  

In responses to requests for information filed by the author of this report with the Ministry 
of  Justice  on  the  numbers  of  cases  of  discrimination  decided  by  Slovak  courts  and  any 
corresponding statistics, the ministry only presented data about 12 (final) judicial decisions 
delivered by district courts in 2016.461 Out of 12 cases, only two related to the violation of 
the  principle  of  equal  treatment,  while  others  are  mainly  cases  concerning  employment 
disputes. The information provided by the ministry included the name of the court, the file 
number and the sum awarded (damages awarded were not compensating discriminatory 
treatment). The statistics did not contain some decisions of  ordinary courts, information 
about which is known from other sources (the official database of effective judicial decisions 
of  general  courts,  cases  reported  by  the  Slovak  National  Centre  for  Human  Rights  and 
cases reported by NGOs).  

The  statistics  provided  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice  do  not  contain  information  on 
discrimination-related  proceedings  and  decisions  by  the  Supreme  Court  and  the 
Constitutional Court (see also section 6.1(d) below).  

It  is  obvious  that  the  statistics  collected  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice  provide  only  partial 
information on (final) cases of discrimination that have been decided by ordinary courts in 
Slovakia.  Part  of  the  study  by  the  Centre  for  Civil  and  Human  Rights  described  in  the 
previous section presented the results of the organisation’s monitoring of judicial decisions 
in the field of (non)discrimination (the monitoring covered both final and non-final decisions 
delivered by district and regional courts in Slovakia between 1 July 2004462 and 31 January 
2012, pursuant to the Anti-discrimination Act).463 The Centre for Civil and Human Rights 
found  that  about  120  proceedings  relating  to  discrimination  had  been  concluded  in  the 
period covered.464 This includes proceedings in all levels of courts, which means that the 

460  Durbáková, V., Holubová, B., Ivanco, Š., Liptáková, S. (2012), Hľadanie bariér v prístupe k účinnej právnej 

ochrane pred diskrimináciou, Košice: Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva, pp. 27-49 and p. 129.  

461  A response of the Ministry of Justice of 1 March 2017 to a request for information of 17 February 2017 (on 

file with the author).  

462  The date of the Anti-discrimination Act coming into force.  
463  Durbáková, V., Holubová, B., Ivanco, Š., Liptáková, S. (2012), Hľadanie bariér v prístupe k účinnej právnej 
ochrane pred diskrimináciou, Košice: Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva, pp. 69-104 and pp. 131-133.  

464  The number may not be very accurate, as not all the courts approached with a request for information on 
the proceedings provided this information, and the Ministry of Justice does not collect the corresponding 
statistics properly.  

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
number of actual cases brought to the courts is lower. The monitoring also found that this 
type of proceedings was not conducted at all by 18 courts in Slovakia (29 % of all courts). 
This number is desperately low, especially given that the Anti-discrimination Act has been 
in existence since 2004 (and some anti-discrimination provisions were contained in Slovak 
legislation even earlier), and also that discrimination is a very widespread phenomenon in 
Slovakia.  

There  is  no  more  recent  data  on  the  number  of  proceedings  or  decisions  in  the  field  of 
discrimination.  

d) 

Registration of discrimination cases by national courts 

In Slovakia discrimination cases are not properly registered by national courts.  

The registration of discrimination cases by courts and the subsequent data collection for 
statistical purposes, as well as making the data accessible to the public is very problematic. 
The deficiencies in the system result in totally inaccurate data about discrimination cases, 
which is also very difficult to access. 

Upon submission of a case to a court, the court is obliged to register it. One of the items 
to be registered is the ‘subject’ of the proceedings, which is not defined in any way by the 
ordinance of the Ministry of Justice that sets rules for registration of a case file and other 
matters  connected  to  the  administration  of  judicial  proceedings  and  files  by  district  and 
regional courts465 (the ordinance does not cover the Supreme Court and the Constitutional 
Court  where  many  discrimination  cases  end).  The  courts  also  register  further  criteria 
relevant from the perspective of discrimination such as the ground of discrimination, the 
field and the remedies sought. In practice, the courts do not record cases of discrimination 
properly in the registers. The failure of courts to record properly discrimination cases, may, 
for example lead to a situation where a case that should be registered as relating to health 
care as a field of discrimination, is registered as a case that does not concern discrimination 
(as in other types of judicial proceedings the field is not registered). Furthermore, in some 
instances, courts simply copy the names/types of lawsuits as appearing on the applicants’ 
submissions, without examining the real content of the case and hence without considering 
whether it in fact concerns discrimination or not.466 

Although  courts  are  obliged  to  publish  all  of  their  final  decisions  (after  the  necessary 
anonymisation) online, experience shows that this is not the practice. Many of the decisions 
relating  to  discrimination  that  are  known  to  the  author  of  this  report  are  not  available 
online  and  many  of  the  decisions  published  in  the  online  register  do  not  appear  in  the 
statistics provided by the Ministry of Justice to the author of this report.467  

Researching decisions is somewhat easier in case of the Constitutional Court as it publishes 
each  of  its  decisions  online  and  it  is  also  possible  to  search  by  individual  articles  of  the 
Constitution. The Supreme Court also publishes its decisions on its website. 

465  Slovakia, Decree of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic No 543/2005 on the 

Administrative and Office Code for District Courts, Regional Courts, the Special Court and military courts, as 
amended (vyhláška Ministerstva spravodlivosti SR č. 543/2005 Z. z. o Spravovacom a kancelárskom 
poriadku pre okresné súdy, krajské súdy, Špeciálny súd a vojenské súdy) Section 148(4). The so-called 
Special Court and military courts are all criminal courts not relevant for this report.  

466  See Durbáková, V., Holubová, B., Ivanco, Š., Liptáková, S. (2012), Hľadanie bariér v prístupe k účinnej 
právnej ochrane pred diskrimináciou, Košice: Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva, pp. 57-63. The 
publication is also available at http://www.poradna-prava.sk/site/assets/files/1114/diskriminacia-na-
slovensku.pdf, accessed 01 March 2017. 

467   The author of this report used the facility of a full text search in the online register published by the 

Ministry of Justice, using the term ‘violation of principle of equal treatment’. Accordingly, by 2 March 2017, 
1 620 decisions were listed (including the decisions of the Supreme Court), although some of them are 
missing from the statistics provided by the Ministry of Justice in its response of 1 March 2017 to a request 
for information of 17 February 2017. 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6.2  Legal standing and associations (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/43, Article 9(2) 

Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Engaging on behalf of victims of discrimination (representing them) 

In  Slovakia  associations,  organisations  and  trade  unions  are  entitled  to  act  on  behalf  of 
victims of discrimination. 

According  to  Section  10(1)(a)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act,  the  claimant  in  (civil) 
proceedings  pursuant  to  the  act  (but  in  principle,  also  the  defendant  given  that  the 
provision talks about ‘parties to the proceedings concerning the violation of the principle 
of equal treatment’) can be represented by a legal entity that has the authority to do so 
(i.e.  the  authority  to  represent  a  party  in  proceedings  concerning  the  principle  of  equal 
treatment) in accordance with a separate law. Under the Act on  Establishing  the Slovak 
National Centre for Human Rights (see section 7 of this report), the Slovak National Centre 
for  Human  Rights  (the  equality  body)  is  entitled  by  law  to  represent  the  claimant  in 
proceedings concerning the violation of the principle of equal treatment.  

According  to  Section  10(1)(b)  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act  the  parties  can  also  be 
represented  by  a  legal  entity  ‘whose  activities  are  aimed  at  or  consist  in  the  protection 
against discrimination’ (in practice, this usually means NGOs, but in theory, it could also 
be trade unions and the law does not stipulate any more detail about such organisations). 
If  the  legal  entity  takes  up  the  representation,  it  authorises  one  of  its  members  or 
employees to act on its behalf.468 

According  to  the  Section  308  of  the  Civil  Dispute  Act,  the  parties  in  anti-discrimination 
disputes can be represented by a person (or legal entity) authorised by anti-discrimination 
legislation.469 

In  all  civil  proceedings  related  to  individual  employment  relations,  a  party  to  the 
proceedings can be represented by trade union organisation. 

Associations  can  represent  victims  in  civil  proceedings  before  ordinary  courts,  but  not 
before  the  Constitutional  Court.  The  fact  that  NGOs  cannot  represent  victims  of 
discrimination  before  the  Constitutional  Court  ultimately  makes  such  representation  in 
some cases inadequate and inefficient.  

As  the  Slovak  National  Centre  for  Human  Rights  is  authorised  to  represent  parties  to 
proceedings  in  matters  of  breaches  of  the  principle  equal  treatment  under  the  same 
conditions as associations, the same also applies to the equality body.  

In administrative proceedings, parties to the proceedings, their legal representatives and 
their  guardians  can  be  represented  by  a  lawyer  or  by  ‘another  representative  of  their 
choice’.470  This  means  that  people  affected  by  discrimination  can  in  principle  select  any 
natural or legal person to represent them, including NGOs or the Slovak National Centre 
for Human Rights. In proceedings before administrative courts concerning judicial review 
of  administrative  decisions,  the  NGOs,  trade  unions  and  some  other  legal  entities  can 
represent the party to the proceedings.471 

As far as criminal law is concerned, the victim in criminal proceedings can be represented 
by a proxy. Any person whose capacity to act legally is not limited can become a proxy, 
including  an  authorised  representative  of  an  organisation  which  helps  those  affected  by 

468  Slovakia, Civil Dispute Act, 160/2015, Section 317. 
469  Slovakia, Civil Dispute Act, 160/2015,Section 308. 
470  Slovakia, Administrative Code, 71/1967, Section 17(1).  
471  Slovakia, Administrative Judicial Act, 162/2015, Section 50. 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
crimes.472 ‘An organisation with the remit of helping those affected by crimes’ is, pursuant 
to Section 10(23) of the Criminal Procedure Act, an NGO that provides free legal assistance 
to those affected by crimes.  

Regarding a complaint dealt with by a public body, although there is no specific provision 
as to the legal standing of associations, the law does not prohibit other natural persons or 
legal entities from acting (submitting a complaint) on behalf of a complainant.  

NGOs and trade unions do not have a legal duty to act. The Act on Establishing the Slovak 
National Centre for Human Rights provides that the Centre ‘secures legal aid for victims of 
discrimination and intolerance’.473  

b) 

Engaging in support of victims of discrimination 

In Slovakia associations, organisations and trade unions are entitled to act in support of 
victims of discrimination. 

Until 30 June 2016, according to Section 93(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, ‘a legal person 
whose subject of activities is the protection of rights pursuant to a special law, can join the 
proceedings, besides the claimant and the defendant, as an accessory party’.474 

From  1  July  2016,  according  to  Section  95  of  the  Civil  Dispute  Act,  ‘the  court  can  also 
without  any  proposal  invite  into  the  court  proceeding  the  public  body  which  aim  is 
protection  of  fundamental  rights  and  freedoms  or  legal  entity  which is  entitled  to  rights 
protection, to engage in a proceedings, if the relevant party agrees.’475  

These  provisions  make  it  possible  for  the  Slovak  National  Centre  for  Human  Rights  and 
NGOs (and possibly also trade unions) to engage in support of victims of discrimination.  

Theoretically, other forms of support are also possible (e.g. a written legal opinion from an 
NGO or other entity in the form of an amicus brief). Expert opinions issued by the Slovak 
National Centre for Human Rights476 at the request of a claimant are sometimes submitted 
to the courts (by the claimants, if they decide to submit the opinions requested from the 
Centre).  

c) 

Actio popularis 

In Slovakia, national law allows associations, organisations and trade unions to act in the 
public interest on their own behalf, without a specific victim to support or represent (actio 
popularis).  

Section 9a of the Anti-discrimination Act stipulates that, if a breach of the principle of equal 
treatment  could  violate  rights  or  interests  protected  by  law  or  freedoms  of  a  greater  or 
non-specified  number  of  persons,  or  if  the  public  interest  could  be  otherwise  seriously 
endangered  by  such  a  violation,  the  right  to  invoke  the  protection  of  the  right  to  equal 
treatment is also vested in the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights or a legal entity 
that is ‘concerned with or active in protection against discrimination’ (usually NGOs, but in 
principle also trade unions). 

472  Slovakia, Criminal Procedure Code, 301/2005, Section 53. 
473  Slovakia, Act No 308/1993 on Establishing the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights (zákon č. 308/1993 

Z. z. o zriadení Slovenského národného strediska pre ľudské práva), Section 1(2)(e). 

474  Slovakia, Civil Procedure Act, 99/1963, Section 93(2). 
475  Slovakia, Civil Dispute Act, 160/2015, Section 95. 
476  Under Section 1(2)(f) of the Act on the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights, the centre is granted the 
competence to prepare expert opinions concerning compliance with the principle of equal treatment upon a 
request or its own initiative. In 2016, the Centre issued 19 expert opinions, out of which only 2 were issued 
on its own initiative.  

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
These entities can request that the court determines that the principle of equal treatment 
has been breached, that the entity breaching the principle of equal treatment refrains from 
such conduct and, where possible, rectifies the illegal situation. The list of these actions is 
non-exhaustive.  

Although this provision is quite progressive, only one NGO – the Centre for Civil and Human 
Rights  –  has  initiated  proceedings  by  using  actio  popularis  so  far  in  cases  of  indirect 
discriminatory legal provision of the Childbirth Allowance Act and in cases of segregation 
of Roma children in education and Roma women in maternity wards. The Slovak National 
Centre for Human Rights has so far not initiated any actio popularis proceedings. 

For actio popularis proceedings the same concept of the shift in burden of proof applies as 
in all other proceedings in cases of breaches of the principle of equal treatment initiated 
on the basis of the Anti-Discrimination Act.  

d) 

Class action 

In Slovakia national law allows associations, organisations and trade unions to act in the 
interest of more than one individual victim (class action) for claims arising from the same 
event.  

There are no restrictions as to the number of petitioners who can be represented (although 
the Anti-discrimination Act is not explicit on the matter). Class actions are also possible in 
Slovak civil judicial proceedings, meaning that a group of citizens can lodge an action based 
on the same facts, where each victim must stand as a claimant. 

Since 1 July 2016, according to the Section 75 of the Civil Dispute Act in cases where more 
than 10 subjects are party to the proceedings, the court can decide that only one subject 
should represent the group.477  

If an NGO takes up the representation of a person affected by discrimination (or several 
people affected by discrimination in the case of a class action), it must assign one of its 
members and/or employees to act on behalf of the person(s) represented. If an NGO or 
the  Slovak  National  Centre  for  Human  Rights  takes  up  legal  representation  in  civil 
proceedings  under  the  Anti-discrimination  Act,  all  conditions  applicable  for  the  legal 
representation of individuals mentioned above (i.e. on the type of conditions that the legal 
entity must fulfil, the types of remedies that it can request on behalf of the claimant, the 
conditions regarding the burden of proof etc.) are equally applicable.  

6.3  Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78) 

In Slovakia, national law requires a shift of the burden of proof from  the complainant to 
the respondent. This is, however, applicable to civil proceedings only. 

According to Section 11(2) of the Anti-discrimination Act, if the claimant  

‘communicates to the court facts which give rise to a reasonable assumption that a 
violation  of  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  occurred,  the  defendant  has  the 
obligation to prove that there was no violation of the principle.’  

