COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2021-07-20
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Slovakia, administrative transparency, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.7.2021  SWD(2021) 727 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report    Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report    The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2021) 700 final} - {SWD(2021) 701 final} - {SWD(2021) 702 final} - {SWD(2021) 703 final} - {SWD(2021) 704 final} - {SWD(2021) 705 final} - {SWD(2021) 706 final} - {SWD(2021) 707 final} - {SWD(2021) 708 final} - {SWD(2021) 709 final} - {SWD(2021) 710 final} - {SWD(2021) 711 final} - {SWD(2021) 712 final} - {SWD(2021) 713 final} - {SWD(2021) 714 final} - {SWD(2021) 715 final} - {SWD(2021) 716 final} - {SWD(2021) 717 final} - {SWD(2021) 718 final} - {SWD(2021) 719 final} - {SWD(2021) 720 final} - {SWD(2021) 721 final} - {SWD(2021) 722 final} - {SWD(2021) 723 final} - {SWD(2021) 724 final} - {SWD(2021) 725 final} - {SWD(2021) 726 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

Important efforts to improve the independence, integrity, quality and efficiency of the Slovak 
justice system, already noted in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, have continued. In December 
2020,  the  Parliament  adopted  an  extensive  reform  of  the  Constitution  and  implementing 
legislation regarding the justice system, in particular the Constitutional Court and the Judicial 
Council.  Authorities  have  also  stepped-up  efforts  to  address  corruption  in  the  judiciary.  A 
reform of the judicial map is under preparation, involving the Council of Europe, which has 
generated  a  number  of  comments  from  stakeholders.  A  Supreme  Administrative  Court  has 
been established. A new Prosecutor General and a Special Prosecutor were elected through a 
new transparent procedure. These reforms reflect efforts to improve the justice system and it 
is important that their implementation takes into account the relevant European standards to 
safeguard  judicial  independence.  This  is  also  important  considering  that  the  level  of 
perceived  independence  of  the  judiciary,  although  it  has  improved  among  companies, 
remains very low among the general public. 

Slovakia’s  efforts  to  repress  corruption  have  significantly  increased  and  show  effect  with  a 
number  of  high-level  corruption  cases  being  investigated  and  prosecuted.  Leading  officials 
were  also  selected  and  appointed,  including  the  Head  of  the  new  Whistleblower  Protection 
Office,  that  will  take  up  its  functions  as  of  1  September  2021.  The  capacity  to  detect  and 
investigate  corruption  offences  can  still  be  strengthened  by  investments  in  specialisation, 
dedicated analytical expertise and integrity trainings for the National Crime Agency. There is 
slow  progress  in  preventing  corruption.  Several  attempts  to  regulate  lobbying  have  so  far 
failed. However, draft legislation on lobbying, ’revolving doors’, asset declarations, conflicts 
of  interest  of  members  of  Parliament  and  public  procurement  are  planned  or  at  the  initial 
stage. 

Slovakia’s  Constitution  and  secondary  legislation  provide  the  legal  framework  for  the 
protection of freedom of expression, the right to access public information, media pluralism 
and press rights. A draft law under discussion and scheduled for adoption in September 2021 
is  expected  to  introduce  a  framework  to  ensure  media  ownership  transparency.  The 
government plans to propose legislation aimed at securing a more favorable environment for 
journalists have been postponed. The distribution of state advertising remains unregulated. A 
number  of  convictions  were  pronounced  with  regard  to  individuals  involved  in  the 
assassination of investigative journalist Ján Kuciak and his fiancée in 2018. The  acquittals of 
the alleged masterminds of the murder were annulled by the Supreme Court, which returned 
the case to  the Specialised Criminal  Court. One conviction  was confirmed. No news media 
support scheme was introduced to counter the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

As concerns the system of checks and balances, the need remains to improve the legislative 
process by strengthening the involvement of stakeholders and civil society, as already noted 
in  the  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report.  The  Constitutional  reform  of  December  2020  explicitely 
excludes  the  competence  for  the  Constitutional  Court  to  review  Constitutional  laws,  which 
triggered  the  review  by  the  Constitutional  Court  of  this  provision.  The  state  of  emergency 
related  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  lasted  for  most  of  2020  and  ended  in  May  2021, 
following  a  change  of  legislation  in  December  2020  to  allow  its  extension.  The  Public 
Defender  of  Rights  and  the  National  Centre  for  Human  Rights  took  an  active  role  in 
defending fundamental rights during the pandemic. Concerns grow over financing of certain 
NGOs, in particular limitations for NGOs working in the field of gender-equality. 

1 

 
 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The court system  of the Slovak Republic consists of 54 District Courts, 8 Regional Courts, 
the  Specialised  Criminal  Court,  the  Supreme  Court,  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court  and 
the  Slovak  Constitutional  Court1.  The  Regional  Courts  function  as  the  courts  of  appeal  in 
civil,  commercial  and  criminal  cases  and  at  the  same  time  function  as  the  courts  of  first 
instance  in  administrative  matters.  The  Specialised  Criminal  Court  is  competent  to  judge 
serious  criminal  matters  as  enumerated  in  the  relevant  provision  of  the  Code  of  Criminal 
Procedure2.  The  Judicial  Council  plays  a  central  role  in  the  self-administration  of  the 
judiciary  and  in  the  appointment,  suspension  and  dismissal  of  judges,  as  well  as  in 
maintaining  judicial  ethics.  Half  of  its  members  (9  out  of  18)  are  judges  elected  by  their 
peers.  Other  members  of  the  Judicial  Council  are  appointed  by  the  Slovak  President,  the 
Parliament  and  the  Government3.  The  public  prosecution  service  of  Slovakia  is  an 
independent  state  authority  headed  by  the  Prosecutor  General4.  Slovakia  participates  in  the 
European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office.  The  Slovak  Bar  Association  is  an  independent  self-
administrative professional organisation5. 

Independence  

The  perceived  level  of  independence  of  the  judiciary  has  improved  among  companies 
but remains low, and very low among the general public. 30% of companies perceive the 
level of judicial independence as ‘fairly or very good’, which is a considerable improvement 
compared  to  2020  (15%)6.  Conversely,  there  has  been  no  such  improvement  in  the 
perceptions  of  independence  of  courts  and  judges  among  the  general  public,  with  28% 
perceiving judicial independence as ‘fairly or very good’ and 65% as ‘fairly or very bad’7, in 
line  with  the  long-term  trend,  noted  already  in  the  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report8.  The  reasons 
most  often  invoked  for  the  perceived  lack  of  independence  are  related  almost  equally  to 
interference  or  pressure  from  the  Government  and  politicians  and  interference  or  pressure 
from economic or other specific interests.9  

Authorities have taken steps to address allegations of corruption and abuse of office in 
the judiciary. Following high-profile police operations referred to in the 2020 Rule of Law 
Report10, further operations were launched. Currently, 20 judges11 and other representatives 
of  justice  and  law  enforcement12  are  subject  to  criminal  proceedings  linked  to  serious 

1   For a  description of the judicial structure, see e.g. the  Annual study  for the European Commission carried 

out by the Council of Europe Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). 

2   Slovak  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  para.  14  (e.g.  premeditated  murder,  corruption,  terrorism,  organised 

crime, severe economic crimes, damaging the financial interests of the EU etc.). 

3   Art. 141a of the Slovak Constitution. 
4   Arts. 149-151 of the Slovak Constitution; Act No. 153/2001 Coll. on Public Prosecution Service. 
5   Parliamentary Act No. 586/2003 Coll. on the Legal Profession and on Amending Act No. 455/1991 Coll. on 

the Business and Self-employment Services (Business Licensing Act) of 4 December 2003. 

6   Figure 50 of the 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised as 
follows: very low (below 30% of respondents perceive judicial independence as fairly good and very good); 
low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

7   Figure 49 of the 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
8   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia, pp. 2-3. 
9   Figures 49 and 51 of the 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
10   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia, p. 2 
11   As of May 2021. Information provided by the Slovak Judicial Council. 
12   Prosecutors, police officers and lawyers, including high-ranking officials such as a former police president, 

Prosecutor General, Special Prosecutor or a former state secretary at the Ministry of Justice.  

2 

 
                                                 
allegations of corruption and abuse of office, in  a stepped-up effort by public authorities to 
reduce  corruption  in  the  justice  system.  One  judge  has  been  convicted.  As  a  result  of  the 
criminal prosecution, several judges resigned from their office or were temporarily suspended 
from  their  function13.  The  need  to  continue  addressing  specific  concerns  on  the  overall 
integrity of the justice system has also been raised in the context of the European Semester, 
and Slovakia has received a country specific recommendation to this end14. 

A  comprehensive  judicial  reform  has  been  adopted,  consisting  of  amendments  to  the 
Constitution  and  implementing  legislation.  This  follows  the  announcement  made  by  the 
Government to proceed to a reform with the aim to increase public trust in the rule of law15, 
as  explained  in  the  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report16.  In  December  2020,  the  amendment  of  the 
Constitution  and  implementing  legislation  has  been  adopted,  which  notably  established  a 
Supreme  Administrative  Court,  introduced  changes17  to  the  selection  and  appointment  of 
judges  of  the  Constitutional  Court  and  amended  several  provisions  regarding  the  Judicial 
Council. Stakeholders noted that the reform reflects efforts to improve the justice system and 
strengthen  its  independence18,  although  some  parts  of  the  reform  met  with  opposition  (see 
below).  

While  some  features  of  the  reform  concerning  the  Judicial  Council  were  welcomed, 
concerns  have  been  raised  regarding  the  regime  for  the  dismissal  of  its  members.  The 
Constitutional  reform  introduced  changes  to  the  method  of  appointment  of  the  members  of 
the Judicial Council, extended the Council’s powers and amended the provision regarding the 
dismissal  of  its  members19.  The  reform  has  introduced  a  rule  according  to  which  judge-
members  of  the  Council  would  be  elected  in  several  electoral  districts20.  According  to  the 
Government, the aim of the change is to increase the legitimacy of the Council by ensuring a 
more  diverse  representation  of  judges.  This  objective  is  consistent  with  Council  of  Europe 
recommendations21.  The  reform  also  extends  the  powers  of  the  Judicial  Council22. 
Furthermore, the reform explicitly provides that members of the Judicial Council, including 
its  President  and  Vice-President,  may  be  dismissed  at  any  point  by  the  authority  which 
appointed  them23.  According  to  the  Explanatory  memorandum24,  this  implies  that  such  a 

13   Information provided by the SK authorities. 
14   Council  Recommendation  of  20  May  2020  on  the  2020  National  Reform  Programme  of  Slovakia  and 

delivering a Council opinion on the 2020 Stability Programme of Slovakia, COM(2020) 525 final. 
15   Program Statement of the Government of the Slovak Republic for 2020 – 2024 of 19 April 2020, p. 8. 
16   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia, p. 3. 
17   Contribution  from  Via  Iuris  (Civil  Liberties  Union)  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  3;  Information 

received in the context of country visit to Slovakia.  

18   Contribution  from  Via  Iuris  (Civil  Liberties  Union)  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  3;  Information 

received in the context of country visit to Slovakia. 

19   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia, p. 4. 
20   The Council is composed of 18 Members, half of which are judges elected by their peers. The Government, 
the Parliament and the President of the Republic each choose three members as  well. Such composition is 
consistent with Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 
paras. 26-27. 

21   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 27. 
22   Notably, the Amendment confers on the Judicial Council the power to assess asset declarations of judges.  
23   For further information on appointment, see footnote 20. According to the Explanatory memorandum to the 
Constitutional  Act  No.  422/20,  p.  20,  this  possibility  have  previously  existed  in  the  Constitution  and  the 
Amendment expressly confirms it existence. However, the Constitutional Court in the unifying opinion of 19 
September 2018 PLz. ÚS 2/2018 ruled to the contrary. 

24   Explanatory memorandum to the Constitutional Act No. 422/20, p. 24. 

3 

 
                                                 
proposal  for  dismissal  is  not  required  to  be  based  on  any  legally  prescribed  criteria25  and, 
instead, may be motivated by a lack of trust26. Stakeholders have expressed concerns that this 
aspect  of  the  reform  may  have  an  adverse  impact  on  the  independence  of  the  Judicial 
Council27.  These  concerns  have  also  been  reflected  in  an  opinion  of  the  Bureau  of  the 
Consultative  Council  of  European  Judges  (CCJE)  of  9  December  202028.  A  dismissed 
member may contest the decision of dismissal in front of the Constitutional Court lodging a 
constitutional  complaint29.  It  is  important  that  the  Judicial  Council  be  subject  to  sufficient 
guarantees  as  regards  its  independence  in  relation  to  the  legislature  and  the  executive 
including as regards the way its Members can be dismissed30.  

A  retirement  age  of  judges  has  been  introduced  to  provide  certainty31.  Following 
amendments to the Constitution, judges retire upon reaching the age of 6732. As the reform 
eliminated the Judicial Council’s discretionary power to propose a retirement of a judge over 
the age of 65, the amendment enhances legal certainty and stability for judges.  

The  criminal  liability  regime  of  judges  has  been  amended.  In  October  2020,  an 
amendment  of  the  Criminal  Code  was  adopted33,  followed  by  an  amendment  of  the 
Constitutional provision on immunity of judges. According to the reforms, judges34 may not 
be  held  accountable  for  an  opinion  expressed  during  their  decision-making,  unless  the 
decision-making  of  a  judge  can  be  qualified  as  a  crime35.  In  that  respect,  a  new  crime  of 

25   As explained by representatives of the Slovak government, in accordance with established case law of the 
Constitutional  Court,  the  dismissal  must  not  be  discriminatory  or  arbitrary;  Information  received  in  the 
context of a follow-up meeting to the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 

26   Information received in the context of a follow-up meeting to the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 
27   Open call of Slovak lawyers, accessible at https://pravnystat.eu/en/ and submitted as a contribution into the 
stakeholder  consultation  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report.  The  provision  has  been  challenged  before  the 
Constitutional Court, where it remains pending, file No. 414/2021.  

28   According to the Opinion of the Bureau of Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) of 9 December 
2020,  CCJE-BU(2020)3,  following  a  request  by  the  CCJE  member  in  respect  of  Slovakia  as  regards  the 
reform  of  the  judiciary  in  Slovakia,  pp.  2-3,  Members  of  the  Judicial  Council  should  enjoy  guarantees  of 
independence and protection from external pressure, including in particular by being appointed for a fixed 
term of office. See also  Opinion  no.10 (2007) of the CCJE, 36; Opinion on  the Draft  Amendments to the 
Organic  Law  on  Courts  of  General  Jurisdiction  of  Georgia,  CDL-AD(2013)007-e,  para.  71  ‘The  Venice 
Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  when  using  its  legislative  power  to  design  the  future  organisation  and 
functioning of the judiciary, Parliament should refrain from adopting measures which would jeopardise the 
continuity in membership of the High Judicial Council’. The Slovak Constitutional Court has reached similar 
conclusions in the judgment of 19 September 2018 PLz. ÚS 2/2018, para. 12. 

29   It  is  not  clear  to  what  extent  the  Constitutional  Court  could  assess  the  dismissal  decision  from  the 
perspective of judicial independence. Information received in the context of a follow-up meeting to the 2020 
Rule of Law Report.  

30   The  Court  of  Justice  has  recalled,  as  regards  the  process  for  appointing  members  of  the  judiciary,  for  a 
Council  of  the  Judiciary  to  contribute  to  rendering  that  process  more  objective,  it  is  necessary  that  such  a 
body should itself be sufficiently independent of the legislature, the executive and the authority to which it is 
required to submit an opinion on the assessment of candidates for a judicial post. See judgment of the CJEU 
of 20 April 2021, Repubblika, Case C-896/19, para. 66. 

31   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia, p. 4. 
32   A transitional provision stipulated that judges who had reached the age of 67 at the entry into effect of the 
Constitutional  Amendment  (1  January  2021)  were  to  retire  by  1  February  2021.  The  Slovak  authorities 
confirmed that there was no such judge and the provision was therefore not applied.  

33   Act No. 312/2020 on Forfeiture of Assets and Management of Seized Property and Amendments to Certain 

Acts, effective from 1 January 2021. 

34   The provision also applies to lay magistrates. 
35   Art. 148(4) of the Constitution. 

4 

 
                                                 
‘abuse of law’ was introduced into the Criminal Code36. According to this provision, judges37 
may  be  prosecuted  for  any  arbitrary  decision  causing  damage  to  or  bestowing  a  favour  on 
another person38. The provision is envisaged to be used only in cases of manifestly arbitrary 
and  incorrect  decisions39.  Criminal  proceedings  are  led  by  the  Special  Prosecutor  and  a 
Specialised Criminal Court. A judge accused of this crime is entitled to request the Judicial 
Council to express its disagreement to the continuation of the criminal prosecution, which, if 
granted, is tantamount to the termination of the proceedings40. The prosecuted judge may be 
temporarily  suspended  only  by  a  decision  of  a  disciplinary  court41.  Whereas  European 
standards  provide  that  subjecting  judges  to  liability  for  their  decision  making  may  occur  in 
exceptional  cases  of  malice  and  gross  negligence,  any  regime  governing  liability  of  judges 
must  provide  clearly  and  precisely  the  necessary  guarantees  to  prevent  any  risk  of  it  being 
used  as  instrument  of  pressure  on  judicial  activity  or  a  system  of  political  control  of  the 
content  of  judicial  decisions42.  It  is  important  that  when  applying  these  new  provisions  in 
practice,  these  safeguards  are  duly  observed  in  line  with  European  standards.  Certain 
stakeholders  have  expressed  concerns  about  the  constitutional  amendment  on  the  immunity 
of judges, noting that its broad and vague wording could entail a potential risk of abuse43. 

The recent constitutional reform amended the regime of transfer of judges without their 
consent.  The  recent  constitutional  reform  provided  that  judges  may  be  transferred,  without 
their consent, in case of a change of the judicial map, if such transfer is necessary to secure 
the  proper  functioning  of  the  judiciary44.  Pursuant  to  European  standards,  it  is  possible,  in 
exceptional cases, to transfer judges without their consent, provided that sufficient safeguards 
are in place. These safeguards include a requirement that the judge may not be transferred to 
a  court  of  a  lower  instance  and  that  he  or  she  has  recourse  to  judicial  review45.  It  will  be 

36   Sec. 326a of the Criminal Code. 
37   The provision also applies to lay magistrates and arbitrators. 
38   For further information see the contribution from Via Iuris (Civil Liberties Union) for the 2021 Rule of Law 

Report, p. 8. 