The shifting of the burden of proof is applicable in all civil judicial proceedings filed on the 
basis of the Anti-discrimination Act and ‘in proceedings in matters connected to a breach 
of  the  principle  of  equal  treatment’.  As  a  breach  of  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  is 
defined  very  broadly  (to  include,  for  example,  victimisation,  instruction  to  discriminate, 
incitement to discriminate, breach of the duty to adopt measures to prevent discrimination 

477  Slovakia, Civil Dispute Act, 160/2015, Section 75. 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
etc.), the concept of shifting the burden of proof should apply to all the components of the 
equal treatment principle and to all prohibited forms of discrimination. 

The Constitutional Court has provided this interpretation of the shift in the burden of proof:  

‘[b]urden  of  proof  does  not  only  and  exclusively  burden  the  defendant  but  it  also 
burdens  the  claimant.  The  claimant  must,  by  priority,  bear  the  burden  of  proof 
concerning  the  facts  from  which  it  can  be  inferred  that  direct  or  indirect 
discrimination, or, let us say, [a breach of] the principle of equal treatment, has been 
committed. The claimant must allege and at the same time submit proofs (bear the 
burden of proof) from which it can be reasonably concluded that the principle of equal 
treatment has been breached. At the same time, they must allege that their race or 
ethnic  affiliation  (origin)  is  the  inducement  for  the  discriminatory  action.  It  is  only 
thereafter that the burden of proof is shifted on to the defendant, who has the right 
to  prove  their  allegations  that  they  have  not  breached  the  principle  of  equal 
treatment.’478  

In 2015, the Constitutional Court provided some additional clarifications to slected aspects 
related to the burden of proof in anti-discrimination proceedings.479 The court emphasised 
the specificities of anti-discrimination proceedings, which are very demanding in terms of 
evidence  assessment.  It  also  pointed  to  the  specific  distribution  of  the  burden  of  proof 
where the ‘claimant is supposed to communicate to the court the facts which give rise to 
a reasonable assumption (i. e. not an unquestionable settlement) that a violation of the 
principle of equal treatment occurred’,480 which establishes the shift of the burden of proof 
on to the defendant. Whether the burden of proof gets shifted or not depends on the quality 
of  the  assessment  of  the  evidence  available  –  from  the  point  of  view  of  whether  the 
deciding court has thoroughly considered all facts that emerged in the proceedings.481 The 
Constitutional Court, referring to case law from the Czech Constitutional Court,482 also held 
that ‘the requirement for the claimant to prove that their discrimination has taken place 
because  of  their  racial (ethnic)  origin  and  not for  another  reason  can  apparently  not  be 
fulfilled since proving the motivation (incentive) of the defendant is simply impossible, due 
to  the  nature  of  the  issue  itself’.483  Thus,  the  Constitutional  Court  confirmed  that  the 
claimant does not have to establish the motivation/incentive (the Constitutional Court uses 
both of these words) of the defendant to discriminate.  

In a case decided by the Constitutional Court in 2013, the Constitutional Court adhered to 
an assessment  of a  second instance court from an earlier stage  of the proceedings that 
‘the defendant proved that it is more likely that the discrimination hasn’t taken place than 
it  is  likely  that  the  discrimination  has  taken  place,  and  so  he  discharged  his  burden  of 
proof’.484  In  this  decision,  the  Constitutional  Court  seems  to  be  indicating  that  once  the 
burden of proof is shifted on to the respondent (upon the applicant establishing facts from 
which  it  may  be  presumed  that  there  has  been  discrimination),  the  respondent  is  not 
obliged to prove beyond any doubt that there has been no breach of the principle of equal 
treatment (as the directives presumably require) but that it is sufficient to provide evidence 
establishing some probability of non-discrimination, provided that the probability of non-
discrimination is  higher  than  the  probability  of  discrimination.  It  seems  that  in  the  case 

478  Finding of the Constitutional Court, No IV. ÚS 16/09, 30 April 2009, available at: 

https://www.ustavnysud.sk/documents/10182/992376/95_09a.pdf/13520fbb-1782-46cd-9402-
76137529c669 (accessed 27 June 2017). 

479  Finding of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, No III. ÚS 90/2015-40, 1 December 2015.  
480  This wording (except for the words in the brackets) is contained in Section 11(2) of the Anti-discrimination 

Act.  

481  Finding of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, No III. ÚS 90/2015-40, 1 December 2015, p. 15.  
482  Finding of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, No Pl. ÚS 37/04, 26 April 2006.  
483  Finding of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, No III. ÚS 90/2015-40, 1 December 2015, pp. 

17-18.  

484  Finding of the Constitutional Court , No II. ÚS 383/2013-16, V. S. v Primary School of Ivan Branislav Zoch 

in Revúca, 10 July 2013.  

116 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
presented, the Slovak Constitutional Court lowers the requirements and standards of proof 
on the side of the defendant once the burden of proof has been shifted to them, which may 
not be compatible with the requirements of EU law on the burden of proof in discrimination 
cases and is reminiscent of a more traditional approach to burden of proof in civil law.  

The implementation of this measure by Slovak courts is still problematic in practice. The 
UN Committee of the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in its  decision against Slovakia 
concerning  an  individual  case  of  discrimination  against  a  Roma  woman  in  accessing 
employment has also highlighted this fact and recommended that the State fully enforce 
its  Anti-discrimination  Act  through  the  enhancement  of  available  court  proceedings  for 
victims of racial discrimination by ensuring, inter alia, that the principle of shifted burden 
of  proof  is  applied  in  line  with  Article  11  of  the  Anti-discrimination  Act.485  The  improper 
implementation of shifting the burden of proof has also been challenged by the decision of 
the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, in its view adopted 
on  16  November  2016  of  D.S.  v.  Slovakia,  a  case  of  discrimination  against  a  woman  in 
employment on the grounds of her family status and sex (illegal dismissal upon her return 
to workplace from parental leave).486  

The Act on Labour Inspection487 does not contain any explicit and clear provisions on the 
burden of proof in relation to identifying breaches of the principle of equal treatment.  

The Criminal Procedure Act allows for no exceptions to the traditional concept of burden of 
proof in criminal proceedings. 

6.4  Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) 

In Slovakia there are legal measures of protection against victimisation. 

Article  12(4)  of  the  Constitution  generally  prohibits  any  victimisation  resulting  from  the 
exercise of basic rights guaranteed under the Constitution.  

Under Section 2a(1) of the Anti-discrimination Act, victimisation is considered to be a form 
of  discrimination.  The  Anti-discrimination  Act  also  contains  an  explicit  definition  of 
victimisation  according  to  which  victimisation  means  any  action  or  omission  that  is 
unfavourable  to  the  person  concerned  and  is  directly  connected  to  a)  seeking  legal 
protection  against  discrimination  for  oneself  or  on  behalf  of  another  person,  or  to  b) 
providing a witness testimony, an explanation or is connected to other involvement of a 
person in a proceeding concerning the violation of the principle of equal treatment, or to 
c) a complaint invoking a breach of the principle of equal treatment.488 Thus, it is not only 
a complainant directly affected by discrimination but anybody else who acts as a witness 
or a general complainant who is protected against adverse treatment. 

In addition to this provision, several other laws regulate protection against victimisation.489 
The only procedural guarantee against victimisation is included in the Anti-discrimination 

485  See CERD (2015), ‘Opinion of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in the case of 
V.S. v. Slovakia’, Communication no. 56/2014 from 16 December 2015, para 7.4. and 9, available at 
https://www.poradna-prava.sk/en/documents/opinion-of-the-cerd-in-the-case-of-v-s/ (accessed 10 March 
2017). 

486  See CEDAW (2016), ‘Views of the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against 
Women in D.S. v. Slovakia’, Communication no. 66/2014, adopted on 21 November 2016, available at 
https://www.poradna-prava.sk/en/documents/views-adopted-by-the-cedaw-committie-in-the-case-of-d-s/ 
(accessed 10 March 2017).  

487  Slovakia, Act No 125/2006 on Labour Inspection and changing and supplementing Act No 82/2005 on Illegal 

Work and Illegal Employment and changing and supplementing certain laws, as amended (zákon č. 
125/2006 Z. z. o inšpekcii práce a o zmene a doplnení zákona č. 82/2005 Z. z. o nelegálnej práci a 
nelegálnom zamestnávaní a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov).  

488  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 2a(8). 
489  Slovakia, Complaints Act, 9/2010, Sections 7 and 8. These sections stipulate that the mere fact of filing an 
action must not be used to the detriment of the complainant. Moreover, the complainant may request that 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Act.  A  case  of  victimisation  has  recently  been  decided  by  domestic  courts.  The  case 
concerned a Roma woman who claimed to be discriminated against in her workplace on 
the ground of her Roma ethnic origin. Among other forms of discrimination she also pointed 
out  that  direct  discrimination  and  harassment  against  her  resulted  in  victimisation  after 
she repeatedly complained to the employer about how she was treated. The District Court 
Košice II dismissed the lawsuit by its judgement no. 20C68/2012-350 from 08 September 
2015, reasoning that no discrimination occurred. The Regional Court in Košice, sitting as 
appeal  court,  reaffirmed  the  decision  of  the  first  instance  court  by  its  decision  no. 
2Co/657/2015 - 379 of 13 December 2016.490 See also section 12.2 of this report. 

6.5  Sanctions and remedies (Article 15 Directive 2000/43, Article 17 Directive 

2000/78) 

a) 

Applicable sanctions in cases of discrimination – in law and in practice 

As mentioned above, victims of discrimination have the right to sue the perpetrator – be 
it a natural person or a legal entity, a public or private body  – and request a number of 
remedies,  including  (the  list  is  not  exhaustive)  that  they  be  made  to  refrain  from  such 
conduct and, where possible, rectify the illegal situation or provide adequate satisfaction. 
If  the  adequate  satisfaction  is  insufficient,  generally  in  cases  where  the  violation  of  the 
principle of equal treatment has considerably impaired the dignity, social status or social 
achievement  of  the  victim,  a  claimant  may  also  seek  financial  compensation  for  non-
pecuniary damage. The amount of this financial compensation is determined by the court, 
which  must  take  into  account  the  seriousness  of  the  non-pecuniary  damage  and  all 
underlying  circumstances.  Material  damages  resulting  from  such  treatment  may  also  be 
claimed.491 There is no difference in the procedure, whether a public or private entity is 
being sued. 

Since  the  list  of  possible  claims  is  non-exhaustive,  other  possible  claims  include 
determining  (by  the  court)  that  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  has  been  violated,  or 
declaring a job termination invalid.492  

In the area of both public and private employment, labour inspectorates (based in every 
region of the country) as the bodies that oversee the observance of employment legislation 
(including  appointment,  dismissal,  pay  and  working  conditions)  have  the  authority  to 
impose a fine of up to EUR 100 000493 (and in some cases up to EUR 200 000)494 on the 
entities  that  fall  under  their  jurisdiction  and  that  have  breached  their  duties  under  the 
provisions of the employment legislation. The manager whose conduct has breached their 
statutory  duties  in  the  field  of  employment  and  their  obligations  under  collective 
agreements may be fined up to four times their average monthly salary.495  

their identity not be disclosed. The other law is the Labour Code, Section 13(3), which states that no person 
may be persecuted or otherwise adversely treated in the workplace as a reaction to a complaint, action, 
petition to start criminal proceedings, or other report on criminality or other anti-social activity against 
another employee or the employer. Similar provisions are enshrined in other acts, for example the Act on 
the State Service of Customs Officers, Act on the State Service of Members of the Police Force, Act on the 
Fire and Rescue Service, Employment Services Act, Higher Education Act, the Schools Act and the 
Healthcare Act. 

490  Decision of the District Court Košice II, No. 20C68/2012-350, 8 September 2015 and decision of the 

Regional Court in Košice, No. 2Co/657/2015 – 379, of 13 December 2016. 

491  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 9. 
492  The Slovak courts do not have a problem with declaring that the principle of equal treatment has been 

violated (and the Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this claim in its decision of 22 February 2012, 
No. 5 Cdo 257/2010). With regard to invalidity of job termination (for the reason of discrimination) and the 
subsequent wage compensation, the Supreme Court held that these are possible claims (decision of the 
Supreme Court of Slovakia, No 5 Cdo 56/2014, 24 March 2015, p. 8).  

493  Slovakia, Labour Inspection Act, 125/2006, Section 19(1)(a).  
494  Slovakia, Labour Inspection Act, 125/2006, Section 19(2)(b)(1) in conjunction with Section 19(3)(c). 
495  Slovakia, Labour Inspection Act, 125/2006, Section 19(1)(c).  

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
In education, the competent body is the State School Inspectorate. If the liable employee 
of a school or a school facility fails to remove the deficiencies identified by the inspection, 
they will be fined up to EUR 331.50.496 

In  the  area  of  access  to  goods  and  services,  the  monitoring  authorities  (offices  of  the 
Slovak Trade Inspectorate) may punish discriminatory conduct with a fine of up to EUR 16 
600.  Where  there  are  multiple  violations  of  a  legal  obligation  within  one  year,  the 
inspectorate may impose a fine up to EUR 33 000.  

b) 

Ceiling and amount of compensation 

The  amount  of  financial  compensation  for  non-pecuniary  damage  is  not  limited  and 
depends primarily on the seriousness of the damage caused and the circumstances under 
which it occurred. 

The  amount  of  compensation  for  pecuniary  damage  is  not  limited  –  the  claimant  must 
prove the real material damage that they have suffered and the causal link between the 
damage suffered and the unlawful act of the defendant. The only exception seems to be 
claims  of  wage  compensation  in  cases  of  illegal  dismissals  (this  is,  however,  a  general 
remedy applicable under the Labour Code, although the Supreme Court has already held 
that  it  is  also  applicable  in  anti-discrimination  proceedings  –  see  section  6.1  above). 
According to Section 79(2) of the Labour Code,  

‘[i]f  the  overall  time  for  which  an  employee  should  receive  wage  compensation  is 
greater  than  12  months,  a  court  may,  at  the  request  of  the  employer,  reduce  the 
employer’s  obligation  to  pay  wage  compensation  for  the  period  in  excess  of  12 
months by a proportionate amount or may decide not to  award the  employee any 
wage compensation for the period in excess of 12 months. Wage compensation shall 
be awarded for a period of no more than 36 months.’ 

There is no official or other information available on the average amount of compensation 
awarded to victims.  

Although the Ministry of Justice does collect some statistics, the data  that is provided497 
does not contain reliable data on the cases decided by Slovak courts in the field of (non-) 
discrimination  (see  also  sections  6.1(c)  and  6.1(d)  of  this  report).  However,  a  study, 
published  in  2012  by  an  NGO,  the  Centre  for  Civil  and  Human  Rights,498  offers  some 
information on the amounts of compensation for non-pecuniary damage  that have been 
granted by courts in cases of discrimination to date. The study presents the finding that, 
of 22 cases where courts found violations of the principle of equal treatment and where 
claimants  also  sought  financial  compensation  for  their  non-pecuniary  damage,  this 
compensation was only granted in 12 cases.499 The number of cases in which compensation 
for non-pecuniary damage was awarded at all is already indicative of the unwillingness of 
Slovak courts to grant this type of compensation. Indeed, as the authors of the study note, 
after analysing all the decisions available, courts often consider the fact that the declaration 

496  Slovakia, Act No 596/2003 on State Administration of the School System and School Self-Governance, 

Section 37a(2)(b). 

497  A response of the Ministry of Justice of 1 March 2017 to a request for information of 17 February 2017 (on 

file with the author). 