39   Explanatory  memorandum to  Act No. 312/2020, p. 40; Information received in the context of a  follow-up 

meeting to the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 

40   However, it appears that this safeguard is only in place until 2024, Act 423/2020, Arts. III, XXX. 
41   Sec. 22 of the Act 385/2000 on Courts. According to Sec. 22a, a judge may also be temporarily suspended 
by  a  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council  if  there  are  justified  doubts  as  to  whether  he  or  she  fulfills  the 
requirements to qualify as a judge, or if the credibility of the judiciary or the reputation of the judiciary may 
be  seriously  jeopardized.  Following  the  adoption  of  the  Constitutional  amendment  in  December  2021,  the 
agreement  of  the  Constitutional  Court  is  no  longer  necessary  for  taking  a  judge  in  detention.  For  further 
information see the contribution from Via Iuris (Civil Liberties Union) for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 
8. 

42   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 68; see by 
analogy  in  case  of  disciplinary  proceedings  against  judges:  judgment  of  the  CJEU  of  19 November  2019, 
LM, C-216/18, para. 67, as regards liability of judges see also judgment of the CJEU of 18 May 2021 in joint 
cases C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-291/19, C-355/19 and C-397/19, paras. 228-239. 

43   According to the Opinion of the CCJE Bureau of 9 December 2020, in relation to the Constitution (CCJE-
BU(2020)3, p. 5), the new wording of the Constitution is vague and entails a potential risk of abuse; open 
call  of  Slovak  lawyers,  accessible  at  https://pravnystat.eu/en/  and  submitted  as  a  contribution  into  the 
stakeholder consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

44   Previously, it was only possible to transfer judges without their consent as a result of judicial proceedings. 

Art. 148(1) of the Constitution. 

45   Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe,  para.  52; 
European Charter of the Stature of Judges, Arts. 1.4., 3.4.; report of the European Network of Councils for 
the Judiciary, on Minimum standards for the evaluation of professional performance and the irremovability 
of members of the judiciary, proposal 4.21; judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 9 March 
2021, Bilgen v Turkey, 1571/07, para. 96. 

5 

 
                                                 
important  that  the  implementing  law46  provides  sufficient  safeguards  taking  into  account 
European standards. 

A draft reform of the judicial map is being prepared. Following recommendations from a 
report  from  the  Council  of  Europe  Commission  for  the  Efficiency  of  Justice  (CEPEJ)47  to, 
among others,  reflect  on enhancing specialisation of judges and on a change of the judicial 
map, in  particular on decreasing the number of  district  courts48, the Ministry of Justice has 
organised working groups, composed among others of judges, to prepare a draft reform of the 
judicial map49. The aim of the reform is to increase public trust in the judiciary and improve 
its efficiency and quality50. The draft map is based on the need for a sufficient size of courts 
in order to allow for greater specialisation of judges at each court, for respect for cultural and 
regional identities and for accessibility of justice51. Based on data regarding the workload of 
current courts, as well as infrastructure and courts’ accessibility, the draft reform proposed to 
decrease  the  number  of  district  and  regional  courts  from  54  to  30  and  from  8  to  352 
respectively.  Judges,  judicial  staff  and  cases  from  the  dissolved  courts  would  be  moved  to 
remaining  successor  courts53.  From  September  to  December  2020,  the  draft  reform  was 
presented  to  judges  and  other  stakeholders;  discussions  continued  in  January  and  February 
202154.  The  Ministry  of  Justice  is  now  evaluating  the  comments  submitted  in  the  public 
consultation,  which  took  place  from  mid-December  2020  until  the  beginning  of  March 
202155.  The  draft  reform  was  met  with  criticism  from  several  stakeholders,  who  reported 
among others on a lack  of involvement during the drafting process  and  expressed concerns 

46   According  to  Art.  148(1)  of  the  Constitution,  transfer  in  case  of  a  change  of  judicial  map  will  be  further 

specified by an implementing law. 

47   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia, p. 4. 
48   CEPEJ  (November  2017),  Efficiency  and  quality  of  the  Slovak  judicial  system,  Assessment  and 

recommendations on the basis of CEPEJ tools, CEPEJ-COOP(2017)14, pp. 20-28. 

49   The drafting process had several stages. In the first stage a working group of almost 50 members (majority 
of which were judges, including presidents of first and second instance courts, and members of the Judicial 
Council, including its president) agreed on key features of the reform. In the second stage in the first half of 
2020,  a  new,  smaller  working  group  of  approximately  10  members  (4  of  which  were  judges)  drafted  the 
reform  based  on  the  recommendations  from  the  first  working  group.  However,  stakeholders  question  the 
extent to which the recommendations were reflected. The minutes and present sheets from meetings of the 
working  group  in  the  first  stage  are  available  at  http://web.ac-mssr.sk/sudna-mapa-otazky-a-odpovede/. 
Information received in the context of the country visit to Slovakia; Information published by the Ministry of 
Justice  published  at  a  web  page  on  the  new  court  map,  http://web.ac-mssr.sk/sudna-mapa-otazky-a-
odpovede/; Analytical Center of the Ministry of Justice (December 2020), Recommendations for preparation 
of a new judicial map, pp. 15-17. 

50   Analytical Center of the Ministry of Justice (November 2020), Reform of the Judicial map, p. 4. 
51   Analytical  Center  of  the  Ministry  of  Justice  (November  2020),  Reform  of  the  Judicial  map,  pp.  20-21. 
Explanation  of  the  assessment  of  these  criteria  for  each  district  is  provided  in  Analytical  Center  of  the 
Ministry of Justice (November 2020), Odporúčania pre tvorbu novej súdnej mapy, http://web.ac-mssr.sk/wp-
content/uploads/2020/sudna_mapa/nova_sudna_mapa_3_0_final.pdf. 

52   The aim of the working group was to create districts that, based on the average number of incoming cases for 
each of the current courts, will have enough cases for at least 3 specialised judges / 3 specialised senates for 
each agenda. The draft reform also proposed to create separate administrative courts (see below). Analytical 
Center  of  the  Ministry  of  Justice  (November  2020),  Reform  of  the  Judicial  map,  pp.  20-21;  Analytical 
Center of the Ministry of Justice (November 2020), Odporúčania pre tvorbu novej súdnej mapy, pp. 20-21, 
34, 43. 

53   Draft Act on seats and territorial jurisdiction of courts, Sec. 10(2) and 11(2), available at https://www.slov-

lex.sk/legislativne-procesy/SK/LP/2020/587. 

54   Ministry  of  Justice,  Timeline  of 

the  drafting  process,  available  at  http://web.ac-mssr.sk/wp-

content/uploads/2020/sudna_mapa/20210223_Casov%C3%A1_os_Sudna_mapa_v.2.pdf.  
55   Information portal Slov-Lex, https://www.slov-lex.sk/legislativne-procesy/SK/LP/2020/587. 

6 

 
                                                 
regarding the accessibility of courts56. Following the criticism, the Ministry of Justice decided 
to continue consultations with judges until September 2021, after which a redrafted proposal 
for a reform of the judicial map will again be subject to a public consultation procedure57. As 
the  reform  will  involve  transfer  of  judges58,  it  should  be  noted  that  according  to  European 
standards, judges who would be transferred in the course of the reform without their consent 
should  benefit  from  procedural  safeguards  in  order  to  ensure  that  their  independence  is  not 
jeopardised (see above). A CEPEJ review of the draft reform concluded that the methodology 
used  is  in  line  with  its  guidelines  and  its  assessment  report  and  highlighted  the  evidence-
based approach adopted by Slovak authorities59. It also issued further recommendations, such 
as reflecting on a postponement of its implementation60.  

A  Supreme  Administrative  Court  has  been  established  and  administrative  courts  are 
envisaged61.  The  new  system  of  administrative  courts  is  expected  to  consist  of  three 
administrative  courts,  the  establishment  of  which  is  proposed  by  the  draft  reform  of  the 
judicial  map,  and  a  Supreme  Administrative  Court,  which  has  been  created  by  the  recent 
Constitutional reform and is expected to become operational in August 202162. The President 
of  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court  was  appointed63  in  May  2020  and  the  process  of 
selection  of  the  judges  is  ongoing.  Judges  of  the  Court  will  be  selected  by  the  Judicial 
Council64.  The  draft  reform  of  the  judicial  map  (see  above)  foresees  the  creation  of  three 
separate  administrative  courts.  It  is  envisaged65  that  the  presidents  of  these  new 
administrative  courts  will  be  selected  by  a  committee  of  five  members,  which  should  be 
chosen by the Minister  of Justice, two of which from  candidates nominated by the Judicial 
Council66. As regards the selection of judges to the administrative courts, it is proposed67 that 

56   Contribution  from  the  Communication  platform  of  Slovak  judges  Sudnamoc.sk  and  the  Association  of 
Slovak  judges  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report;  Information  received  in  the  context  of  country  visit  to 
Slovakia. Also the draft contains different options for selections of court presidents, which raises questions 
as  regards  the  discretion  given  to  the  executive  power,  Art.  XVI,  point  35  of  the  Draft  Act  on  seats  and 
territorial jurisdiction of courts, adding Sec. 101f(4) to Act No. 757/2004, on Courts.  

57   Information received from Slovak authorities. 
58   It is noted that the draft reform proposes to move judges by the means of universal succession without the 
use of provision on transfer of judges as stipulated in Sec. 14, Act 385/2000, on Courts. European standards 
regarding transfer apply regardless.  

59   CEPEJ (14 December 2020), CEPEJ Experts’ review of the Judicial Map Reform in  the Slovak  Republic, 

pp. 8-9. 

60   CEPEJ (14 December 2020), CEPEJ Experts’ review of the Judicial Map Reform in  the Slovak  Republic, 

pp. 10-11. 

61   The  Supreme  Administrative  Court  will  be,  among  others,  a  second  instance  administrative  court. 
Administrative cases of first instance are currently handled by administrative senates at regional courts and 
will be transferred on the new administrative courts after their establishment. 

62   On  2  June  2021,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  has  requested  the  opinion  of  the  Venice  Commission  about  a 
possible  competence  of  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court  to  serve  as  an  appellate  body  reviewing 
disciplinary decisions regarding lawyers of the Slovak Bar Association and about the position and status of 
attorneys  in  the  Slovak  legal  system.  No  legislation  to  grant  the  Court  such  power  is  currently  being 
prepared, but it is suggested in the Explanatory memorandum to the Constitutional Act No. 422/20, p. 28. 
63   The  President  of  the  Supreme  Court  was  appointed  by  the  President  of  the  Republic  based  on  a  proposal 

from the Judicial Council based on the transitional provision 154g(7) of the Constitution. 

64   Sec. 151zf, Act 385/2000, on Courts.  
65   Art. XVI, point 35 of the Draft Act on seats and territorial jurisdiction of courts, adding Sec. 101f(1) to Act 

No. 757/2004, on Courts. 

66   In the standard process of appointment of court presidents as stipulated in Secs. 36 and 37 of Act 750/2004, 
on  Courts,  four  members  of  the  selection  committee  are  chosen  by  the  Minister  of  Justice  from  a  list  of 
candidates  so  that  one  of  the  members  was  nominated  to  the  list  by  the  Judicial  Council  and  three  by  the 
Minister. One member of the selection committee is elected by the council of judges at the respective court. 

7 

 
                                                 
 
the Minister of Justice68  determines which posts will  be filled by  a transfer of judges69 and 
which through a selection procedure70. It will be important that the setting up of these courts 
and the regime applicable to them take into account European standards71. 

A Prosecutor General and a Special Prosecutor were elected through a new procedure. 
In September 2020, the Parliament adopted a law72 which introduced several changes to the 
process of election of the Prosecutor General and Special Prosecutor73. The law expanded the 
list  of  persons  with  the  right  to  propose  a  candidate  for  the  office  of  Prosecutor  General74, 
opened the candidacy to this office also to non-prosecutors, and introduced a requirement that 
candidates  for  both  the  Prosecutor  General  and  the  Special  Prosecutor  undergo  a  public 
hearing in  Parliament75. The new rules  were applied in  December 2020  and February  2021 
during  the  election  of  the  candidates  for  Prosecutor  General  and  Special  Prosecutor.  Both 
elections  were  closely  followed  by  the  media  and  stakeholders  noted  the  increase  of 
transparency of the process76.  

Quality  

Efforts to advance digitalisation are showing results but weaknesses appear in practice. 
Active  engagement  to  advance  the  digitalisation  of  the  justice  system  from  the  past  years77 
has started showing results. Slovakia is well equipped in terms of procedural rules allowing 
digital technology in courts78, as well as a range of tools and infrastructure allowing distance 
the  workplace79,  secure  electronic 
communication  and  secure 
communication  between  courts  services  and  legal  professionals  and  institutions80  or 
possibilities  for  users  to  initiate  and  follow  proceedings  in  civil,  commercial  and 
administrative  cases81.  Gaps  appear  in  particular  as  regards  the  prosecution  service82  and 

remote  access 

to 

of 

list 

The 
at 
https://www.justice.gov.sk/Stranky/Sudy/Vyberove-konania-na-sudoch/Kandidati-na-clenov-vyberovych-
komisii-na-vyber-predsedov-sudov.aspx.  

the  Ministry 

the  website 

candidates 

published 

of 

of 

is 

Justice 

67   Art. IX, point 17 of the Draft Act on seats and territorial jurisdiction of courts, adding Sec. 151zg to Act No. 

385/2000, on judges. 

68   After discussion with the Judicial Council. 
69   Transfer of judges is conducted by the Judicial Council either on the request of a judge, or with his or her 

consent, or based on a disciplinary decision, Sec. 14, Act 385/2000, on Courts. 

70   Selection procedure  will be conducted by a  selection committee composed of two  members nominated by 
the  Minister  of  Justice  and  three  members  nominated  by  the  Judicial  Council,  Sec.  29,  Act  385/2000,  on 
Courts. 

71   Consultative Council of European Judges (2016), Opinion No.19, The role of court presidents, para 53. 
72   Act 241/2020. 
73   According  to  Art.  150  of  the  Constitution,  the  Prosecutor  General  is  appointed  by  the  President  of  the 
Republic on the proposal of the Parliament. The Special Prosecutor is elected by the Parliament, Sec. 24a, 
Act No. 154/2001, on Prosecutors. 

74   Candidates may be nominated by a Member of Parliament, the Minister of Justice, the Ombudsperson, the 
Council of Prosecutors, a professional organisation of lawyers, a law faculty and the Academy of Sciences. 
Previously, only Members of Parliament had the right to propose a candidate, Sec. 7(4), Act No. 153/2001, 
on Public Prosecution. 

75   Sec. 125(2), Act No. 153/2001, on Public Prosecution. 
76   Contribution  from  Via  Iuris  (Civil  Liberties  Union)  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  9;  Information 

received in the context of the country visit to Slovakia. 

77   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia, p. 5.  
78   Figure 41, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
79   Figure 42, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
80   Figure 43, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
81   Figure 45, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  

8 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
digital solutions for court proceedings in criminal cases83. However, there are signs that while 
tools  and  infrastructures  are  in  place,  their  use  in  practice  might  be  hindered,  including  by 
obstacles such as low user-friendliness, incompatibility of different information systems used 
or  lack  of  skills  of  users84.  While  the  COVID-19  pandemic  has  overall  contributed  to  the 
momentum  in  the  digitalisation  process,  it  has  also  revealed  some  of  these  practical 
shortcomings85. Several projects to address the needs of the justice system are ongoing under 
the lead of a new  IT department  in  the Ministry of Justice, including the development  of  a 
new Case Management System and a new commercial register, which were also included in 
the Slovak Recovery and Resilience Plan86.  

Although the pandemic had a notable impact on the judicial system, overall courts and 
lawyers  were  able  to  continue  their  work.  The  number  of  hearings  conducted  by  district 
and regional courts decreased. When taking place, hearings were held via videoconference or, 
if necessary, in person observing safety measures. The Supreme Court has been less affected, 
including  because  most  of  its  proceedings  are  written87.  Lawyers  were  also  affected  by  the 
pandemic, but reported no major obstacles in exercise of their work88. The Judicial Council 
has  been  closely  monitoring  the  situation  at  courts.  The  Ministry  of  Justice  has  published 
guidelines  and  information  regarding  the  restrictions,  which  has  been  appreciated  by  the 
courts89. 

Efficiency 

Efficiency  of  proceedings  in  administrative  cases  has  further  deteriorated.  Being 
comparably  lengthy  in  EU  perspective,  the  trend  of  the  growing  length  of  proceedings  in 
administrative cases continued in 2019, reaching 518 days compared to 157 days in 201890. 
At  the  same  time,  the  clearance  rate  has  also  continued  to  fall,  down  to  81.4  %  in  2019 
(compared  to  96.1  %  in  2018)91.  This  suggests  that  the  system  does  not  manage  to  deal 
efficiently with the workload in administrative cases. As regards civil and commercial cases, 
the estimated length of proceedings in litigious civil and commercial cases increased in 2019 
compared to 2018, reaching 170 days (compared to 157 in 2018)92. Several groups of cases 
concerning  excessive  length  of  civil  proceedings  have  been  examined  by  the  Council  of 
Europe93.  

82   Figure 44, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
83   Figure 46, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
84   Contribution from the Slovak Bar Association for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
85   Another example revealed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic is the need for digitalization in detention 
procedures  to  allow  secure  digital  communication  between  lawyers  and  their  clients  in  detention. 
Contribution from the Slovak Bar Association for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. See also press release of the 
Slovak  Bar  Association  of  23  March  2021,  Predseda  SAK  navštívil  nového  generálneho  riaditeľa  Zboru 
väzenskej a justičnej stráže.  

86   Input from Slovakia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 12;  the Slovak Recovery and Resilience Plan plans 
investments into digitalization and analytical capacities for the justice system, Component 15 of the Slovak 
Recovery and Resilience plan. 

87   Information received in the context of country visit to Slovakia. 
88   Information received in the context of country visit to Slovakia. 
89   Information received in the context of country visit to Slovakia. 
90   Figure 10, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
91   Figure 13, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
92   Figure 7, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
93   These  groups  of  cases  concern  excessive  length  of  civil  proceedings,  excessive  length  of  proceedings 
concerning a compensation claim  of the aggrieved party  attached to criminal proceedings,  effectiveness of 

9 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

In Slovakia, the competences for the prevention, detection and prosecution of corruption are 
shared between several authorities. The Office of the Government is the central body for the 
coordination  of  the  prevention  of  corruption,  reporting  directly  to  the  Prime  Minister’s 
Office. The National Crime Agency of the Presidium of the Police Force is in charge of the 
detection  and  investigation  of  corruption  offences  with  the  exception  of  corruption  crimes 
committed  by  members  of  the  police  itself  and  certain  law  enforcement  agencies  falling 
under the remit of the Bureau of Inspection Service94. The Special Prosecutor’s Office95 has 
exclusive  jurisdiction  over  the  investigation  of  criminal  offences  under  the  substantive 
jurisdiction of the Specialised Criminal Court, including corruption offences96.  

The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in 
the public sector remains high. In the 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency 
International,  Slovakia  scores  49/100  and  ranks  17th  in  the  European  Union  and  60th 
globally97. This perception has been relatively stable98 over the past five years99. 