498  Durbáková, V., Holubová, B., Ivanco, Š., Liptáková, S. (2012), Hľadanie bariér v prístupe k účinnej právnej 

ochrane pred diskrimináciou, Košice: Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva. The publication is also available 
at http://www.poradna-prava.sk/site/assets/files/1114/diskriminacia-na-slovensku.pdf, (accessed 10 March 
2017). 

499  Durbáková, V., Holubová, B., Ivanco, Š., Liptáková, S. (2012), Hľadanie bariér v prístupe k účinnej právnej 
ochrane pred diskrimináciou, Košice: Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva, p. 98. Not all of these cases 
were final at the time of publication.  

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
of  a  violation  of  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  has  been  made  to  represent  sufficient 
satisfaction for the person discriminated against.500  

In cases where financial compensation for non-pecuniary damage was granted, this was 
usually in the field of employment or access to it (eight cases). Two  remaining cases in 
which financial compensation for non-pecuniary damage was granted were in the fields of 
access to services and housing. In six cases, the amounts awarded were most frequently 
around EUR 1 000 or slightly over (up to EUR 1 327.75). In one case (relating to ethnicity) 
the  compensation  was  EUR  165.96  for  each  claimant  (the  case  concerned  several 
claimants), in another case it was EUR 3 983.75, in another it was EUR 3 3198.39 and in 
the remaining case it was EUR 66 387.83. In the latter case the ground for discrimination 
was  not  given  in  the  proceedings,  so  it  is  unclear  how  the  case  relates  to  the  Anti-
discrimination Act and the EU directives in general. In addition, the decision was not yet 
final.501  

There  are  no  more  recent  complex  data  on  the  amounts  of  compensation  awarded. 
However,  out  of  the  12  cases  concerning  (non-)discrimination  that  were  finalised  by 
effective judgements in 2016 and about which the Ministry of Justice gave information (in 
its response to  a  request for information  of  17 February 2017 -  see also section 6.1.c), 
financial compensation was granted in seven cases, with the amount ranging from EUR 26 
to  EUR  5  650.  The  compensation  awarded  in  these  cases  did  not  compensate  the 
discriminatory  treatment.  For  example,  the  sum  of  EUR  5 650  was  awarded  in  judicial 
proceedings  not  related  to  the  violation  of  the  principle  of  equal  treatment,  but  in  a 
proceeding related to compensation for causing death of a patient. Surprisingly this case 
appears  in  the  Ministry  of  Justice’s  statistics  of  final  cases  related  to  the  violation  of 
principle  of  equal  treatment.  In  the  rest  of  the  cases,  no  financial  compensation  was 
granted at all.  

On 28 June 2016, the regional court in Košice, decided a case in which Roma customers 
faced  discrimination  based  on  their  ethnic  origin  in  a  local  bar  in  a  small  town,  Spišské 
Vlachy,  in  Eastern  Slovakia.  The  court  ordered  the  bar  owner  to  pay  the  discriminated 
Roma financial compensation to the amount of EUR 300 each and legal costs. The decision 
is  final  and  it  is  one  of  the  first  final  court  decisions  in  Slovakia  in  which  the  court  has 
awarded non-pecuniary damage for racial discrimination in access to services – the total 
amount the defendant had to pay is EUR 600 for non-pecuniary damage and approximately 
EUR 1 800 in legal costs.502 

c) 

Assessment of the sanctions 

It is already clear that the courts are fairly reluctant to award financial compensation at all 
for  non-pecuniary  damage  in  cases  of  discrimination  and  when  such  compensation  is 
granted, the amounts tend to be symbolic (only slightly exceeding the average monthly 
salary  in  Slovakia).  These  amounts  of  compensation  are  hardly  effective,  proportionate 
and dissuasive (and even unofficial sources from the business sector confirm that fear of 
serious  sanctions  in  discrimination-related  claims  has  not  so  far  become  a  part  of  their 
risk-assessment in management).  

500  Durbáková, V., Holubová, B., Ivanco, Š., Liptáková, S. (2012), Hľadanie bariér v prístupe k účinnej právnej 

ochrane pred diskrimináciou, Košice: Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva, p. 98.  

501  Durbáková, V., Holubová, B., Ivanco, Š., Liptáková, S. (2012), Hľadanie bariér v prístupe k účinnej právnej 
ochrane pred diskrimináciou, Košice: Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva, pp. 97-98. On 13 April 2016, 
the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic informed the previous expert Janka Debreceniová that the 
Supreme Court has quashed the decision of the Regional Court in Banská Bystrica (ref. No. 16C/85/2010-
513), deciding on the matter as an appellate court, and so the proceedings are still on-going.  

502  Decision of the Regional Court in Košice, No. 6 Co 833/2014 – 223, 28 June 2016. More information on the 
case is available at https://www.poradna-prava.sk/en/documents/press-release-the-slovak-court-ordered-
a-bar-owner-to-pay-compensation-for-discrimination/ (accessed 10 March 2017).  

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
One of the reasons for this inadequate implementation of the requirements of the directives 
may be the wording of the corresponding provision of the Anti-discrimination Act (Section 
9(3)) which requires a finding of a ‘considerable impairment of the dignity, social status or 
social  achievement  of  the  person  injured’  in  order  for  financial  compensation  for  non-
pecuniary damage to be awarded.503  

Although  this  set  of  conditions  is  not  exhaustive  and  courts  are  supposed  to  take  into 
account ‘the seriousness of the non-pecuniary damage and all underlying circumstances’, 
the most frequent practice is that persons affected by discrimination have to prove how 
their dignity has been ‘considerably impaired’, instead of the perpetrators’ behaviour being 
judged  as  inherently  humiliating  and  impairing  a  person’s  dignity.504  Thus,  instead  of 
bringing the perpetrators to justice, the individuals affected by discrimination often have 
to  go  through  their  trauma  again, including  during  the  judicial  proceedings,  and  remain 
disillusioned after the judicial decision is announced. A change in legislation reflecting the 
need for a paradigm shift (judging the behaviour and treatment of the perpetrator instead 
of burdening and re-traumatising the victim) would be more than welcome.  

As regards financial compensation for non-pecuniary damage, there is another problematic 
issue, namely the judicial fees. According to Slovak legislation, the  claimant is supposed 
to pay 3 % of any sum claimed as financial compensation for non-pecuniary damage. This 
means that the higher the amount claimed as compensation for non-pecuniary damage, 
the higher the judicial fee – which hinders claimants from even requesting amounts that 
would be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The judicial fees are paid in advance and 
in every instance, and they are doubled before the Supreme Court.505  

Given the fact that labour inspectorates are currently finding  almost no breaches of the 
principle  of  equal  treatment  (and  if  they  do  find  a  breach,  they  almost  never  fine  the 
violator),  the  answer  to  the  question  about  the  effectiveness,  proportionality  and 
dissuasiveness  of  their  sanctions  is  obvious.  The  same  can  be  said  of  school  and  trade 
inspectorates. 

503  See Section 6.1(a) for the full wording of the relevant provision.  
504  An exception to this practice is a decision by the District Court in Spišská Nová Ves of 25 April 2014 (ref. No 
1C/118/2010-175) where the district court argued that the defendant's action was directed against the 
dignity of the complainants and that they were `gravely humiliated´ by this action, and went on to say that 
`[a]ny discrimination is undoubtedly objectively degrading for every person affected by it`and that it 
represents action that is `particularly dangerous and socially inadmissible´. However, the decision is not 
final yet (as of April 2016), and the court only awarded the claimants (a married couple) EUR 300 each. 
Besides, district courts are the lowest chains of the judicial hierarchy in Slovakia and a more authoritative 
interpretation of dignity being automatically affected by discrimination is lacking.  

505  If, however, the first instance court awards some but not all of the requested compensation, the fee before 

the second instance court (and later possibly before the Supreme Court) is only calculated from the 
difference between the amount originally claimed and the amount actually awarded. 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7 

a) 

BODIES FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUAL TREATMENT (Article 13 Directive 
2000/43) 

Body/bodies  designated  for  the  promotion  of  equal  treatment  irrespective  of 
racial/ethnic origin according to Article 13 of the Racial Equality Directive 

In July 2004 the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights became the specialised body for 
the  promotion  of  equal  treatment  for  all  grounds  of  discrimination  covered  by  the  Anti-
discrimination Act. With the adoption of the Anti-discrimination Act (in 2004), Act 308/1993 
on Establishing the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights (the Centre) was significantly 
amended.506  

b) 

Status of the designated body/bodies – general independence 

According to the Act on Establishing the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights (‘Act on 
the Centre’), the centre is an independent, non-judicial body, subsidised by the state.507 
The governing body of the  centre is the executive director, who manages and exercises 
control over the Centre and who is the statutory representative of the centre,508 and the 
board, which consists of nine independent members.509 The executive director is elected 
and  dismissed  by  the  board  upon  nomination  by  the  board  members.  The  staff  are 
appointed and dismissed by the executive director.  

The formal guarantee of the independence of the centre is stipulated by Article 2(1) of the 
Act on the Centre, which states that ‘the Centre is an independent legal person’. As far as 
the  formal  independence  of  the  centre  is  concerned,  Article  3  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Establishment of the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights between the Government 
of the Slovak Republic and United Nations of 9 March 1994 is also relevant. According to 
this  article,  the  Slovak  Republic  is  obliged  to  provide  the  centre  with  adequate 
accommodation and to guarantee the centre financial means that will enable it to continue 
its activities at a minimum of the level achieved during the first two years of its existence. 
The Slovak Republic is also obliged to guarantee the legal and operational independence 
of the centre.  

The  guarantee  of  the  existence  of  the  centre  resulting  from  the  international  treaty  is 
important. At the same time it should be noted that the purpose of the treaty was not to 
establish an equality body but rather a more general human rights institution.  

One of the main problems with regard to the independence or potential dependence of the 
centre is the way that it is financed. As it is the Government that proposes the act on the 
state budget on an annual basis and the Parliament that approves the act, and there are 
no constitutional or statutory guarantees on minimum budgetary thresholds for the centre 

506  Slovakia, Act No 308/1993 on Establishing the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights, as amended 
(zákon č. 308/1993 o zriadení Slovenského národného strediska pre ľudské práva v znení neskorších 
predpisov). 

507  The Treaty on the Establishment of the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights between the Government 
of the Slovak Republic and United Nations was signed on 9 March 1994 in Geneva. Under the Treaty’s 
provisions the Centre was established in order to engage in human rights issues. According to the Treaty, 
the first two years of its existence were supported by the Voluntary Fund, subsidised by the Government of 
the Netherlands and by contribution from the Slovak Government. A commitment to the further 
maintenance of the centre was undertaken by the Slovak Government.  

508  Slovakia, Act on the Centre, 308/1993, Section 3b(1) and (2).  
509  One member is appointed by the President of the Slovak Republic, one member by the Chair of the National 
Parliament, one member by the Ombudsperson, one member by the Prime Minister of the Government of 
the Slovak Republic in response to a proposal from NGOs, one member is appointed by the Minister of 
Labour, Social Affairs and Family and the other four members are appointed by deans of the four law 
faculties (see Section 3a(1) of the Act on the Centre). The membership in the board is of voluntary nature 
and the board members are only entitled to reimbursements of their cash expenses (see Section 3a(3) of 
the Act on the Centre). Hence the board membership is not a regular ‘job’ and it is legally compatible with 
the simultaneous exercise of other professional activities.  

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
or mechanisms that would prevent the possibility of arbitrary (non)allocation of funds to it 
(which are practically in the full and exclusive control of the Government), this mechanism 
casts  doubts  on  whether  the  centre  can,  in  principle,  be  independent  from  the  political 
powers in office under the legislation and the current mechanisms of approving the centre’s 
annual budgets. 

The Act on the Centre does not deal with the question of to whom the centre is accountable 
(it only stipulates that the executive director of the centre is accountable to the board and 
sets  out  the  areas  of  this  accountability,  such  as  the  activities  of  the  centre,  proper 
management and bookkeeping, fulfilling the decisions of the board etc.)510 Given the fact 
that the centre is a public institution set up by law, it can be argued that it is accountable 
to the public (although there is no particular mechanism contained in the Act on the Centre 
that would set up mechanisms for implementing this accountability and/or controlling it).  

c)  Grounds covered by the designated body/bodies 

The  centre  is  supposed  to  deal  with  all  grounds  that  are  covered  by  national  law:  sex, 
religion or belief, race, affiliation with nationality (národnosť) or an ethnic group, disability, 
age, sexual orientation, marital status and family status, colour of skin, language, political 
or other opinion, national or social origin, property, lineage/gender or other status, or the 
reason of reporting criminality or other anti-social activity, all contained in Section 2(1) of 
the Anti-discrimination Act, and some other grounds contained in other acts (unfavourable 
state  of  health,  genetic  features,  duties  to  family,  membership  of  or  involvement  in  a 
political party or a political movement, a trade union or other association, etc.). In 2016, 
the  centre  received  524  complaints  on  the  possible  violation  of  the  principle  of  equal 
treatment,  out  of  which  45  concerned  age,  26  race,  24  gender,  276  other  status,  55 
disability, 73 nationality/ethnic origin, 1 sexual orientation, 11 family status, 9 language 
and 4 on reporting criminality or other anti- social activity. The centre does not have any 
data on numbers  of cases in which the  violation of the principle of equal treatment was 
identified or not identified. The centre does not have any specific statistics on complaints 
received by third-country nationals and stateless persons who are currently residing in the 
host country, so it is not able to provide any specific information on the number of cases 
dealt with in 2016 in this regard.511  

d) 

Competences of the designated body/bodies – and their independent exercise 

The centre has competence to provide independent assistance to victims of discrimination, 
conduct  independent  surveys  and  publish  independent  reports,  and  issue  independent 
recommendations on discrimination issues.  

According  to  Section  1  of  the  Act  on  the  Centre,  the  centre  fulfils  tasks  in  the  field  of 
fundamental rights and freedoms. To these ends, the centre does the following: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

monitors and evaluates the observance of human rights and the observance of the 
principle of equal treatment, in accordance with the Anti-discrimination Act; 
gathers  information  on  racism,  xenophobia  and  anti-Semitism  in  Slovakia  and 
provides this information on request; 
conducts research and surveys for the purpose of providing data in the field of human 
rights, gathers and, on request, provides information in this field; 
prepares educational activities and takes part in information campaigns with the aim 
of increasing tolerance in society; 
secures legal aid for victims of discrimination and intolerance;512 

510  See Slovakia, Act on the Centre, 308/1993, Section 3b(4), for more details.  
511  Response of the Centre for Human Rights of 21 February 2017 to a request for information of 17 February 

2017 (on file with the author). 

512  The Act on the Centre neither specifies how legal aid is to be secured, nor what is meant by legal aid for the 

purposes of the act.  

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

issues, on request of natural persons or legal entities or on its own initiative, expert 
opinions in matters of observance of the principle of equal treatment in accordance 
with the Anti-discrimination Act;513 
carries out independent inquiries concerning discrimination; 
drafts  and  publishes  reports  and  recommendations  on  issues  connected  to 
discrimination; 
provides library services; 
provides services in the field of human rights.514 

The centre does not have any specific competence in respect of third-country nationals and 
stateless persons who are currently residing in the host country.  

The centre is entitled to represent a party to proceedings in matters connected to violations 
of the principle of equal treatment (Section 2(3)). In accordance with Section 2(3) of the 
Act on the Centre, the centre is obliged (by 30 April each year) to draft and publish a report 
on the observance of human rights, including the principle of equal treatment, in the Slovak 
Republic in the previous year. 