The strategic framework for anti-corruption is provided by the Anti-Corruption Policy 
for  2019-2023.  The  Policy100  focuses  mostly  on  prevention  through  soft  measures  and  is 
accompanied  by  an  action  plan,  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Programme101,  and  several 
sectoral programmes102. Being essentially identical to the policy document, the current action 
plan  does  not  put  forward  concrete  operational  steps  to  facilitate  the  implementation  of  the 
policy  priorities.  The  National  Anti-Corruption  Programme  is  currently  in  the  process  of 

the remedy for excessively lengthy civil proceedings and excessive length of restitution-of-land proceedings 
(two-tier proceedings consisting of administrative phase before a Land Office and judicial phase on appeal) 
and lack of effective remedies, respectively. Decisions on these cases were delivered by the European Court 
of Human Rights and the execution of these judgments by Slovak authorities is ongoing and monitored by 
the  Council  of  Europe  under  the  standard  procedure.  See  statuses  of  execution  of  the  judgments  of  the 
European Court of Human Rights of 24 July 2012, Maxian and Maxianova, 44482/09, of 15 September 2015 
Javor  and  Javorova,  42360/10,  of  27  June  2017,  Ivan,  57405/15,  of  31  August  2018,  Balogh  and  others, 
35142/15.  

94   Cf. Article 4(3) of Act No. 171/1993 Coll. on the Police Force. 
95   Act of the National Council of the Slovak Republic No. 458/2003 Coll. on the establishment of the Special 

Court and the Office of Special Prosecutor’s Office. 
96 Act No. 291/2009 Coll. on the Specialized Criminal Court. 
97   Transparency  International,  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  2020  (2021)  pp.  2-3.  The  level  of  perceived 
corruption is categorised as  follows: low (the perception among experts and business executives of public 
sector  corruption scores  above  79);  relatively  low  (scores  between  79-60),  relatively  high  (scores  between 
59-50), high (scores below 50). 

98   In 2015, the score was 51, while, in 2020, the score is 49. The score significantly increases/decreases when it 
changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5  points);  is  relatively  stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

99   The Eurobarometer data on corruption perception and experience of citizens and businesses as reported last 
year is updated every second year. The latest data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020) and the Flash 
Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

100  Government of the Slovak Republic, Anti-Corruption Policy of the Slovak Republic for 2019-2023 (2018). 
101  Government of the Slovak Republic, National Anti-Corruption Program of the Slovak Republic (2019). 
102  Sectoral programmes were adopted by the ministries and other institutions, including the Ministry of Justice, 
of Economy, of the Interior, of Transport and Construction, of Environment, of Finance Sector, of Foreign 
and European Affairs, of Health, and of Labour among others. The adopted action plans contain primarily 
preventive  elements,  including  on  awareness-raising,  anti-corruption  education  and  corruption  risk-
management. 

10 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
being updated103. The Corruption Prevention Department of the Government Office oversees 
the implementation of the policy and  action plan. Oversight over the implementation of the 
sectoral programmes is the competence of the relevant central state administration bodies104.  

The criminal legal framework has been complemented with the entering into force of a 
new  law  on  asset  seizure.  Among  others,  the  law  on  asset  seizure105,  which  entered  into 
force in January 2021, prevents the legalisation of criminal  assets through transfers to third 
persons  and  amends  the  criminal  code  introducing  new  offences,  such  as  the  crime  of 
accepting  or  offering  unjustified  benefits  or  undue  advantages,  and  the  crime  of  indirect 
corruption106.  In addition,  the act  introduces a definition  of proceeds of crime. Notably, the 
act  establishes  a  new  Office  for  the  Management  of  Seized  Property107.  Legislative 
shortcomings exist with regard to the police’s authorisation to request financial information 
of suspects from banks at the investigatory stage of these crimes108, as well as with regard to 
the criminalisation of trading of supposed influence109. 

Measures  to  increase  the  resources  of  the  Special  Prosecutor’s  Office  with  a  view  to 
strengthening  its  capacities  are  being  implemented.  On  10  February  2021,  the 
Government approved a proposal to increase the resources and number of specialised staff for 
the Special Prosecutor’s office110. Overall the number of prosecutors increased from 35 to 38 
in 2021. With the aim to address concerns about limited resources and capacities to prosecute 
high-level  corruption111,  the  division  dealing  specifically  with  corruption  and  corruption-
related crimes has doubled its staff increasing from five to now ten prosecutors in the Special 

103  The new National  Anti-Corruption Programme is at a preparatory stage. Public consultations have already 
taken place, according to the Slovak Government. Additional input from Slovakia for the 2021 Rule of Law 
Report, p. 7. 

104  The role of the Corruption Prevention Department of the  Office  of the Government  is  limited to checking 
whether the relevant ministry has prepared the programme but it does not evaluate its content. However, the 
Corruption  Prevention  Department  cooperates  with  the  anti-corruption  coordinators  with  the  Council  of 
Anti-Corruption Coordinators. Information received in the context of the country visit to Slovakia. 

105  Act No. 312/2020 on Forfeiture of Assets and Management of Seized Property and Amendments to Certain 

Acts, effective from 1 January 2021. 

106  The law also redefined the term laundering of proceeds from criminal activity and introduced a new crime of 
bending  the  law,  see  above  in  Section  I.  All  forms  of  active,  passive,  direct  and  indirect  corruption  had 
already been criminalized prior to this in Slovakia. 

107  Selection procedures to institute a director were ongoing at the time of the drafting of this report, according 
to  the  Input  from  Slovakia  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  22.  Several  other  corruption-related 
amendments were introduced, including  Act No. 279/2020 amending and supplementing act No. 297/2008 
on protection against money laundering and on terrorist financing (September 2020). 

108  Input from Slovakia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 24, with reference to section 29(a) para. 4 of Act 
No. 171/1993 Coll. on the Police Force, despite the fact that police is authorised to obtain such information 
in the case of other criminal offences, such as tax evasion, illegal financial operations, or the legalisation of 
the proceeds of crime. Notably, a draft law on the Central Registry of Bank Accounts is expected to address 
these deficiencies as of 1 December 2021. 

109  UNCAC Implementation Review - 1st cycle (2010-2015), Country Review Report of Slovak Republic, p. 22. 
The  trading  of  influence  is  criminalised  under  section  336  of  the  Criminal  Code  but  does  not  cover  cases 
where  an individual offered or gave a bribe to another person  who did not in reality have the  influence in 
relation to which the bribe was given, as required by the UNCAC Convention. 

110  Decision No. UV-1860/2021. Cf. also Government of the Slovak Republic, Proposal to increase the number 
of persons designated to perform  the  tasks of the Office  of the Special Prosecutor’s Office  of the General 
Prosecutor’s Office of the Slovak Republic and their functional classification.  

111  Input  from  Slovakia  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  15.  Concerns  were  raised  by  the  Special 
Prosecution Office indicating that on average, each prosecutor is in charge  of approximately 80 cases at a 
time, which raises questions in relation to the effective supervision of investigations. Cf. Rule of Law report 
(2020), p. 7. 

11 

 
                                                 
Prosecutor’s Office112. The reorganisation took place in the course of 2021113. A significant 
increase  in  budgetary  resources  for  the  Special  Prosecutor’s  Office  was  also  agreed114. 
Concerns  remain  regarding  the  level  of  trust  in,  as  well  as  the  specialisation  and  the 
digitalisation  of,  the  police,  affecting  the  cooperation  of  the  Prosecution  Service  with  the 
police and the detection of corruption and corruption-related crimes115. In particular, as stated 
in  the  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  strengthened  forensic  and  analytical  capacities  of  the 
National  Crime  Agency  would  contribute  to  more  effective  financial  investigations116.  A 
comprehensive  police  reform  is  planned  to  modernise  the  police  in  this  regard  by  June 
2022117. 

Efforts  to  fight  high-level  corruption  have  significantly  increased  in  Slovakia  in  the 
course  of  the  reporting  period.  The  ability  to  investigate  and  prosecute  high-level 
corruption has considerably improved following the public mass demonstrations against the 
perceived impunity for high-level corruption based on revelations made in the context of the 
murder of journalist  Ján Kuciak and his  fiancée  Martina Kušnírová in  2018. As of October 
2020,  a  number  of  former  high-ranking  representatives  from  the  police,  the  prosecution 
service and the judiciary as well as from the private sector have been charged with corruption 
and corruption-related offences118. In 2020, the National Crime Agency initiated proceedings 
in  158  cases  of  corruption119.  The  number  of  individuals  convicted  for  corruption  offences 
more than doubled from 2019 (62 convictions) to 2020 (128 convictions)120. More recently, 
in May 2021, the National Crime Agency also detained several high-ranking officials of the 
Land  Fund121  allegedly  involved  in  corruption  schemes  between  2016  and  2020122.  In  this 
context,  the  European  Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF)  had  already  raised  concerns  in  2020 
following three administrative investigations into agriculture payments about shortcomings in 
the  Land  Fund  with  regard  to  transparency,  equal  treatment  of  lease  applicants  and  legal 

112  The current division of the Department of General Crime of the Special Prosecutor’s Office consists of one 
head prosecutor and of 9 prosecutors, according to the Input from Slovakia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, 
p. 16. 

113  The current division of the Department of General Crime of the Special Prosecutor’s Office consists of one 
head prosecutor and of 9 prosecutors, according to the Input from Slovakia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, 
p. 16. 

114  The Office will receive an additional EUR 1.3 million to realise the reform. 
115  Cf. GRECO, Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report Slovak Republic (2019), pp. 37-57. 
116  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia, p. 7. 
117  Cf. the Recovery and Resilience Plan of the Slovak Republic. 
118  Information received in the context of the country visit to Slovakia. See also Section I. 
119  Of the 158 corruption cases initiated, 73 cases were based on giving a bribe, 71 on accepting a bribe, 8 on 
indirect  corruption,  5  on  corruption  in  elections,  and  1  case  on  match-fixing  in  sports,  according  to 
information received in the context of the country visit to Slovakia. 

120  Crimes included in the  statistics are passive  corruption (section 328), passive corruption  – procurement of 
items of general interest (section 329), active  corruption (section 332), active corruption  – procurement of 
items  of  general  interest  (section  333),  trading  in  influence  (section  336),  electoral bribery  (section  336a), 
sports corruption (section (336b). Additional input from Slovakia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, available 
at 
http://web.ac-mssr.sk/wp-content/uploads/2020/rocenka2019/I.-Trestn%C3%A1-agenda_2019_pdf.pdf. 
Furthermore, corruption statistics are available in the annual reports of the National Crime  Agency on the 
number of criminal investigations and prosecutions and the number of individuals charged with corruption 
offences. Also the Ministry of Interior publishes monthly crime statistics online. 

121  The  Slovak Land Fund is in  charge of the  management of agricultural land under State ownership or land 
without a known private owner. These parcels cover approximately 20% of all agricultural land in Slovakia 
and are in majority eligible for EU direct payments grants.  

122  Aktuality.sk (19 March 2021), NAKA again detained financier Kvietik and several people from the Slovak 

Land Fund. 

12 

 
                                                 
certainty  in  internal  procedures123.  However,  cooperation  between  the  National  Crime 
Agency,  the  National  Security  Office,  the  Supreme  Audit  Office  and  the  Financial 
Intelligence  Unit  could  still  improve  and  become  closer  in  order  to  better  detect  and 
document  corruption124.  The  effective  enforcement  of  foreign  bribery  also  remains  a 
concern125. 

Slovakia’s  Parliament  has  appointed  the  Head  of  Office  for  the  Protection  of 
Whistleblowers  in  February  2021.  Following  this  appointment126,  the  Office  will  become 
operational and take up its functions within six months127. The term of office of the Head of 
Office is seven years. The Office is independent from any other department128. The Office’s 
mandate  will  focus  on  breaches  of  law  and  the  protection  against  retaliatory  measures 
undertaken by the notified entity based on the principles of confidentiality and anonymity129. 
The  role  of  the  Office  is  to  provide  advice,  training,  methodological  guidance  and  public 
awareness-raising  on  whistleblowing,  including  on  corruption  cases.  The  Office  is 
accountable to the Parliament and will provide an annual report. The target audience for the 
Office is both the public and the private sector.  

Slovakia  committed to  submit a draft law on lobbying in November  2021. The process 
led by the Government Office130 is in the initial preparatory stage131. There have been several 
attempts  to  adopt  legislation  but  so  far  lobbying  remains  unregulated  in  Slovakia132.  As  a 
result, there are no legal definitions of lobbyists, lobbying activities and lobbying targets, nor 
effective sanctions for undue lobbying or a legislative footprint in place133. However, related 

123  Press Release of the European Anti-Fraud Office (21 January 2021), OLAF closes cases on EU agricultural 

funds in Slovakia.  

124  Input from Slovakia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 25. 
125  In the period from 2016-2019, Slovakia opened an unknown number of investigations, commenced no cases 
and  concluded  no  cases,  according  to  Transparency  International,  Exporting  Corruption  (2020),  p.  102. 
National provisions on foreign bribery offences have been amended following the recommendations of the 
OECD,  Implementing  the  OECD  Anti-Bribery  Convention,  Phase  3:  Slovak  Republic  (2012),  and  the 
OECD, Follow-Up to the Phase 3 Report and Recommendation: Slovak Republic (2014). For the liability of 
legal persons with regard to foreign bribery, see OECD, Phase 1bis Report: Slovak Republic (2017). In the 
course of 2025, the Slovak Republic is scheduled to undergo its Phase 4 review on the implementation of the 
Convention, reviewing the measures taken to address the weaknesses identified in previous evaluations and 
enforcement efforts. 

126  Input from Slovakia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 19; 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on 

the rule of law situation in Slovakia, p. 8. 

127  The Office for the Protection of Whistleblowers is established by the legislation Act No. 54/2019 Coll. On 

Whistleblower Protection in force since March 2019. 

128  Staffing and running costs will amount to approximately EUR 1.1 million per year. 
129  Slovakia  has  a  stand-alone  whistleblower  protection  law  in  place  since  2019,  Act  no.  54/2019  Coll.  on 

Whistleblowers’ Protection. 

130  Government of the Slovak Republic, Plan of Legislative  Tasks of the Government of the Slovak Republic 
for 
https://www.slov-lex.sk/legislativne-
procesy?p_p_id=processDetail_WAR_portletsel&p_p_lifecycle=2&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p
_p_cacheability=cacheLevelPage&p_p_col_id=column-
2&p_p_col_count=1&_processDetail_WAR_portletsel_fileCooaddr=COO.2145.1000.3.4201465&_process
Detail_WAR_portletsel_file=pl%C3%A1n-2021.pdf&_processDetail_WAR_portletsel_action=getFile. 

2021, 

131  Information received from the Government in the context of the country visit to Slovakia. 
132  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia, p. 8. 
133  Cf.  GRECO,  Fourth  Evaluation  Round,  Slovak  Republic  -  Addendum  to  the  Second  Compliance  Report 
(2019), para. 8,  and GRECO, Fourth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report Slovak Republic (2013), para. 
25  (with  regard  to  members  of  the  parliament);  GRECO,  Fifth  Evaluation  Round  –  Evaluation  Report, 
Slovak Republic (2019), para. 89 (with regard to the central government/ top executive functions); GRECO, 
Fourth Evaluation Round (2019), Addendum to the Second Compliance Report, Slovak Republic. 

13 

 
                                                 
legislation  and  tools  allow  for  the  tracking  of  stakeholder  comments  and  of  the  extent  to 
which  they  found  entry  into  a  legislative  draft134.  A  Code  of  Ethics  for  members  of 
Parliament135  and  the  introduction  of  a  legislative  regulation  on  post-employment  rules 
(‘revolving doors’) is also planned for 2021136. Amendments to the Law on the Protection of 
the  Public  Interest  have  entered  into  force  providing  for  the  obligation  to  declare  gifts  or 
other benefits and the use of movable or immovable property137. 

The  Government  intends  to  create  a  new,  centralised  office  for  the  monitoring  and 
verification  of  assets,  including  of  top  executive  officials.  The  Government  Office  in 
cooperation with the Parliament is at an initial stage in the conceptualisation of a legislative 
proposal to establish a unified office138. So far, the system of asset declarations for members 
of Parliament, judges, prosecutors, public officials and civil servants is decentralised. At the 
outset of 2021, major delays were reported in the publication of the 2019 asset declarations of 
members of Parliament due in August 2020, for reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic 
and ongoing processes to impose fines for non-compliance139. 

Political party finances are transparent, yet oversight could be strengthened. The main 
law regulating the financing of political parties in Slovakia is the Act on Political Parties and 
Movements140. Donations to political  parties are limited to  EUR 5,000 in cash  per calendar 
year, while no such limit exists during election periods. Donations from foreign entities and 
anonymous  donors  are  banned.  Failure  to  comply  can  result  in  a  fine  by  the  State 
Commission  on Election and Control of the  Financing  of Political  Parties in  the amount of 
double the income from the donation or the gratuitous service. Parties are required to report 
on  their  finances  annually  to  the  State  Commission.  Financial  reports  are  made  publicly 
available. The reports are overseen by the National Council of the Slovak Republic and must 
reveal  financial  information  in  relation  to  election  campaigns  and  the  identity  of  donors141. 
The  human  capacities  of  oversight  bodies  are  limited  and  concerns  have  been  raised  as  to 

134  These include among others the strong Freedom of Information Act and the Constitutional Law on Conflicts 

of Interests No 357/2004 Coll. 

135  The Code of Ethics for members of Parliament will be part of the draft law on lobbying of the Government 
Office.  For  state  employees,  the  2019  legislative  amendments  to  the  Civil  Service  Act  included  a  state 
employee Code of Ethics and a system to assess compliance, Decree no. 400/2019 on State Employee Code 
of  Ethics.  On  the  introduction  of  a  Code  of  Conduct  for  parliamentarians,  see  also  GRECO,  Fourth 
Evaluation Round, Second Addendum to the Second Compliance Report – Slovak Republic (2021). 

136  Input from Slovakia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 19 and information received from the Corruption 
Prevention  Department  of  the  Government  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Slovakia.  So  far  post-
employment  rules  are  included  in  the  Act  of  Conflict  of  Interest  applying  to  public  officials  of  executive 
functions or member of a collective decision-making body but have been  found to be limited in scope. Cf. 
GRECO, Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report Slovak Republic (2019), paras. 127-128. 

137  Constitutional Act on the Protection of Public Interest in the Performance of Offices by Public Officials No. 
357/2004, as amended by Constitutional Act No. 545/2005. Notably, further comprehensive amendments to 
this  law  and,  specifically  gifts  for  parliamentarians,  are  foreseen  in  the  current  government  programme  to 
address  the  remaining  concern  of  thresholds  vis-à-vis  minimum  wages.  Cf.  GRECO,  Fourth  Evaluation 
Round:  Second  Addendum  to  the  Second  Compliance  Report  –  Slovak  Republic  (2021),  para.  20-21.  See 
also GRECO, Slovakia: GRECO regrets slow progress in prevention corruption of parliamentarians, judges 
and prosecutors (2021). 