The Act on the Centre does not specify what is meant by ‘securing legal aid for the victims 
of discrimination’. Following a logical interpretation of the respective provision, it can be 
argued  that  it  covers  a  broad  range  of  options  including  providing  legal  consultations, 
representing  claimants  (but  also  defendants)  and/  or  engaging  in  their  favour  in  court 
proceedings and also cooperating with lawyers or NGOs providing legal aid in the field of 
equal  treatment.  In  any  case,  there  is  no  clear  statement  about  providing  financial 
assistance with the costs of litigation and the centre does not provide any kind of financial 
assistance  to  alleged  victims  of  discrimination.  This  is  very  problematic  because,  if  the 
centre provides legal representation to a person in court and the case is lost, the individual 
concerned  may  be  obliged  to  pay  the  judicial  costs  of  the  defendant  (costs  of  legal 
representation plus actual costs incurred), something that has, in fact, already happened. 
This  puts  victims  of  discrimination  at  great  risk  and  also  questions  the  public  interest 
element  of  having  an  equality  body,  in  particular  its  role  as  an  instigator  of  systemic 
changes through e.g. strategic litigation.  

In  2016,  the  centre  represented  claimants  in  discrimination-related  proceedings  in  only 
three cases. One case was a claim of discrimination on the ground of disability, while the 
other  two  cases  concerned  claims  of  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  other  status.  The 
choice  of  the  cases  litigated  by  the  centre  is  problematic  and  does  not  reflect  its  duties 
under  EU  law,  which  requires  the  establishment  of  equality  bodies  for  cases  of 
discrimination  on  the  grounds  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin  and  sex.  The  cases  chosen  for 
litigation by the centre also do not reflect the widespread discrimination of Roma, women 
and other vulnerable groups in the country.  

When  it  comes  to  the  independent  performance  of  the  centre’s  tasks,  and  its  overall 
functioning and effectiveness, in the opinion of the author, the centre is not exercising its 
tasks  efficiently  and  independently  and  is  not  acting  in  accordance  with  its  mandate 
pursuant to the Act on the Centre and to the EU and international obligations.  

On 1 June 2011, the  Government approved the Analytical report on the functioning and 
status  of  the  Slovak  National  Centre  for  Human  Rights  in  the  context  of  institutional 
protection of human rights in the Slovak Republic.515 This report was the first of its kind 
ever  produced  by  the  Slovak  Government  and,  more  generally,  the  first  (and  so  far 

513  The expert opinions or recommendation issued by the centre are not binding on parties or private and public 

bodies. 

514  Slovakia, Act on the Centre, 308/1993, Section 2(2). The act does not define the meaning of these services.  
515  The report can be found at www.rokovania.sk/File.aspx/ViewDocumentHtml/Mater-Dokum-

133077?prefixFile=m_ (accessed 10 March 2017).  

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
apparently  the  only)  attempt  that  has  ever  been  made  to  monitor  and  evaluate  the 
functioning of the centre in a relatively complex manner.  

The  report  presented  various  findings  that  followed  a  relatively  complex  (albeit  non-
exhaustive) data gathering process and analysis of the state of affairs at the centre which 
involved inter alia an analysis of the centre’s annual reports and other documentation, the 
available research on the perception of the centre by the public, the centre’s bylaws, its 
historic and personnel development, its budgetary documentation, results of inspections 
of its financial management carried out by external bodies and a survey of the employees 
of the Centre, relevant NGOs and members of the board.  

Based on the findings of the report, the previous Government decided to carry out further 
analyses  of  the  potential  financial  and  legal  impacts  of  carrying  out  fundamental  and 
systemic  changes  in  the  setting  up  and  functioning  of  the  centre,  and  to  carry  out  the 
systemic institutional change that would be backed up by systemic changes to the Act on 
the Centre.  

In November 2016, the Ministry of Justice under the new Government announced that it is 
already  working  on  the  amendment  to  the  Act  on  the  Centre,  which  should  secure  the 
compliance of the centre with the Paris principles that set international standards regarding 
the functioning of national human rights institutions. By the end of 2016, the amendment 
had not yet been proposed by the Ministry of Justice to the Government.516 

In November 2016 a new director for the centre, Katarina Szabova,  was  elected by the 
board. She previously worked at the centre’s secretariat and her lack of independence from 
the  governing  party  ‘Smer’,  as  well  as  her  professional  qualification  for  the  position  of 
director were raised and questioned in the media and are of concern to NGOs.517  

On  a  long-term  and  continuing  basis,  the  centre  is  subject  to  criticism  by  NGOs, 
international human rights bodies and others who are active in the field of human rights.518 

The Office of Public Defender of Rights in Slovakia (the ombudswoman) is not a specialised 
body  for  the  promotion  of  equal  treatment  with  regard  to  the  Article  13  of  the  Racial 
Equality  Directive,  but  is  responsible  for  protecting  fundamental  rights  and  freedoms  of 
individuals  when  violated  by  institutions  of  public  administration.  In  this  regard,  it  also 
contributes  to  the  protection  from  discrimination,  particularly  by  realising  research 
activities and calling on Government authorities to avoid discrimination and prevent it. For 
example, in recent years the ombudswoman’s office carried out research activities relating 
to  the  issue  of  discrimination  against  Roma  children  in  education  and  addressed 

516  Response of the Ministry of Justice of 1 March 2017 to the request for information of 17 February 2017.  
517  See press article in Dennik N (2016), Zo sekretárky sa vyšvihla na šéfku úradu, navrhol ju odpísaný politik 

Smeru Martvoň, 1 December 2016 https://dennikn.sk/622703/zo-sekretarky-sa-vysvihla-na-sefku-uradu-
za-uspesnou-karierou-je-odpisany-politik-smeru/ (accessed 10 March 2017), and interview with Janka 
Debreceniová from the NGO Citizen, Democracy and Accountability on 24 February 2017.  

518  See, for example, Durbáková, V., Holubová, B., Ivanco, Š., Liptáková, S. (2012), Hľadanie bariér v prístupe 
k účinnej právnej ochrane pred diskrimináciou, Košice: Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva, pp. 110-112. 
The publication is also available at https://www.poradna-prava.sk/sk/dokumenty/diskriminacia-na-
slovensku-hladanie-barier-v-pristupe-k-ucinnej-pravnej-ochrane-pred-diskriminaciou/, accessed 10 March 
2017; see also Centre for Civil and Human Rights – People in Need Slovak Republic (2013), Written 
comments concerning the Ninth and Tenth Periodic Reports of the Slovak Republic under the International 
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, pp. 2, 13, 16 (also available at: 
https://www.poradna-prava.sk/en/documents/written-comments-to-the-committee-on-the-elimination-of-
racial-discrimination/, (accessed 10 March 2017); ‘The Concluding observations of the Committee on the 
Elimination of Discrimination against Women from 2015’ (available at: 
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2fC%2fSVK%
2fCO%2f5-6&Lang=en, accessed 10 March 2017) and ‘Concluding Observations of the Human Rights 
Committee from October 2016’ (available at: 
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fSVK%2f
CO%2f4&Lang=en , accessed 10 March 2017).  

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
shortcomings in this area to the Government.519 In 2015, the office carried out research 
regarding barriers that people with disabilities face in accessing public buildings in Slovakia 
(see chapter 10 of this report).  

e) 

Legal standing of the designated body/bodies 

In Slovakia the designated body has legal standing to bring discrimination complaints (on 
behalf  or  not  of  identified  victim(s))  and  to  join  civil  court  proceedings  in  legal  cases 
concerning discrimination as an intervening party.  

In accordance with Section 1(3) of the Act on the Centre, the centre has the authority to 
represent parties in proceedings concerning violation of the principle of equal treatment. 
In these cases the people represented by the centre do not pay for the legal representation 
it provides. However, the centre cannot represent victims of discrimination in proceedings 
before the Constitutional Court.  

In  2016,  the  centre  received  524  discrimination  complaints,  and  of  those  the  centre 
provided legal representation to persons discriminated against in only three cases. In 2016, 
the centre filed no lawsuits with the courts (including no actio popularis claims).  

In 2016, the centre represented claimants in discrimination-related proceedings in three 
cases. The courts issued decisions in two cases in 2016. Both cases were dismissed and 
are now pending before appeal courts.520 As of 15 October 2008, the Slovak National Centre 
for Human Rights was authorised by law to join judicial proceedings related to breaches of 
the principle of equal treatment, either on the side of the  claimant or on the side of the 
defendant.521 In 2016, the centre had not used this statutory right.522  

In  addition, in  cases  in  which  breaches  of  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  could  violate 
rights, interests protected by the law or freedoms of a larger or non-specified number of 
people, or if the public interest could be seriously endangered in some other manner by 
such a violation, the centre can invoke the protection of the right to equal treatment in its 
own name523 (see section 6.2 above for more details). By the end of 2016, the centre had 
not filed an actio popularis in its own name.524 

Although it may seem from the outside and from the official information provided by the 
centre  that  it  is  carrying  out  its  statutory  tasks  and  the  tasks  entrusted  to  it  by  the 
directives, the centre is in fact fulfilling these tasks more on paper than in reality, and more 
on  a  quantitative  than  a  qualitative  basis.  This  can  clearly  be  seen,  for  example,  in  the 
very high number of cases dealt with by the centre on an annual basis, many of which are 
irrelevant in contrast to the very low number of cases where the centre actually represents 
the claimants in the courts.  

f) 

Quasi-judicial competences 

In Slovakia the body is not a quasi-judicial institution. 

519  See e.g. Kancelária verejného ochrancu práv (2013), Správa verejnej ochrankyne práv o uplatňovaní práva 
na vzdelanie detí/žiakov príslušníkov rómskej národnostnej menšiny so špeciálnymi výchovno-vzdelávacími 
potrebami (Report of the Public Defender of Rights on the Observance of the Right to Education of 
Pupils/Children, Representatives of Roma National Minority, with Special Educational Needs). Available at: 
http://www.vop.gov.sk/files/Sprava%20VOP%20FINALNA%20VERZIA.pdf (Accessed 20 April 2017). 
520   Decision of the District Court in Prešov, No. 7 Cpr 2/2014, 13 October 2016 and decision of the District 

Court Bratislava III, No. 19 C 446/2015, 1 March 2016.  

521  Slovakia, Civil Procedure Act, 99/1963, Section 93(2) and, since 1 July 2016, the Civil Dispute Act, 

160/2015, Section 95. 

522  Responses from the centre of 21 February 2017 to a request for information on 17 February 2017 and of 2 

March 2017 to a request for information on 2 March 2017.  

523  Slovakia, Anti-discrimination Act, 365/2004, Section 9a.  
524  Response from the centre of 21 February 2017 to a request for information on 17 February 2017.  

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The centre is neither a judicial nor a quasi-judicial institution and does not have the power 
to impose sanctions of any kind. 

g) 

Registration by the body/bodies of complaints and decisions 

In Slovakia the body registers the number of complaints and decisions (by ground, field, 
type of discrimination, etc.). These data are available to the public. 

h) 

Roma and Travellers 

The body does not treat Roma as a priority issue and does not engage publicly in any cases 
related to the widespread structural discrimination against Roma, especially in education 
and housing.  

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8 

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES  

8.1  Dissemination  of  information,  dialogue  with  NGOs  and  between  social 

partners 

a)  Dissemination of information about legal protection against discrimination (Article 10 

Directive 2000/43 and Article 12 Directive 2000/78)  

Some  information  about  legal  protection  against  discrimination  (including  in  English)  is 
contained  on  the  website  of  the  Slovak  National  Centre  for  Human  Rights  (the  equality 
body, www.snslp.sk).  

In December 2016, the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for the coordination of the 
fulfilment of tasks in the field of human rights,525 announced a call for proposals in order 
to  financially  support  NGOs  and  other  legal  entities  in  promoting  human  rights  and 
freedoms including the elimination of all forms of discrimination. The ministry will allocate 
an overall amount of EUR 763 500 to support such projects.  

b)  Measures to encourage dialogue with NGOs with a view to promoting the principle of 

equal treatment (Article 12 Directive 2000/43 and Article 14 Directive 2000/78)  

In 2010, the Council of the Government of the Slovak Republic for Human Rights, National 
Minorities  and  Gender  Equality  was  set  up  as  a  permanent  advisory  body  to  the 
Government of the Slovak Republic.526 According to its statute, the Council is a permanent 
expert,  advisory,  coordinating  and  consultative  body  to  the  Government  in  the  field  of 
human rights, including the rights of national minorities and ethnic groups and in the field 
of pursuing the principle  of equal treatment and the principle of gender equality.527 The 
Council has 40 members528 and unites representatives of the  Government, regional and 
local  bodies,  public  human  rights  institutions,  NGOs,  academic  institutions  and  vice-
chairpersons of the Council’s committees. The Council has seven committees which cover 
issues of national minorities and ethnic groups, people with disabilities, gender equality, 
children and youth, research and education in the field of human rights and development, 
the prevention, and elimination of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and other forms of 
intolerance, and the rights of lesbians, gays, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons.529  

The Council and its mechanisms are undeniably some kind of forum for expert discussion, 
networking  and  exchange  of  opinions  between  the  Government,  NGOs  and  academia, 
representatives  of  local  and  regional  bodies,  human  rights  institutions  and  other 
stakeholders involved in the protection of human rights including non-discrimination. On 
the other hand, its structure is rather complicated and ‘all-encompassing’, which is a barrier 
per  se  for  its  efficient  functioning.  It  does  not  have  clear  and  flexible  mechanisms  for 
assessing legislation that is under preparation concerning human rights (including the right 
to non-discrimination) and giving opinions by the Council thereon (including a clear and 
efficient  mechanism  for  entering  the  legislative  process),  and  so  there  have  been  many 

525  Slovakia, Act No 575/2001 on the Organisation of the Activities of the Government and on the Organisation 
of the Central State Administration as Amended, and on amending and supplementing certain laws, as 
amended by the Act No 335/2014 (zákon č. 575/2001 Z. z. o organizácii činnosti vlády a organizácii 
ústrednej štátnej správy v znení zákona č. 335/2014 Z. z.), Section 14(3). As of 1 September 2015, this 
task is undertaken by the Ministry of Justice (by the amendment to the Act on the Organisation of the 
Activities of the Government and on the Organisation of the Central State Administration No 172/2015).  
526  Slovakia, Act on the organisation of the activities of the Government and on the organisation of the central 

state administration, 575/2001, Section 2(3). The website of the Council of the Government: 
www.radavladylp.gov.sk/ (accessed 02 March 2017).  

527  Article 2 of the statute of the Council of the Government of the Slovak Republic for Human Rights, National 
Minorities and Gender Equality. The statute is available at http://www.radavladylp.gov.sk/dokumenty-rady/ 
(accessed on 02 March 2017).  

528  The names of the members are available at http://www.radavladylp.gov.sk/zlozenie-rady-vlady-slovenskej-

republiky-pre-ludske-prava-narodnostne-mensiny-a-rodovu-rovnost/ (accessed 02 March 2017).  