138  Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Slovakia.  See  also  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report, 

Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia, pp. 8-9. 

139  Information received in the context of the country visit to Slovakia. A quarter of parliamentarians (381) had 

not submitted their asset declarations to the parliamentary committee by January 2021. 

140  Law No. 85 on Political Parties and Movements, 2005 (as amended in 2019). 
141  Section 22(5) of the Law No. 85 on Political Parties and Movements of 2005 (as amended in 2019). 

14 

 
                                                 
political nominations within them142. A bill adopted within two days tightening the campaign 
financing rules for the 2020 elections by limiting donations143 has affected newly established 
parties in particular and therefore raised concerns among new parties, civil society and media 
as to the fair competition between parties. 

The COVID-19 pandemic had reportedly no specific impact on corruption occurrence, 
detection of corruption or on the efforts to combat corruption in Slovakia, according to 
the Prosecution Service. Some trials have been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic 
contributing to a backlog of cases144. High-risk sectors that were prone to corruption before 
the  pandemic  largely  remained  prone  to  corruption  during  the  pandemic,  including  public 
procurement and the health care sector, with an increased risk and occurrence of pandemic-
related  subsidy  fraud  schemes  in  the  latter  sector145.  Under  the  sectoral  anti-corruption 
programme  of  the  Ministry  of  Health146,  a  specific  working  group  was  created  to  assess 
corruption risks in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, finding two risk areas relating to 
ineligible cost  requests and duplication of reimbursement requests147.  In an  effort  to  reduce 
the period needed for procuring goods, services and construction work during the pandemic, 
the  Government  prepared  a  legislative  proposal148  amending  its  public  procurement  law. 
However, the proposal was revised in May 2021 following a public petition and criticism for 
excluding  the  Office  for  Public  Procurement  from  the  initially  envisaged  review  procedure 
and thus excluding public control overhigh-value commissions149. According to civil society, 
the  revised  legislative  proposal  addresses  the  concerns  raised  in  the  petition  increasing 
transparency and public control and thus reducing corruption risks150. 

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM  

The Slovak Constitution enshrines the right to express opinions in words, print, image or by 
other means, the right to search for, receive and disseminate ideas and information as well as 
the right  of access  to  information.  The right  to  access  information  finds legal  expression in 
the Freedom of Information Act151. The Broadcasting and Retransmission Act152 is aimed at 

142  Information received in the context of the country visit to Slovakia. 
143  Law No. 85 on Political Parties and Movements of 2005 (as amended 2019). The bill limited parties’ income 
from donations and loans to EUR 3.5 million for a four year term and capped annual donations from party 
members at EUR 10,000 each.  

144  Information received in the context of the country visit to Slovakia. See also Section I. 
145  Information received in the context of the country visit to Slovakia. 
146  The  program  is  available  at  https://www.health.gov.sk/Zdroje?/dokumenty/mzsr/rezortny-protikorupcny-

program.rtf. 

147  Information received in the context of the country visit to Slovakia. 
148  Deputy  Prime  Minister  of  the  Slovak  Republic,  Draft  law  amending  Act  no.  343/2015  Coll.  on  Public 
Procurement  and  on  Amendments  to  Certain  Acts,  as  amended,  https://www.slov-lex.sk/legislativne-
procesy?p_p_id=processDetail_WAR_portletsel&p_p_lifecycle=2&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p
_p_cacheability=cacheLevelPage&p_p_col_id=column-
2&p_p_col_count=1&_processDetail_WAR_portletsel_fileCooaddr=COO.2145.1000.3.4149284&_process
Detail_WAR_portletsel_file=03_vlastny_material_zvo_final.docx&_processDetail_WAR_portletsel_action
=getFile. 

149  According to the proposal, the review of the public procurement process would instead be subject to direct 
court investigation. Objections, for example, to tender conditions would have no suspensory effect, if made 
in court and contracts could be signed before any court ruling be rendered. 

150  Transparency International-Slovakia, Information received in the context of the country visit to Slovakia.  
151  Act 211/2000 Coll., Freedom of Information Act. 
152  Act 308/2000 Coll., Broadcasting and Retransmission Act. 

15 

 
                                                 
ensuring plurality of information, while the Press Act153 establishes rules relating to the press 
and to journalists154. Legislation is pending to align the Broadcasting and Retransmission Act 
with the AVMS Directive155.  

The Council for Broadcasting and Retransmission operates autonomously156. Given that 
the  Broadcasting  Council  disposes  of  its  own  budget,  resources  allotted  are  considered 
adequate for the accomplishment of its tasks157 and clear rules on appointment and dismissal 
of  the  Council’s  members  are  established  by  law158,  the  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  2021159 
confirms  that  the  independence  of  the  Council  is  overall  guaranteed,  though  occasional 
political nominations remain an issue.  

A  bill  amending  the  Broadcasting  and  Retransmission  Act  is  expected  to  introduce  a 
framework to ensure transparency of media ownership. While awaiting enactment of that 
bill, scheduled for adoption by the end of 2021160, which is expected to introduce provisions 
on  transparency  of  ownership  structure  and  beneficial  ownership  as  foreseen  in  the  AVMS 
Directive, the MPM 2021 once more161 considers that the lack of regulation means that this 
remains an area of high risk  162. The Broadcasting and Retransmission Act includes ceilings 
and  limitations  to  prevent  a  high  degree  of  horizontal  ownership  concentration  in  the 
television and radio  markets.  However  a lack of  data with  regard to  revenues and audience 
market shares makes the assessment of the actual situation difficult163. 

A  number  of  convictions  were  handed  down  to  individuals  involved  in  the  murder  of 
journalist Ján Kuciak and his fiancée Martina Kušnírová in 2018. Three individuals were 
convicted  and  sentenced  to  between  15  and  25  years  imprisonment  by  the  Specialised 
Criminal  Court.  One  of  the  judgments  has  been  appealed  by  the  accused.  The  public 
prosecutor  appealed  the  acquittals  of  the  alleged  masterminds  of  the  assassination  by  the 
court  of  first  instance164.  On  15  June  2021  the  Supreme  Court  annulled  the  first  instance 
acquittals  of  the  Specialised  Criminal  Court  and  returned  the  case  to  this  latter  court.  The 
Supreme  Court  also  confirmed  the  25-year  prison  sentence  handed  down  to  another  of  the 
accused165. 

There have been reports of verbal attacks against journalists and media outlets by both 
government  and  opposition  politicians.  Journalists  have  been  accused  of  ‘spite’  and  of 

153  Act 167/2008 Coll., Press Act. 
154  Slovakia dropped two places in the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index, now registering 
at  35th  position  worldwide  and  17th  within  the  EU.  This  is  largely  due  to  politicians’  verbal  attacks  on 
journalists and media outlets.  

155  Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of 14 November 2018. 
156  For further information see the 2020 Rule of Law Report,  Country Chapter  on the rule  of law  situation in 

Slovakia, p. 9. 

157  Information received in the context of the country visit to Slovakia. 
158  The  Council  has  nine  members,  who  are  elected  and  removed  by  the  National  Council  of  the  Slovak 

Republic (the Parliament). 

159  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, report on Slovakia, p. 10. 
160  Input  from  Slovakia  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  26;  information  received  in  the  context  of  the 

country visit to Slovakia. 

161  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia, p. 9. 
162  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, report on Slovakia, pp. 11-12. 
163  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, report on Slovakia, p. 12.  
164  The  Media  Freedom  Rapid  Response  Platform  called  the  acquittal  a  travesty  of  justice  and  welcomed  the 

public prosecutor’s decision to appeal the case.  

165 Information received from Slovak authorities. 

16 

 
                                                 
journalist  by  unidentified 

undermining the work of the Government during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since September 
2020, the Council of Europe’s Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of 
journalists  published  one  alert  for  Slovakia166  which  concerned  the  surveillance  of  a 
newspaper 
legislation  aimed  at 
strengthening  the  protection  of  journalists  has  been  postponed  due  to  the  COVID-19 
pandemic168. The proposals include a definition of the status of journalists, the protection of 
journalistic sources as well as enhanced access to information. Furthermore, the Government 
is preparing amendments to Slovakia’s currently strict criminal defamation laws in order to 
provide safeguards for journalists. No news media support scheme was introduced to counter 
the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic169.  

individuals167.  Proposed 

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Slovakia is a parliamentary republic where the National Council (the Parliament) is the sole 
constitutional  and  legislative  body170.  The  right  to  introduce  legislation  belongs  to  the 
Committees of the Parliament, individual members of the Parliament, and the Government171. 
The  Constitutional  Court  decides  on  the  compliance  of  laws  with  the  Constitution, 
constitutional  acts  and  international  agreements,  and  ensures  respect  for  fundamental  and 
constitutional  rights.  Independent  authorities  also  play  a  role  in  safeguarding  fundamental 
rights.  

Concerns have been raised about the inclusiveness of the law making process. The recent 
Constitutional reform (see Section I) was announced in the governmental Program Statement 
of  April  2020  and,  following  a  presentation  to  several  stakeholders172  and  a  written  public 
consultation in July 2020, was submitted to Parliament at the beginning of October 2020 and 
approved in December 2020. Stakeholders raised concerns about the absence of an extensive 
and informed debate on the main features of the reform, as well as a lack of consultation of 
the Venice Commission, given the scope and significance of the reform173. Stakeholders have 
underscored  the  importance  that  constitutional  changes  follow  an  open  and  timely  public 
discussion, which involves stakeholders and civil society, in line with  European standards174. 
Stakeholders  have  also  expressed  concerns  about  their  lack  of  involvement  in  other 

166  Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists.  
167  Slovakia replied to this alert stating that a police investigation had been promptly opened into the case.  
168  Scheduled for adoption by the end of 2021. Information provided during the country visit, 22 April 2021. 
169  According to the Slovak authorities, journalists were eligible to apply for financial support under the existing 

scheme geared at the cultural and the creative sectors. 