529  See Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the statute.  

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
instances  when  the  Council  did  not  address  human  rights  and  equality  issues  of  critical 
importance.  Similarly,  there  is  no  mechanism  for  monitoring  the  compliance  of  the 
Government  and  its  ministries  with  the  recommendations  of  the  Council  and  its 
committees.  Furthermore,  it  can  be  said  that  the  Government  does  not  take  the 
recommendations  of  the  Council  very  seriously  and  that  it  is  often  a  forum  for  formal 
discussion only.  

c)  Measures to promote dialogue between social partners to give effect to the principle 
of  equal  treatment  within  workplace  practices,  codes  of  practice,  workforce 
monitoring (Article 11 Directive 2000/43 and Article 13 Directive 2000/78) 

It  is  not  clear  whether  in  2016  the  Government  took  any  specific  measures  to  promote 
dialogue between social partners, to give effect to the principle of equal treatment within 
workplace practices, codes of practice, and workforce monitoring. Upon an official request 
by the author of this report for information on measures that the Slovak Republic carried 
out in 2016 in relation to social partners with the aim of implementing the principle of equal 
treatment  pursuant  to  EU  directives,  the  Ministry  of  Labour,  Social  Affairs  and  Family 
responded  in  a  rather  general  way.  The  ministry  stated  that  dialogue  between  social 
partners is supported by the domestic legal framework as well as by the national project 
‘Centre for social dialogue’, the first stage of which has already been carried out and the 
second stage of which has recently been adopted. Social partners have also been invited 
to  take  part  in  national  projects  of  the  Ministry  of  Labour;  for  instance  in  2016,  the 
Association  of  Employer’s  Unions  of  the  Slovak  Republic  (Asociácia  zamestnávateľských 
zväzov SR) directly participated in the project ‘Work and Family’. The Ministry of Labour is 
currently  cooperating  with  a  group  of  entrepreneurs  who  prepared  the  adoption  of  the 
document ‘The Charter of Diversity’. This document aims to express the positive attitude 
of  the  entrepreneurs  involved  to  supporting  non-discrimination  and  diversity  in  the 
workplace.  According  to  the  information  provided  by  the  Ministry  of  Labour,  the  project 
addresses all five grounds covered by this report.530 

d) 

Addressing the situation of Roma and Travellers  

In  2011,  the  Government  adopted  the  ‘Revised  National  Action  Plan  for  the  Decade  of 
Roma Inclusion 2005-2015 for 2011-2015’ (the action plan).531 The action plan, based on 
Slovakia’s  obligations  under  the  Decade  of  Roma  Inclusion,532  represented  a  set  of  153 
measures to be implemented mainly by state bodies but also by municipalities and NGOs 
in the fields of education, employment, health and housing. Although the implementation 
of  some  of  the  measures  had  the  potential  to  bring  some  positive  results  in  terms  of 
improving the lives of some Roma people, there were many systemic shortcomings, which 
cast  serious  doubts  on  the  overall  potential  of  the  action  plan  to  bring  about  significant 
shifts in terms of Roma inclusion.533  

In late 2011 and early 2012, the action plan became, after some revisions (and hence with 
a new name ‘Revised National Action Plan’), a part of the ‘Strategy of the Slovak Republic 

530  Responses of the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic of 03 March 2017, ref. 
No. INF/48/2017-M_OPS and of 25 April 2017, ref. No. 18632/2017/INF/84/2017-M-OPS, to requests for 
information of 23 February2016 and 20 April 2017 (on file witih the author).  

531  ‘Revidovaný akčný plán Dekády začleňovania rómskej populácie 2005-2015 na roky 2011-2015’, adopted by 

governmental resolution No 522/2011. The document is available at 
www.rokovania.sk/Rokovanie.aspx/BodRokovaniaDetail?idMaterial=19992 (accessed 20 March 2016).  
532  The Decade of Roma Inclusion is an international initiative of governments, international governmental and 

non-governmental organisations, including Roma NGOs, with the aim of improving the inclusion of the Roma 
population. It represents a political obligation for governments to implement measures to advance the social 
inclusion of Roma people in the fields of education, employment, housing and health, and with the 
requirement to address three issues: poverty, discrimination and gender inequality.  

533  For criticism, see for example Lajčáková, J. (2011), Revidovaný národný akčný plán k Dekáde rómskej 

inklúzie: Ďalšia bezzubá stratégia? in: Menšinová politika na Slovensku, Bratislava, Centrum pre výskum 
etnicity a kultúry, 03/2011, pp. 1-3. Also available at: http://cvek.sk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/32011-
sk.pdf (accessed 06 March 2017). 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
for Roma Integration to 2020’, adopted on 11 January 2012 (the strategy).534 The strategy 
is an ‘open document’ to be supplemented by, for example, action plans (in fields that fall 
outside the Decade of Roma Inclusion action plan mentioned in the previous paragraphs), 
new  goals  etc.535  The  document  explicitly  targets  Roma  as  a  national  minority,  Roma 
communities and marginalised Roma communities. 

Although the strategy is probably the most complex policy document adopted in the field 
of Roma inclusion so far – it is based on values and principles and provides a rich context 
for the issues – it also contains a number of shortcomings that reduce its chance of being 
a  successful  tool  for  Roma  inclusion.  The  shortcomings,  as  seen  by  civil  society  actors 
monitoring the implementation of the strategy, included: 

- 
- 

- 

- 

vague funding of the particular measures contained in the strategy; 
deficiencies  in  the  coordination  between  multiple  levels  of  the  management  of  the 
strategy (especially between ministries and regional and local authorities); 
a  high  reliance  by  the  Slovak  Republic  on  the  European  structural  funds  from  the 
next  programme  period  of  2014-2020  with  a  minimum  use  of  resources  from  the 
Slovak state budget;  
insufficient participation of Roma and non-Roma NGOs in implementing, monitoring 
and assessing the strategy.536 

In October 2014, the Office of the Plenipotentiary of the Government of the Slovak Republic 
for  Roma  Communities  (see  below)  started  the  process  of  revising  the  strategy  and 
updating/drafting its action plans for the next  three years. This process  focuses  on  four 
priority fields (education, employment, housing and health) and on three other crosscutting 
fields (financial inclusion, non-discrimination and approaches to the Slovakian majority). 
The  whole  process  has  been  on-going  in  2015  and  2016  and,  in  the  author’s  view,  its 
excessive  length  could  be  influenced  by  the  parliamentary  elections  in  March  2016  and 
overall institutional developments in the Office of the Plenipotentiary, including the change 
in the person holding the position of Roma Plenipotentiary that took place in April 2016. 
The whole process was intensified in the second part of 2016, but as of the end of the year 
the updated action plans had not been adopted by the Government.  

In  2001,  the  Office  of  the  Plenipotentiary  of  the  Government  of  the  Slovak  Republic  for 
Roma Communities was established. The Plenipotentiary was directly subordinate to the 
Prime Minister and her/his tasks were to ‘propose, coordinate and control activities aiming 
at solving problems of the Roma minority and, following approval from the  Government, 
to carry out systemic solutions to achieve equal status in society for citizens belonging to 
the Roma minority’.537 In June 2012, the Plenipotentiary, albeit still remaining an advisory 
body of the Government and officially accountable to it, became de facto subordinate to 
the Minister of Interior with whom the Plenipotentiary is supposed to ‘coordinate her/his 
activities’.538 At the same time, the Office of the Plenipotentiary also moved to the Ministry 
of Interior.539 The subsuming of the office into the Ministry of Interior, apart from being 
unprincipled  and  non-systemic  (the  situation  of  Roma  communities  requires  systemic 
solutions  in  all  areas  of  life  including  employment,  housing,  infrastructure,  education, 

534  The document was adopted by Government Resolution No 1/2012 and can be accessed at 

www.rokovania.sk/Rokovanie.aspx/GetUznesenia/?idRokovanie=622 (accessed 10 March 2017).  

535  See p. 2 of the strategy.  
536  Roma Institute, n.o., Milan Šimečka Foundation, Quo Vadis, o. z. (2013), Updated Civil Society Monitoring 

Report on the implementation of the National Roma Integration Strategy and Decade Action Plan in 2012 
and 2013 in Slovakia, Decade Roma Inclusion Secretariat Foundation, p. 9. Available at 
http://www.issuelab.org/resource/civil_society_monitoring_report_on_the_implementation_of_the_national
_roma_integration_strategy_and_decade_action_plan_in_2012_in_slovakia, (accessed 10 March 2017).  

537  See www.minv.sk/?vznik_uradu (accessed 10 March 2017). The original statutes are not available.  
538  See Article 2(3) of the Statutes of the Plenipotentiary of the Government of the Slovak Republic for Roma 

Communities, approved by a resolution of the Government of the Slovak Republic No 308 of 27 June 2012, 
available at: www.minv.sk/?statut_rk (accessed 10 March 2017).  

539  See Article 3(4) of the Statutes. The link to the website of the current Plenipotentiary is 

www.minv.sk/?romske-komunity-uvod (accessed 10 March 2017).  

130 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
health  etc.  where  the  Ministry  of  Interior  has  no  powers),  also  has  a  very  negative  and 
dangerous  flavour,  as  part  of  the  Ministry  of  Interior’s  remit  is  to  deal  with  ‘security’, 
criminal proceedings and with the repressive side of the exercise of state power in general. 

8.2  Compliance (Article 14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78) 

a)  Mechanisms 

The Anti-discrimination Act set out in its transitory provisions a general clause which states 
that employers and relevant trade union bodies  that conclude collective agreements are 
obliged to bring the provisions of collective agreements into compliance with the principle 
of equal treatment by 1 January 2005. Employers have the same obligation to adopt the 
provisions  into  their  internal  rules.  This  means  that  after  January  2005  no  collective 
agreements and internal rules of employment contrary to the Anti-discrimination Act may 
be legally applied. This provision of the Anti-discrimination Act does not mention statutes 
or internal rules of other professions or independent occupations, but this does not mean 
that  the  duty  to  follow  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  does  not  apply  to  these.  It  is 
guaranteed that any normative act, registered by a state agency (internal regulations of 
associations,  of  independent  professions,  workers’  and  employers’  organisations  and  of 
profit-making organisations, etc.) must not be  contrary to the principle  of equality (and 
more  generally,  not  contrary  to  the  existing  laws  of  higher  legal  force).  If  a  bylaw 
underlying a registration procedure is in breach of this principle, the registration body must 
reject it. 

b) 

Rules contrary to the principle of equality 

There  are  still  some  laws  in  force,  particularly  in  relation  to  social  security,  that  are 
discriminatory, for example: Act 383/2013 on Childbirth Allowance and on  Allowance on 
More  Concurrently  Born  Children  (see  section  3.2.7  of  this  report);  Section  4(3)  of  Act 
571/2009 on Parental Care Allowance; Section 12a of Act 600/2003 on Child Allowance; 
and Section 141 of the Labour Code, which grants some labour-related benefits that are 
discriminatory  on  the  grounds  of  family  and  marital  status  and  on  the  ground  of  sexual 
orientation (see  section 4.5 of this report).  In  addition,  Act 417/2013 on Aid in Material 
Need, adopted in late 2013 and supplementing the previous Act on Material Need, contains 
a  provision  (Section  10(3))  that  is  indirectly  discriminatory  on  the  ground  of  ethnicity 
(against the Roma) and constitutes forced labour (see section 3.2.6 above for more detail).  

There is no specific mechanism to control or abolish discriminatory provisions of existing 
internal rules. The only reliable way to challenge such a provision of the internal rules of a 
self-governing body would be a discrimination case brought to the court by an aggrieved 
individual or group of individuals.  

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9 

COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL 

In accordance with the Act on the Organisation of the Activities of the Government and on 
the  Organisation  of  the  Central  State  Administration,540  the  Ministry  of  Labour,  Social 
Affairs and Family is the central state administration body for ‘gender equality and equal 
opportunities and for the coordination of state policies in this field’.541  

Since 1 September 2015, the Ministry of Justice has been responsible for coordinating the 
fulfilment of human rights tasks and provides for the development and implementation of 
state policies in the field of human rights.542 

Following the adoption of the ‘National Strategy for the Protection and Promotion of Human 
Rights in the Slovak Republic’ in 2015,  543 on 13 January 2016, the Slovak Government 
adopted the ‘Action Plan to Prevent All Forms of Discrimination 2016-2019’.544 On the same 
day, the Government also adopted the ‘Action Plan to Prevent and Eliminate All Forms of 
Racism,  Xenophobia,  Anti-Semitism  and  Other  Forms  of  Intolerance  2016-2018’.545  In 
2015,  the  draft  ‘Action  Plan  for  LGBTI  People  for  2016-2019’  was  also  prepared  by  the 
Ministry  of  Justice  in  collaboration  with  the  LGBTI  activist  community.546  However  this 
action plan had not been adopted by the end of 2016. On 26 October 2016, the Government 
adopted the ‘Action Plan on the Protection of Persons Belonging to the National Minorities 
and Ethnic Groups 2016 – 2020’.547 

The purpose of migration policy in Slovakia is to build on several principles, including the 
prohibition of discrimination meaning that all foreigners/migrants residing in the territory 
of the Slovak republic should have equal opportunities.548 In 2011 the Slovak Government 
adopted the ‘Migration Policy of the Slovak Republic Perspective until 2020’.549 

540  Slovakia, Act on the organisation of the activities of the Government and on the organisation of the central 

state administration, 575/2001.  

541  Slovakia, Act on the organisation of the activities of the Government and on the organisation of the central 

state administration, 575/2001, Section 15(1)(h). 

542  By the amendment to the Act on the Organisation of the Activities of the Government and on the 

Organisation of the Central State Administration No 172/2015  

543  Available at http://www.rokovania.sk/Rokovanie.aspx/BodRokovaniaDetail?idMaterial=24253 (accessed 10 

March 2017).  

544  Akčný plán predchádzania všetkým formám diskriminácie na roky 2016-2019, available at: 

http://www.gender.gov.sk/diskriminacia/files/2016/09/AP_ADZ-.pdf (accessed 10 March 2017).  

545  Akčný plán predchádzania a eliminácie rasizmu, xenofóbie, antisemitizmu a ostatných foriem intolerancie na 

roky 2016 -2018, available at: 
http://www.rokovania.sk/Rokovanie.aspx/BodRokovaniaDetail?idMaterial=25250 (accessed 10 March 
2017).  

546  Akčný plán pre LGBTI ľudí na roky 2016-2019, available at: 

https://lt.justice.gov.sk/Material/MaterialHome.aspx?instEID=1138&matEID=8567&langEID=1 (accessed 
10 March 2017).  

547  Akčný plán ochrany práv osôb patriacich k národnostným menšinám a etnickým skupinám na roky 2016 – 
2020. Available at: http://www.rokovania.sk/Rokovanie.aspx/BodRokovaniaDetail?idMaterial=26018 
(accessed 10 March 2017). 

548  See Ministry of Interior of the Slovak republic: ‘Purposes of the migration policy’, available at 

http://www.minv.sk/?zamer-migracnej-politiky-slovenskej-republiky (accessed 10 March 2017). 

549  ‘Migration Policy of the Slovak Republic Perspective until 2020’, available at http://www.minv.sk/?zamer-

migracnej-politiky-slovenskej-republiky&subor=153759 (accessed 10 March 2017).  

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
10  CURRENT BEST PRACTICES 

As a positive action measure relating to ethnicity, a rather innovative initiative entitled ‘You 
also have a chance!’ has been running at the University of Economics in Bratislava since 
autumn 2013.550 Together with the Centre for the Research of Ethnicity and  Culture (an 
NGO  based  in  Slovakia),  the  university  is  carrying  out  a  set  of  temporary  equalising 
measures to increase the opportunities for Roma applicants to get enrolled and successfully 
complete university studies. (see section 5(b) of this report for more details).  

A  promising  programme  of  health  mediators  based  in  marginalised  Roma  communities, 
entitled  ‘Healthy  Communities’,  was  re-introduced  in  2013.  The  programme  is  aimed  at 
improving the access of marginalised Roma communities to healthcare and employs 234 
health mediators of Roma origin in 299 Roma communities (the mediators come from the 
communities)  who  assist  people  from  marginalised  Roma  communities  with  everyday 
health-related situations (see section 5(b) of this report for more details).  

In January to December 2016, the Slovak NGO, League for Human Rights, in cooperation 
with  Open  Society  Foundations  in  Slovakia  realised  a  project  called  ‘Refugee  Friendly 
Slovakia,’ addressing negative attitudes of Slovak society towards refugees. The project 
can  be  considered  particularly  important  in  the  Slovak  context  given  the  fact  that 
Government authorities have been generally reluctant to accept refugees in recent years 
in comparison with other countries of the EU and representatives of some political parties 
publicly  expressed  hostility  towards  the  refugees,  particularly  in  the  period  before  the 
parliamentary  elections  in  March  2016  the  project  aimed  to  change  political  and  public 
opinion towards a more positive acceptance  of  refugees and diversity in society. Project 
objectives also included minimising hatred, fear and Islamophobia, mitigating stereotypes 
and anti-immigration, racist and discriminatory moods of the majority population etc.551 

In 2016, the Office of the Public Defender of Rights gave particular attention to the issue 
of  barriers  that  people  with  disabilities  face  in  accessing  public  buildings,  in  particular 
school  buildings,  police  stations  and  state  hospitals.  By  conducting  research,  the  office 
monitored  the  current  situation  in  this  area,  addressed  the  existing  deficiencies  and 
recommended  specific  measures  that  that  the  state  authorities  have  to  undertake  to 
prevent  discrimination  against  people  with  disabilities  in  access  to  public  buildings.  The 
office drew attention to this important issue that has been overlooked by the Government 
authorities (see section 2.6 (g) of this report for more details).   

550  Some information about the initiative can be found at http://www.euba.sk/uchadzaci-o-studium/preview-
file/informacianaweb-18254.pdf (accessed 10 March 2017). Some information has also been provided by 
Jarmila Lajčáková from Centre for the Research of Ethnicity and Culture.  

551  More information on the project is available at http://www.hrl.sk/en/projects/refugee-friendly-slovakia 

(access 10 March 2017).  

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
11  SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES 

11.1  Potential breaches of the directives (if any) 

These are the main instances of incorrect/insufficient/otherwise problematic transposition: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

The protection against discrimination guaranteed under the Anti-discrimination Act is 
only provided in connection with ‘rights of persons provided for under special laws’ 
regulating  the  fields  falling  under  the  material  scope  of  the  directives.  See  mainly 
sections 2.4(b) and 3.2.7 above for further details.  
The definition of harassment  raises a few questions regarding full compliance with 
the directives. See section 2.4 for more details.  
The definition of disability in labour and social security legislation is very restrictive 
compared to the definition developed by the Court of Justice of the EU in  Skouboe 
Werge and Ring.552 See section 2.1.1 for more details.  
If contract work falls outside legal relations covered by the Labour Code, it is probably 
not covered by anti-discrimination provisions. See section 3.2.1 for details.  
Act  417/2013  on  Aid  in  Material  Need  contains  a  provision  (Section  10  (3))  that 
reduces the payment of the allowance in material need  for each adult person  who 
does  not  carry  out  some  kind  of  ‘work  in  the  public  interest’  or  similar  works  in 
amount of at least 32 hours per month. The provision is indirectly discriminatory on 
the ground of ethnicity (against the Roma). See section 3.2.6 for more detail.  
Act 383/2013 on Childbirth Allowance and on Allowance on More Concurrently Born 
Children  clearly  appears  to  be  discriminatory  towards  Roma  women.  See  section 
3.2.7 for more details. 
Section 4 (3) of Act 571/2009 on Laws on Parental Care Allowance and Article 12a of 
Act  600/2003  on  Child  Allowance  appear  to  be  discriminatory  towards  Roma.  See 
section 3.2.7 for more details. 
The  Labour  Code  still  contains  a  few  specific  provisions  that  are  discriminatory  in 
relation  to  sexual  orientation.  These  concern  paid  leave  in  special  personal 
circumstances. See section 4.5 for more details.  
Claiming invalidity of an employment termination can only be done within a period 
of two months from the due date of the termination of the employment relationship. 
This  is  certainly  a  barrier  to  seeking  effective  remedies  in  cases  of  discriminatory 
dismissals. See section 6.1(b).  
The concept of the shift in the burden of proof only applies to judicial proceedings 
(and  not  to  administrative  proceedings  carried  out,  for  example,  by  labour 
inspectorates  or  offices  of  the  Slovak  Trade  Inspectorate).  This  makes  it  almost 
impossible  for  administrative  bodies  that  are  formally  authorised  to  identify  and 
sanction breaches of the principle of equal treatment to carry out their responsibilities 
in the field of equality efficiently. See section 6.3 for more details.  
The conditions of job termination for university professors (when they reach 70 years 
of age) and for judges and prosecutors (when they reach 65 years of age) are very 
likely in conflict with CJEU case law. See sections 4.7.4(c) and (f) of this report for 
more details.  
The  way  in  which  the  courts  have  dealt  so  far  with  cases  where  financial 
compensation for non-pecuniary damage was sought indicates that, with regard to 
this  type  of  compensation,  the  sanctions  are  not  effective,  proportionate  and 
dissuasive. See section 6.5(c) for more details.  
Organisations  and  the  Slovak  National  Centre  for  Human  Rights  can  represent 
persons  affected  by  discrimination  in  civil  proceedings,  but  cannot  represent  them 
before the Constitutional Court. See sections 6.2(a) for more details.  

552  CJEU, Joined Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11, HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Jette Ring v Dansk 

almennyttigt Boligselskab (C-335/11), and HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Lone Skouboe Werge v Dansk 
Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Pro Display A/S, in liquidation (C-337/11), judgement of 11 April 
2013. 

134 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
- 

- 

- 

Although the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights fulfils its tasks stemming from 
EU and national law on paper, it appears to have serious problems with efficiency, 
transparency, independence and in general with its overall performance. See section 
7 for more details.  
The segregation of Roma children in education remains a very serious problem. See 
section 3.2.8 for further details.  
Act 308/1991 on Freedom of Religious Belief and the Status of Churches and Religious 
Societies  may  be  discriminatory  on  the  ground  of  religion  for  members  of  certain 
religions or religious societies, since it significantly advantages registered churches 
and religious societies with regard to the legal and economic environment in which 
they operate. See section 2.1.1 for more details. 

11.2  Other issues of concern  

The key issues of concern with regards to the implementation and practical application of 
the anti-discrimination directives on the national level are the following:  

- 
- 

- 

- 

- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

barriers to access to courts and to justice in general; 
lack  of  proper  knowledge  of  anti-discrimination  legislation  by  legal  professionals 
(including  those  in  decision-making  positions)  and  by  decision-makers  in  general, 
discriminatory attitudes and lack of training; 
the application of reversed burden of proof by domestic courts in anti- discrimination 
court proceedings continues to fall short of a legal consistency, extreme reluctance 
to  award  financial  compensation  for  non-pecuniary  damages;  if  compensation  is 
awarded, it is generally symbolic; 
existence of racial prejudices among judges influencing their decision making in cases 
of  racial  discrimination  and  lack  of  programmes  to  increase  their  sensitivity  to  the 
issues involved;  
lack of case law;  
deficiencies  in  the  registration  of  cases  and  decisions  on  discrimination  by  courts, 
with statistics thus being totally inaccurate and insufficient; 
lack of data and statistics connected to discrimination and its grounds;  
lack of effectiveness in the functioning and of independence of the equality body; 
lack of public policies in the field of anti-discrimination; 
lack of mainstreaming of the principle of non-discrimination and lack of coordination 
among public bodies and institutions responsible for non-discrimination; 
lack of resources to be invested by the Government into non-discrimination, lack of 
systemic support of NGOs by the Government; 
the  system  of  education  not  sufficiently  integrating  the  principles  and  values  of 
human rights, non-discrimination and multiculturalism; 
lack  of  commitment  and  interest  on  the  side  of  politicians  in  the  values  of  human 
rights and non-discrimination; 
a very high level of occurrence and tolerance of racism and discriminatory attitudes 
in society at large; 
no  effective  policies  providing  for  the  transition  from  a  segregated  to  an  inclusive 
educational  system  and  a  lack  of  material,  financial  and  human  resources  for 
mainstream schools to ensure inclusive education; 
increased  public  support  for  far-right  policies;  accession  of  the  far-right  extremist 
party National Party  – Our Slovakia to the Slovak parliament after the elections in 
March 2016; 
increased  public  support  for  extremist  ideas  and  policy  regimes  disregarding 
democratic values including the protection of human rights, particularly among young 
people; inability of the school system to sufficiently address these issues.  

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
12  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2016 

12.1  Legislative amendments 

There has been no amendment of anti-discrimination law in 2016.  

On 1 July 2016 a new Civil Dispute Act came into effect. The act is a general civil dispute 
procedural code, with deviations for, inter alia, proceedings concerning alleged violations 
of the principle of equal treatment. See section 6.1 for more details.  

12.2  Case law 

Name of the court: The Regional Court in Košice  
Date of decision: 28 June 2016 
Name of the parties: R.P. and I.P. against M.L. bar owner  
Reference number: 6 Co 833/2014- 223  
Address of the webpage:  
https://obcan.justice.sk/infosud/-/infosud/i-detail/rozhodnutie/12367801-8a44-4a56-
bcef-6e58e14a17b1%3A1c7d02b2-ba7e-4d2c-b170-ef57ef471b9e  
Brief summary: The case decided by the regional court in its decision of 28 June 2016 
concerned discrimination against a Roma couple in access to services.  

In  December two Roma customers  - a couple  - were not served in one  of the bars in  a 
small town, Spišské Vlachy, in Eastern Slovakia, which they visited together with their non-
Roma colleagues. The owner of the bar refused to serve the whole group for the reason 
that he does not serve Roma. 

In 2010, the claimants filed a lawsuit with the district court in Spišská Nová Ves, requesting 
the court to order the respondent to refrain from discrimination, send a written apology, 
advertise  the  written  apology  in  a  local  newspaper  and  pay  compensation  for  non-
pecuniary damage for discrimination in the amount of EUR 1 000 each. The district court 
in  its  decision  No.  1  C  11/118/2010-88  of  27  January  2012  ruled  that  there  was 
discrimination on the ground of the claimants’ ethnic origin and ordered the respondent to 
send them an apology for discriminatory treatment, to advertise the written apology in a 
regional newspaper and also to publish it for a duration of 30 days at the front door of the 
bar  where  discrimination  occurred.  The  first-instance  court  dismissed  a  claim  for  non-
pecuniary damage. Subsequently the first-instance court decided the case again in 2014 
(after the regional court overturned its decision in part of its dismissal of a claim for non-
pecuniary damage) and by its decision No. 1C 118/2010 - 175 of 25 April 2014 awarded 
each  claimant  non-pecuniary  damage  of  EUR  300  and  ordered  the  defendant  to  refund 
legal costs to the claimants of approximately EUR 1 800.  

The regional court as appeal court in its decision of 28 June 2016 upheld the first-instance 
court judgement. It concluded that the amount of non-pecuniary damage awarded by the 
first-instance court was adequate, taking into account the circumstances of the case. The 
court also highlighted not only the satisfactory function of non-pecuniary damage to the 
individuals who had been discriminated against, but also its preventive importance.  

Name of the court: The District Court Bratislava III  
Date of decision: 6 October 2016 
Name of the parties: The Centre for Civil and Human Rights (Poradna pre obcianske a 
ludske prava) against the  Slovak Republic represented by the Ministry of  Education and 
the city of Stara Lubovna  
Reference number: 11 C 351/2015 – 387  
Address of the webpage: https://www.poradna-prava.sk/sk/dokumenty/rozhodnutie-
okresneho-sudu-v-pripade-v-pripade-verejnej-zaloby-proti-segregacii-romskych-deti-na-
skole-v-starej-lubovni/ 

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Brief summary: On 6 October 2016 the Bratislava district court announced a decision in 
a case that concerned the segregation of Roma children in a Roma-only primary school in 
the Podsadek district in Stará Ľubovňa.  

The  primary  school  has  been  for  a  long  time  attended  solely  by  socially  disadvantaged 
Roma  children  from  the  nearby  socially  excluded  Roma  community.  Non-Roma  children 
living  in  the  local  area  attend  the  other  primary  schools  in  the  city.  Due  to  insufficient 
capacities, the city of Stara Lubovna and the Ministry of Education expanded the capacity 
of the primary school in Podsadek by adding a new modular building - a low-cost annex to 
the school made out of metal containers.  

In 2015, the NGO Centre for Civil and Human Rights submitted an actio popularis claim 
against the State, represented by the Ministry of Education and the city of Stara Lubovna, 
as a founder of the relevant primary school. The claimant argued that by omitting to adopt 
effective measures to eliminate segregation in the relevant primary school, the defendants 
had  violated  the  domestic  and  international  anti-discrimination  legislation.  Instead  of 
adopting remedial measures to eliminate discrimination, they expanded the capacity of the 
primary school by adding a new modular building. According to the claimant, this measure 
was inappropriate and maintained the segregation of Roma children.  

The  claimant  generally  sought  that  the  court:  rule  that  the  defendants  had  violated  the 
principle  of  equal  treatment  by  not  adopting  sufficient  preventive  measures  on  the 
protection  from  discrimination;  and  oblige  the  defendants  to  elaborate  a  desegregation 
plan within three months and to implement the desegregation measures within three years 
from the finality of the decision.   

The  District  Court  Bratislava  III  dismissed  the  lawsuit  reasoning  that  the  claimant  had 
failed to bear the burden of proof and did not present facts such that could give rise to the 
assumption that the principle of equal treatment had been violated. The court stated that 
Roma children are not segregated at the school in question since they are educated there 
based on their permanent residence in a given school district and not based on their ethnic 
origin. According to the court, the claimant did not prove that education of Roma children 
in the given school is carried out on the ground of their ethnic origin and did not sufficiently 
specify the preventive measures that should be taken by the defendants, which might also 
be  because  there  are  no  such  preventive  measures  falling  within  the  legal  powers  of 
defendants that could influence an ethnic composition of the given local city area. In this 
respect  the  court  concluded  that  ethnic  diversity  in  schools  couldn’t  be  guaranteed  and 
influenced  by  state  intervention.  The  court  decision  is  not  final  as  the  claimant  filed  an 
appeal. 

Name of the court: The Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic 
Date of decision: 8 December 2016 
Name of the parties: I.H. against 1. O.S., a.s.. - mobile operator company and 2. D.Š. - 
mobile company's service provider 
Reference number: 3 Cdo 405/2015 - 773 
Address of the webpage: http://www.supcourt.gov.sk/data/att/59378_subor.pdf  
Brief summary: The case decided by the Supreme Court in its decision of 08 December 
2016 concerned discrimination against Roma in access to goods and services.  

Mr. I.H. claimed he was discriminated against based on his Roma ethnic origin.  

When  trying  to  buy  a  phone  service  for  a  fixed  tariff  from  a  mobile  operator  he  was 
requested to provide confirmation that he was employed while non-Roma customers in a 
comparable situation were not requested to do so. The evidence in this case was gathered 
via the method of a situation testing experiment in cooperation with the NGO Centre for 
Civil and Human Rights.  

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  2005,  Mr.  I.H.  filed  a  lawsuit  with  the  district  court  in  Spišská  Nová  Ves  against  the 
mobile operator and also the company that provided the mobile company's services in the 
town  of  Spišská  Nová  Ves  at  the  relevant  time  under  an  agency  contract  (zmluva  o 
obchodnom zastúpení). The claimant requested that the court rule that there had been a 
violation of the equal treatment principle in his case, order the defendant to send him an 
apology and pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage for discriminatory treatment in 
the amount of EUR 3 319,39.  

The District Court in Spišská Nová Ves ruled in the case in its judgment from 17 May 2012 
No. 5 C 226/2005 – 544 and found that there had been discrimination on the ground of 
the claimant's Roma ethnic origin and ordered the defendants to provide the claimant with 
an  apology  for  the  discrimination.  The  court  dismissed  the  claimant's  claim  for  non-
pecuniary damage. The regional court in Kosice decided on appeals of both parties - the 
defendants and claimant – and by its judgment of 18 September 2013 No. 5 Co 197/2012 
changed the first-instance court decision by dismissing the claimant's claim as such. The 
regional  court  concluded  that  neither  defendant  is  responsible  for  the  alleged 
discriminatory treatment. According to the court, an employee of the service provider was 
responsible  for  the  discriminatory  treatment,  but  this  service  provider  no  longer  has  a 
contract  with  the  mobile  operator  and  its  successor  cannot  be  found  responsible  as  the 
right to protection from discrimination is a personal right (similar to the right to be free 
from interference to one’s personal dignity) that cannot be transferred to the company's 
successor although it succeeds to all its rights and duties (universal succession). As for the 
mobile  operator,  the  regional  court  did  not  find  it  responsible  as  it  did  not  have  direct 
contact with the claimant.  

The Supreme Court dismissed the claimant's extraordinary measure – review (dovolanie). 
The Supreme Court had the same legal opinion as the regional court on the responsibility 
for discriminatory treatment. It similarly concluded that neither defendant could be found 
responsible for discriminatory treatment of the claimant. The Supreme Court added to the 
regional court’s reasoning the fact that a violation of the principle of equal treatment has 
a personal character and the employee of the company which provides services under a 
contract  with  the  mobile  operator  has  an  obligation  to  refuse  to  act  in  accordance  with 
possible  discriminatory  instructions  of  the  mobile  operator,  which  is  why  the  mobile 
operator cannot be found responsible for discrimination. The Supreme Court also concluded 
that it did not agree with the legal opinion set by the regional court in Presov and its final 
judgment of 25 August 2009, No. 11 Co 90/2008 in another similar case when the court 
found the responsibility of a mobile operator for possible discriminatory treatment.  

The claimant submitted a complaint to the Slovak Constitutional Court, which has a right 
to quash the Supreme Court's decision.  

Name of the court: The Regional Court in Košice  
Date of decision: 13 December 2016 
Name of the parties: M.V. against Municipal housing company  
Reference number: 2Co/657/2015 - 379  
Address of the webpage: not yet published  
Brief summary: The case decided by the regional court in its decision of 13 December 
2016 concerned discrimination against Roma woman in employment.  

Ms  M.V.  (the  claimant)  was  employed  in  the  administration  of  the  municipal  housing 
company. She claimed to be discriminated against in her workplace on the ground of her 
Roma  ethnic  origin  in  March  2009  when  -  unlike  non-Roma  employees  in  comparable 
working  positions  -  she  was  transferred  to  an  inconvenient  office  room  placed  in  the 
basement, which caused her health problems. Later in 2010 her workplace was transferred 
to the segregated Roma ghetto where she was again placed in an inconvenient office room 
negatively impacting  her  health.  She  also  claimed  the  employer  was  not  giving  her  any 
bonus to her salary or incentive pay and was harassing her. She pointed out that direct 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
discrimination  and  harassment  against  her  also  resulted  in  victimisation  after  she 
repeatedly complained to the employer about how she was treated.  

In 2012, the claimant filed a lawsuit with the district court in Košice requesting the court 
to order the respondent to refrain from discrimination, send a written apology, advertise 
the written apology in a local newspaper and pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage 
for discrimination in the amount of EUR 10 000. The district court dismissed the lawsuit by 
its judgement No. 20C68/2012-350 of 8 September 2015. The claimant appealed to the 
regional court, arguing the illegality of the first-instance court judgement.  

The  regional  court  in  its  decision  of  13  December  2016  upheld  the  first-instance  court 
judgement. It concluded that the respondent met its burden of proof and it was established 
by evidence that the respondent did not violate the equal treatment principle in relation to 
the claimant. The regional court rejected the argument in the claimant’s appeal regarding 
the wrong comparator used by the first-instance court when assessing the alleged direct 
discrimination  (non-Roma,  but  in  a  different  working  position  in  the  company).  It  also 
concluded that it was not proved that the health problems of the claimant resulted from 
the fact that she was transferred to the other office rooms and found that less favourable 
working conditions in these rooms were irrelevant for assessing the alleged discrimination.  

As to the alleged harassment, the claimant in her appeal requested that the regional court 
interrupt the proceeding and make a referral to the CJEU in Luxembourg for a preliminary 
ruling because the first-instance court dismissed the lawsuit on this point particularly by 
reasoning that there is no comparator to establish whether the claimant was harassed or 
not. The claimant found the identification of a comparator when assessing discrimination 
in the form  of harassment clearly impossible and legally groundless as the court should 
essentially  consider  the  subjective  perception  of  the  particular  person  who  may  feel 
harassed,  the  individual  impacts  on  the  given  person  and  the  relevant  evidence  in  this 
regard. The regional court rejected the request for a referral to the CJEU reasoning that it 
is  not  necessary  to  resolve  the  issue  of  the  requirement  to  identify  a  comparator  when 
assessing  harassment,  because  the  evidence  provided  in  this  case  by  the  respondent 
sufficiently disproved the alleged harassment.  

As  to  the  alleged  victimisation,  according  to  the  regional  court,  the  respondent  met  its 
burden of proof and provided sufficient evidence to disprove discrimination in this form. In 
particular, the court accepted the respondent’s explanation that the claimant was not given 
incentive pay because of her long sick leave and thus limited working performance, not as 
a result of alleged victimisation.   

The  claimant  is  considering  whether  to  submit  a  complaint  to  the  Slovak  Constitutional 
Court, which has a right to overturn the Regional court’s decision. 

Trends and patterns in 2016 in cases brought by Roma:  

The type and number of cases  brought by Roma depend  on the  existence  and available 
resources of NGOs active in the relevant field; cases where Roma would access courts by 
themselves,  without  the  assistance  of  NGOs  or  the  Slovak  National  Centre  for  Human 
Rights,  are  extremely  scarce  (which  is  very  indicative  of  access  to  justice  for  people  of 
Roma origin). There are no official figures available as far as cases brought before courts 
or other authorities are concerned (concerning discrimination on the ground of ethnic origin 
but also concerning discrimination in general). Some information about pending cases is 
available from the Centre for Civil and Human Rights, an NGO active in the field, which is 
either providing legal representation, or is the claimant itself (in cases initiated by  actio 
popularis – e. g. on segregation of Roma children in education, or on segregation of Roma 
women in maternity wards).  

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In the author’s view, the general trends and patterns for cases brought by Roma (in the 
majority of the cases represented by the Centre for Civil and Human Rights) in 2016 (but 
also in the previous years) have not been changed in 2016 and remain the following: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

extreme amount of barriers Roma people face in order to access courts, independent 
legal  action  of  Roma  people  discriminated  against  is  basically  non-existent  if 
assistance is not provided by NGOs; 
general reluctance of courts to determine discrimination based on ethnic origin, and 
if this is the case, the application of reversed burden of proof continues to fall short 
of a legal consistency, extreme reluctance to award financial compensation for non-
pecuniary damages; if compensation is awarded, it is generally symbolic; 
the  courts  tend  to  downplay  the  seriousness  of  discrimination,  overlooking  or  not 
understanding  its  prima  facie  impact  on  human  dignity.  In  some  instances  there 
remains  a  certain  bias  or  preoccupation  of  courts,  particularly  when  dealing  with 
cases of discrimination against the Roma minority; 
extreme length of the judicial proceedings and extreme endurance required on the 
side  of  the  complainants  and  their  legal  representatives  to  carry  on  with  the 
proceedings;  incompetence  of  the  Slovak  National  Centre  for  Human  Rights  (the 
equality body) to deal with ethnicity-based discrimination efficiently.553 

In contrast, and to some extent paradoxically, the fact that there are so many barriers in 
access to judicial (but also other) remedies with regard to the right to non-discrimination 
in  general  (i.e.  also  with  regard  to  grounds  other  than  ethnicity)  and  cases  brought  to 
courts are so scarce, means that the decided cases on ethnic discrimination – the majority 
of the cases initiated and represented/assisted by the Centre for Civil and Human Rights – 
represent a very significant source of interpretation of the existing legislation.  

553  For more information on the current situation regarding access to justice in cases of discrimination see also 

Centre for Civil and Human Rights (2016), Written comments for the UN Human Rights Committee 
concerning the fourth periodic report of Slovak republic, September 2016, pp. 4-6. Available at: 
https://www.poradna-prava.sk/en/documents/we-submitted-the-written-comments-to-the-un-human-
rights-committee/ (accessed 10 March 2017).  

140 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 1: TABLE OF KEY NATIONAL ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION  

The  main  transposition  and  anti-discrimination  legislation  at  both  federal  and 
federated/provincial level. 

Country:  
Date:   

Slovakia 
1 January 2017 

Anti-discri- 
mination Act  

Labour Code  

Title  of  the  law:  Act  No.  365/2004  on  Equal  Treatment  in  Certain 
Areas and Protection Against Discrimination (Anti-discrimination Act) 
(zákon  č.  365/2004  Z.  z.  o  rovnakom  zaobchádzaní  v  niektorých 
oblastiach  a  o  ochrane  pred  diskrimináciou  a  o  zmene  a  doplnení 
niektorých zákonov (antidiskriminačný zákon)) 
Date of adoption: 20.05.2004 
Latest amendments: 12.11.2015 (No. 378/2015) 
Entry into force: 01.07.2004 
Web link: https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-
predpisy/SK/ZZ/2004/365/20160102;  
http://www.snslp.sk/CCMS/files/AntidiskriminacnyZakon_ENG-
1.1.2015.pdf (English version) 
Grounds  covered:  sex,  religion  or  belief,  race,  affiliation  with  a 
nationality  (národnosť)  or  an  ethnic  group,  disability,  age,  sexual 
orientation,  marital  status  and  family  status,  colour  of  skin, 
language,  political  or  other  opinion,  national  or  social  origin, 
property, lineage/gender or other status, or the reason of reporting 
criminality or other anti-social activity, contained in Section 2(1) of 
the Anti-discrimination Act (as well as some other grounds contained 
in  some  other  acts,  mainly  trade  union 
involvement  and 
unfavourable state of health, contained, for example, in the Labour 
Code) 
Civil/administrative/criminal  law:  civil  and  to  some  extent  also 
administrative 
Material scope: employment and occupation, social security, social 
advantages,  healthcare,  provision  of  goods  and  services  including 
housing and education 
Principal content: the basic act transposing the directives 
Title of the law: Labour Code No. 311/2001 (zákon č. 311/2001 Z. 
z. Zákonník práce) 
Abbreviation: ZP (Zákonník práce) 
Date of adoption: 02.07.2001 
Latest amendments: 26.11.2015 (No. 440/2015) 
Entry into force: 01.04.2002 
Web link: https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-
predpisy/SK/ZZ/2001/311/20160102; 
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/61871/60966/F-
506442866/SVK61871.pdf (English version)  
Grounds  covered:  sex,  religion  or  belief,  race,  affiliation  with 
nationality  (národnosť)  or  an  ethnic  group,  disability,  age,  sexual 
orientation,  marital  status  and  family  status,  colour  of  skin, 
language,  political  or  other  opinion,  national  or  social  origin, 
property, lineage/gender or other status, or the reason of reporting 
criminality or other anti-social activity, contained in Section 2(1) of 
the  Anti-discrimination  Act  as  well  as  trade  union  involvement, 
unfavourable state of health and genetic features 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: civil 
Material scope: employment 

141 

 
 
 
 
Act on Civil 
Service  

Act on 
Employ-ment 
Services  

Act on 
Education 
(Schools Act)  

Act on Higher 
Education 

Principal  content:  labour  relations  in  private  employment  and  in 
parts of public employment 
Title  of  the  law:  Act  No.  400/2009  on  Civil  Service,  as  amended 
(zákon  č.  400/2009  Z.  z.  o  štátnej  službe  a  o  zmene  a  doplnení 
niektorých zákonov) 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 16.09.2009 
Latest amendments: 12.11.2015 (No. 375/2015) 
Entry into force: 01.11.2009 
Web link: https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-
predpisy/SK/ZZ/2009/400/20160101 
Grounds covered: all grounds covered by the Anti-discrimination Act 
as well as unfavourable state of health, duties to family, membership 
of or involvement in a political party or a political movement, a trade 
union or another association 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: civil, administrative 
Material scope: employment 
Principal content: labour relations in public service 
Title of the law: Act No. 5/2004 on Employment Services, amended 
(zákon  č.  5/2004  Z.  z.  o  službách  zamestnanosti  a  o  zmene  a 
doplnení niektorých zákonov) 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 04.12.2003 
Latest amendments: 25.11.2016 (No. 310/2016) 
Entry into force: 01.02.2004 
Web link: https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-
predpisy/SK/ZZ/2004/5/20170101?ucinnost=31.12.2016  
Grounds covered: sex, religion or belief, race, affiliation with 
nationality (národnosť) or an ethnic group, disability, age, sexual 
orientation, marital status and family status, colour of skin, 
language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, 
property, lineage/gender or other status as well as activity in trade 
unions 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: civil, administrative 
Material scope: employment  
Principal content: employment services provided by the state 
Title of the law: Act No. 245/2008 on Education (Schools Act) (zákon 
č. 245/2009 Z. z. o výchove a vzdelávaní (školský zákon) a o zmene 
a doplnení niektorých zákonov) 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 22.05.2008 
Latest amendments: 19.07.2016 (No. 216/2016) 
Entry into force: 01.09.2008 
Web link: https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-
predpisy/SK/ZZ/2008/245/20160901?ucinnost=31.12.2016  
Grounds covered: all grounds covered by the Anti-discrimination Act 
as well as social disadvantage 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: administrative 
Material scope: education 
Principal  content:  legal  relations  in  pre-school,  primary  and 
secondary education 
Title of the law: Act No 131/2002 on Higher Education, as amended 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 21.02.2002 
Latest amendments: 25.11.2015 (No 422/2015) 
Entry into force: 01.04.2002 

142 

 
Web link: https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-
predpisy/SK/ZZ/2002/131/20160101 
Grounds  covered:  sex,  religion  or  belief,  race,  affiliation  with  a 
nationality  (národnosť)  or  an  ethnic  group,  disability,  age,  sexual 
orientation,  marital  status  and  family  status,  colour  of  skin, 
language,  political  or  other  opinion,  national  or  social  origin, 
property, lineage/gender or other status, or the reason of reporting 
criminality or other anti-social activity contained in Section 2(1) of 
the Anti-discrimination Act  
Civil/administrative/criminal law: administrative 
Material scope: education 
Principal content: legal relations in universitt yeducation 
Title of the law: Act No. 576/2004 on Healthcare, Services Related 
to the Provision of Healthcare and on amending and supplementing 
certain  acts,  as  amended  (zákon  č.  Act  No.  576/2004  Z.  z.  o 
zdravotnej  starostlivosti,  službách  súvisiacich  s  poskytovaním 
zdravotnej starostlivosti a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov) 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 21.10.2004 
Latest amendments: 30.12.2016 (No. 386/2016) 
Entry into force: 01.01.2005 
Web link: https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-
predpisy/SK/ZZ/2004/576/20170101?ucinnost=31.12.2016  
Grounds  covered:  sex,  religion  or  belief,  race,  affiliation  with  a 
nationality  (národnosť)  or  an  ethnic  group,  disability,  age,  sexual 
orientation,  marital  status  and  family  status,  colour  of  skin, 
language,  political  or  other  opinion,  national  or  social  origin, 
property, lineage/gender or other status, or the reason of reporting 
criminality or other anti-social activity, contained in Section 2(1) of 
the Anti-discrimination Act 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: administrative 
Material scope: healthcare 
Principal content: legal relations in providing healthcare 
Title of the law: Act No. 461/2003 on Social Insurance, as amended 
(zákon  č.  461/2003  Z.  z.  o  sociálnom  poistení  v  znení  neskorších 
predpisov) 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 30.10.2003 
Latest amendments: 22.12.2016 (No. 355/2016) 
Entry into force: 01.01.2004 
Web link: https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-
predpisy/SK/ZZ/2004/576/20170101?ucinnost=31.12.2016  
Grounds  covered:  sex,  religion  or  belief,  race,  affiliation  with  a 
nationality  (národnosť)  or  an  ethnic  group,  disability,  age,  sexual 
orientation,  marital  status  and  family  status,  colour  of  skin, 
language,  political  or  other  opinion,  national  or  social  origin, 
property, lineage/gender or other status, or the reason of reporting 
criminality or other anti-social activity, contained in Section 2(1) of 
the Anti-discrimination Act 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: administrative 
Material scope: social security 
Principal content: legal relations in state social insurance 
Title  of  the  law:  Act  No.  43/2004  on  Old-Age  Pension  Saving  and 
amending  and  supplementing  certain  laws,  as  amended  (zákon  č. 
43/2004  Z.  z.  o  starobnom  dôchodkovom  sporení  a  o  zmene  a 
doplnení niektorých zákonov) 
Abbreviation: 

143 

Act on 
Healthcare  

Act on Social 
Insurance  

Act on Old-
Age Pension 
Saving  

 
Act on Supple-
mentary 
Pension 
Saving  

Act on Social 
Services  

Date of adoption: 20.01.2004 
Latest amendments: 08.11.2016 (No. 292/2016) 
Entry into force: 01.01.2004 
Web link: https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-
predpisy/SK/ZZ/2004/43/20161201?ucinnost=31.12.2016  
Grounds  covered:  sex,  religion  or  belief,  race,  affiliation  with  a 
nationality  (národnosť)  or  an  ethnic  group,  disability,  age,  sexual 
orientation,  marital  status  and  family  status,  colour  of  skin, 
language,  political  or  other  opinion,  national  or  social  origin, 
property, lineage/gender or other status, or the reason of reporting 
criminality or other anti-social activity, contained in Section 2(1) of 
the Anti-discrimination Act 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: civil, administrative 
Material scope: social security 
Principal content: old-age pension saving  
Title of the law: Act No. 650/2004 on Supplementary Pension Saving 
and  on  Amending  and  Supplementing  Certain  Laws,  as  amended 
(zákon č. 650/2004  Z.  z. o doplnkovom dôchodkovom sporení a  o 
zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov) 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 26.10.2014 
Latest amendments: 08.11.2016 (No. 292/2016) 
Entry into force: 01.01.2005 
Web link: https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-
predpisy/SK/ZZ/2004/650/20161201?ucinnost=31.12.2016  
Grounds  covered:  sex,  religion  or  belief,  race,  affiliation  with  a 
nationality  (národnosť)  or  an  ethnic  group,  disability,  age,  sexual 
orientation,  marital  status  and  family  status,  colour  of  skin, 
language,  political  or  other  opinion,  national  or  social  origin, 
property, lineage/gender or other status, or the reason of reporting 
criminality or other anti-social activity, contained in Section 2(1) of 
the Anti-discrimination Act 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: civil, administrative 
Material scope: social security 
Principal content: supplementary pension saving (incl. occupational 
pensions) 
Title  of  the  law:  Act  No.  448/2008  on  Social  Services  and  on 
amending and supplementing Act No. 455/1991 on Licensed Trades 
(Small  Business  Act),  as  amended  (zákon  č.  448/2008  Z.  z.  o 
sociálnych službách a o zmene a doplnení zákona č. 455/1991 Zb. o 
živnostenskom  podnikaní  (živnostenský  zákon)  v  znení  neskorších 
predpisov) 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 30.10.2008 
Latest amendments: 23.03.2016 (No. 125/2016) 
Entry into force: 01.01.2009 
Web link: https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-
predpisy/SK/ZZ/2008/448/20170301?ucinnost=31.12.2016  
Grounds  covered:  sex,  religion  or  belief,  race,  affiliation  with  a 
nationality  (národnosť)  or  an  ethnic  group,  disability,  age,  sexual 
orientation,  marital  status  and  family  status,  colour  of  skin, 
language,  political  or  other  opinion,  national  or  social  origin, 
property, lineage/gender or other status, or the reason of reporting 
criminality or other anti-social activity, contained in Section 2(1) of 
the Anti-discrimination Act as well as unfavourable social situation 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: administrative 
Material scope: social security 

144 

 
Act on 
Benefits for 
Compen-
sation of 
Serious 
Disability  

Act on Establi-
shing the 
Slovak 
National 
Centre for 
Human Rights  

Civil 
Procedure Act 

Principal content: legal relations in social services for people in need 
of them with regard to e.g. age or disability 
Title of the law: Act No. 447/2008 on Benefits for Compensation of 
Serious  Disability,  amending  and  Supplementing  Certain  Laws,  as 
amended  (zákon  č.  447/2008  o  peňažných  príspevkoch  na 
kompenzáciu ťažkého zdravotného postihnutia a o zmene a doplnení 
niektorých zákonov) 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 29.10.2008 
Latest amendments: 22.12.2016 (No. 355/2016) 
Entry into force: 01.01.2009 
Web link: https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-
predpisy/SK/ZZ/2008/447/20170101?ucinnost=31.12.2016  
Grounds  covered:  sex,  religion  or  belief,  race,  affiliation  with  a 
nationality  (národnosť)  or  an  ethnic  group,  disability,  age,  sexual 
orientation,  marital  status  and  family  status,  colour  of  skin, 
language,  political  or  other  opinion,  national  or  social  origin, 
property, lineage/gender or other status, or the reason of reporting 
criminality or other anti-social activity, contained in Section 2(1) of 
the Anti-discrimination Act  
Civil/administrative/criminal law: administrative 
Material scope: social security 
Principal content: legal rules for providing benefits for compensation 
of serious disability 
Title  of  the  law:  Act  No.  308/1993  on  Establishing  the  Slovak 
National Centre for Human Rights (zákon č. 308/1993 Z. z. o zriadení 
Slovenského národného strediska pre ľudské práva) 
Abbreviation: 
Date of adoption: 15.12.1993 
Latest amendments: 25.06.2015 (No. 176/2015) 
Entry into force: 01.01.1994 
Web link: https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-
predpisy/SK/ZZ/1993/308/20150901 
Grounds covered: all grounds covered by national law: sex, religion 
or  belief,  race,  affiliation  with  nationality  (národnosť)  or  an  ethnic 
group, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status and family 
status, colour of skin, language, political or other opinion, national 
or social origin, property, lineage/gender or other status, contained 
in Section 2(1) of the Anti-discrimination Act as well as some other 
grounds  contained  in  other  acts  (unfavourable  state  of  health, 
genetic features, duties to family, membership of or involvement in 
a  political  party  or  a  political  movement,  a  trade  union  or  other 
association) 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: administrative 
Material scope: employment and occupation, social security, social 
advantages,  healthcare,  provision  of  goods  and  services  including 
housing and education 
Principal  content:  rules  on  obligations  and  the  functioning  of  the 
equality body 
Title of the law: Act No. 99/1963  Civil Procedure Act, as amended 
(zákon č. 99/1963 Zb. Občiansky súdny poriadok v znení neskorších 
predpisov) 
Abbreviation: OSP (Občiansky súdny poriadok) 
Date of adoption: 04.12.1963 
Latest amendments: 15.12.2015 (No. 438/2015), abolished from 1 
July 2016 (by Act No 160/2015 Civil Dispute Act) 
Entry into force: 01.04.1964 

145 

 
Civil Dispute 
Act 

Administrative 
Judicial Act 

Web link: https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-
predpisy/SK/ZZ/1963/99/20160101 
Grounds  covered:  sex,  religion  or  belief,  race,  affiliation  with 
nationality  (národnosť)  or  an  ethnic  group,  disability,  age,  sexual 
orientation,  marital  status  and  family  status,  colour  of  skin, 
language,  political  or  other  opinion,  national  or  social  origin, 
property, lineage/gender or other status, or the reason of reporting 
criminality or other anti-social activity, contained in Section 2(1) of 
the Anti-discrimination Act (as well as some other grounds contained 
in other acts, mainly trade union involvement and unfavourable state 
of  health,  genetic  features  contained  for  example  in  the  Labour 
Code) 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: civil 
Material scope: employment and occupation, social security, social 
advantages,  healthcare,  provision  of  goods  and  services  including 
housing and education 
Principal content: rules of civil proceedings before courts 
Title  of  the  law:  Act  No.  160/2015  Civil  Dispute  Act  (zákon  č. 
160/2015 Z. z. Civilný sporový poriadok) 
Abbreviation: CSP (Civilný sporový poriadok) 
Date of adoption: 21.05.2015 
Latest amendments: n/a 
Entry  into  force:  01.07.2016  (upon  Civil  Procedure  Act  becoming 
ineffective) 
Web link: https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-
predpisy/SK/ZZ/2015/162/20160701 
Grounds  covered:  sex,  religion  or  belief,  race,  affiliation  with  a 
nationality  or  an  ethnic  group,  disability,  age,  sexual  orientation, 
marital status and family status, colour of skin, language, political or 
other opinion, national or social origin, property, lineage/gender or 
other  status,  or  the  reason  of  reporting  criminality  or  other  anti-
social  activity,  contained  in  Section  2(1)  of  the  Anti-discrimination 
Act (and some other grounds contained in some other acts, mainly 
trade union involvement, unfavourable state  of health and genetic 
features, contained, for example, in the Labour Code) 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: civil 
Material scope: employment and occupation, social security, social 
advantages,  healthcare,  provision  of  goods  and  services  including 
housing and education 
Principal content: rules of civil dispute proceedings before courts 
Title of the law: Act No. 162/2015 Administrative Judicial Act (zákon 
č. 162/2015 Z. z. Správny súdny poriadok) 
Abbreviation: SSP (Správny súdny poriadok) 
Date of adoption: 21.05.2015 
Latest amendments: n/a 
Entry into force: 01.07.2016 
Web link: https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-
predpisy/SK/ZZ/2015/162/20160701 
Grounds  covered:  sex,  religion  or  belief,  race,  affiliation  with  a 
nationality  or  an  ethnic  group,  disability,  age,  sexual  orientation, 
marital status and family status, colour of skin, language, political or 
other opinion, national or social origin, property, lineage/gender or 
other  status,  or  the  reason  of  reporting  criminality  or  other  anti-
social  activity,  contained  in  Section  2(1)  of  the  Anti-discrimination 
Act (and some other grounds contained in some other acts, mainly 
trade union involvement, unfavourable state  of health and genetic 
features, contained, for example, in the Labour Code) 

146 

 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: civil 
Material scope: employment and occupation, social security, social 
advantages,  healthcare,  provision  of  goods  and  services  including 
housing and education 
Principal content: rules of civil proceedings in administrative matters 
before courts 

147 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: TABLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS 

Country:  
Date:   

Slovakia 
1 January 2017 

Instrument  Date of 
signatur
e  
(if not 
signed 
please 
indicate) 
Dd/mm/ 
yyyy 
Signed 
21.02. 
1991 

European 
Convention 
on Human 
Rights 
(ECHR) 
Protocol 12, 
ECHR 

Signed 
04.11. 
2000 
Signed 
18.11. 
1999 

Revised 
European 
Social 
Charter 

International 
Covenant on 
Civil and 
Political 
Rights 
Framework 
Convention 
for the 
Protection of 
National 
Minorities 
International 
Covenant on 
Economic, 
Social and 
Cultural 
Rights 
Convention 
on the 
Elimination 
of All Forms 

Signed 
07.10. 
1968 

Signed 
01.02. 
1995 

Signed 
07.10. 
1968 

Signed 
07.10. 
1966 

Date of 
ratificatio
n  
(if not 
ratified 
please 
indicate) 
Dd/mm/ 
yyyy 
Ratified 
18.03.1992 

Derogations
/ 
reservations 
relevant to 
equality and 
non-
discriminatio
n 

Right of 
individual 
petition 
accepted? 

Can this 
instrument 
be directly 
relied upon 
in domestic 
courts by 
individuals? 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Not ratified 

No 

No 

No 

Ratified 
23.04.2009 

Ratified 
28.05.1993 

Yes 
Reservations 
applied by 
Slovak 
Republic: 
Article 15 
Paragraph 3 
Article 18 
Paragraph 3 
Article 19 
Paragraph 2, 
3, 4c, 8, 10, 
12 
Article 31 
No 

Yes 

Ratified 
collective 
complaints 
protocol? 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Ratified 
14.09.1995 

No 

N/A 

Yes 

Ratified 
28.05.1993 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Ratified 
28.05.1993 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Instrument  Date of 
signatur
e  
(if not 
signed 
please 
indicate) 
Dd/mm/ 
yyyy 

Date of 
ratificatio
n  
(if not 
ratified 
please 
indicate) 
Dd/mm/ 
yyyy 

Derogations
/ 
reservations 
relevant to 
equality and 
non-
discriminatio
n 

Right of 
individual 
petition 
accepted? 

Can this 
instrument 
be directly 
relied upon 
in domestic 
courts by 
individuals? 

of Racial 
Discrimina-
tion 
Convention 
on the 
Elimination 
of 
Discrimina-
tion Against 
Women 
ILO 
Convention 
No. 111 on 
Discriminatio
n 
Convention 
on the Rights 
of the Child 
Convention 
on the Rights 
of Persons 
with 
Disabilities  

Signed 
17.07. 
1980 

Ratified 
28.05.1993 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Signed 
25.06. 
1958 

Signed 
30.09. 
1990 
Signed 
26.09. 
2007 

Ratified 
01.01.1993 

No 

N/A 

Yes 

Ratified 
28.05.1993 

No 

Ratified 
26.05.2010 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu)  

 
 
 
 
 
 
D
S
-
0
2
-
1
7
-
5
2
9
-
3
A
-
N

ISBN:978-92-79-68846-1  

doi:10.2838/426978