170  Article 72 of the Slovak Constitution. 
171  Article 87 of the Slovak Constitution. 
172  The  draft  reform  was  presented  to  the  President  of  the  Judicial  Council,  President  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
President of the Constitutional Court, the General Prosecutor's Office, the Ombudsman, and representatives 
of legal organisations. 

173  Stakeholders  were  given  the  opportunity  to  comment  on  the  draft  in  the  course  of  written  public 
consultations  lasted  15  working  days  during  summer  holiday.  The  length  and  timing  of  the  public 
consultation was also subject to criticism from stakeholders. See comments submitted in the course of public 
consultation from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, La Faculty of the Comenius University in Bratislava, the 
Slovak  Bar  Association, 
the  Judicial  Council,  available  at  https://www.slov-lex.sk/legislativne-
procesy/SK/LP/2020/267; Open call of Slovak lawyers, accessible at https://pravnystat.eu/en/ and submitted 
as a contribution into the stakeholder consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

174  Venice  Commission  (19  January  2010),  Report  on  Constitutional  Amendment,  CDL-AD(2010)001,  para. 
205;  Venice  Commission,  Second  interim  opinion  on  constitutional  reforms  in  the  Republic  of  Armenia, 
CDL-AD(2005)016, para. 31. 

17 

 
                                                 
legislative processes175 and about the use of fast-track procedures in Parliament, which was 
also followed for legislation that was not strictly related to the pandemic176.  

Plans  announced  in  2020  for  improving  the  law-making  process  and  strengthening 
transparency,  efficiency  and  accountability  of  the  public  administration  have  not  yet 
materialised177. The new Government in place as of April 2021 included into its Programme 
Statement  the  commitments  of  its  preceding  Government178  to  improve  the  process  for 
preparing and enacting law, strengthen the transparency, efficiency and accountability of the 
public administration, expand the access to information and broaden the application of open 
government.  It  has  also  taken  over  the  commitment  to  strengthen  the  competences  of  the 
Supreme Audit Office179. Proposals to these ends have not yet been presented or stakeholder 
consultations  launched.  An  amendment  to  the  Act  on  Free  Access  to  Information  is  in  the 
preparatory phase in the Government180.  

The  Constitutional  reform  expressly  stipulates  that  the  Constitutional  Court  does  not 
have  the  competence  to  review  Constitutional laws.  In  the  past,  the  Constitutional  Court 
has  asserted  the  power  to  assess  the  constitutionality  of  constitutional  laws,  which  it  used 
once to protect judicial independence181. The recent Constitutional reform (see Section I) has 
changed the wording of the Constitution so as to expressly prohibit the Court from reviewing 
the  constitutionality  of  such  laws.  The  change  has  been  criticised  by  stakeholders182.  The 
constitutionality  of  this  amendment  has  been  challenged  before  the  Constitutional  Court, 
where it is still pending183.  

The  Parliament  amended  legislation  regarding  the  state  of  emergency  to  allow 
prolongation  beyond  90  days.  The  Parliament  continued  its  operation  during  the  state  of 
emergency  without  major  disruptions184.  The  state  of  emergency  allows  the  Government  to 
adopt ordinances that limit certain rights and freedoms, such as freedom of movement185. The 
state  of  emergency  may  be  declared  by  the  Government  for  no  longer  than  90  days,  under 

175  Contribution  from  Via  Iuris  (Civil  Liberties  Union)  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  19;  contribution 

from the ENNHRI for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 293. 

176  Contribution from the ENNHRI for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 298; Contribution from the Slovak Bar 
Association for the 2021 Rule of Law  Report,  p. 3; information received in the context of country visit to 
Slovakia. 

177  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia, pp. 11-13. 
178  Program Statement of the Government of the Slovak Republic for 2020-2024 of 19 April 2020.  
179  Program Statement of the Government of the Slovak Republic for 2021 – 2024, pp. 13-17.  
180  Bill No. PI/2020/146 amending Act no. 211/2000 Coll. on Free Access to Information and on Amendments 

to Certain Acts (Freedom of Information Act), as amended, and Amending Certain Acts.  

181  See the judgment of 30 January 2019 in case  Pl ÚS 21/2014-96. The change is a reaction to this judgment, 

information received in the context of a follow-up meeting to the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 

182  Open call of Slovak lawyers, accessible at https://pravnystat.eu/en/ and submitted as a contribution into the 
stakeholder consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, para. 1; see also the statement of the President of 
the  Constitutional Court of 3 December 2020 in the Parliament, in which he expressed concerns about the 
change  and  asked  the  Members  of  the  Parliament  to  further  reflect  on  this  point,  available  at 
https://tv.nrsr.sk/videokanaly/osoba/8/Ivan.Fiacan?id=233541. 

183  File No. 2879/2020. 
184  Members of the Parliament were allowed to attend sessions in person, except for members who were obliged 
to  self-isolate  pursuant  to  COVID-19  related  measures.  Some  meetings  took  place  in  a  hybrid  form,  firm 
several Members of the Parliament present in person and some via videoconference. Input from Slovakia for 
the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 37. 

185  Art. 5(3) of the Act 227/2002 on the Security of the State. 

18 

 
                                                 
conditions  stipulated  by  a  Constitutional  law186.  Following  the  application  of  the  state  of 
emergency from 16 March 2020 to 13 June 2020187, the Government declared a new state of 
emergency  as  of  1  October  2020.  In  December  2020,  the  Parliament  amended  the  relevant 
legislation to allow for the repeated extension of the state of emergency by the Government 
by  40  days  with  a  requirement  of  subsequent  approval  by  Parliament188.  The  state  of 
emergency ended on 15 May 2021. The Constitutional Court has the competence to  review 
the  constitutionality  of  a  declaration  and  extension  of  the  state  of  emergency189.  However, 
stakeholders have noted that the time limits for such review are short190. The Constitutional 
Court  was  petitioned  to  review  the  constitutionality  of  the  declaration  and  one  of  the 
extensions, and on both occasions pronounced its conformity with the relevant legislation191. 
The  Constitutional  Court  has  also  reviewed  several  measures  adopted  in  the  context  of  the 
pandemic and clarified questions regarding the competence of ordinary courts to adjudicate 
on  such  measures.  However,  following  subsequent  changes  of  legislation192,  concerns  were 
raised  that  the  right  to  judicial  review  of  certain  measures  may  not  be  sufficiently 
guaranteed193.  

The  Public  Defender  of  Rights  and  the  National  Centre  for  Human  Rights  took  an 
active role to defend citizens’ rights during the pandemic. The Public Defender of Rights 
is  an  independent  body  tasked  with  protection  of  the  fundamental  rights  and  freedoms  in 
proceedings  before  the  public  administration  and  other  public  bodies,  while  the  Slovak 
National  Centre  for  Human  Rights  is  the  competent  National  Human  Rights  Institution  as 
well  as  the  equality  body  in  Slovakia194.  During  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  the  Public 
Defender  of  Rights  experienced  an  increase  of  almost  50%  in  complaints,  as  well  as  an 
increase  of  requests  from  the  public  for  guidance  regarding  pandemic  related  measures195. 
The workload of the National Centre for Human Rights was comparable to that of last years, 
but  the  content  of  complaints  changed,  with  a  majority  concerning  the  pandemic  related 
measures196. The institutions have  found violations in  several  areas, such as regarding state 
mandated quarantine of persons returning from abroad, isolation of certain Roma settlements 
as a whole, and restrictions of access to health care and the right to education197.  

186  Art. 5(1) of the Act 227/2002 on the Security of the State. 
187  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia, p. 12. 
188  Art. 5(2) of the Act 227/2002 on the Security of the State. The Parliament must approve the extension within 
20  days  from  its  entry  into  effect,  otherwise  the  stay  of  emergency  ceases  to  exist.  The  extension  is  only 
allowed if the state of emergency has been declared in the context of a pandemic. See also the contribution 
from the ENNHRI for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 296-297.  

189  Art. 129(6) of the Constitution.  
190  The petition must be filed within five days from the declaration / extension and the Court must decide within 
10  days  from  the  initiation  of  the  proceedings.  Secs.  193  and  195  of  Act  314/2002  on  the  Constitutional 
court. Information received in the context of country visit to Slovakia. 

191  Judgment  of  the  Constitutional  Court  of  14  October  2020  Pl  ÚS  22/2020,  Judgment  of  the  Constitutional 

Court of 31 March 2021 Pl ÚS 2/2021. 

192  Amendment of Act 355/2007. 
193  Submission  by  the  Public  Defender  of  Rights  to  the  Constitutional  Court  of  10  February  2021,  file  No. 

268/2021, pp. 26-35. 

194  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia, pp. 12-13. 
195  Information received in the context of the country visit to Slovakia. 
196  Information received in the context of the country visit to Slovakia.  
197  Annual  report  on  the  activities  of  the  Public  Defender  of  Rights  (2020),  the  Report  was  subject  to  a 
discussion  and  voting  in  the  Parliament  on  7  May  2021,  which  resulted  in  non-acknowledgement  of  the 
Report; information received in the context of country visit to Slovakia; Annual report on compliance with 

19 

 
                                                 
 
An  enabling  legal  framework  for  civil  society  organisations  remains  in  place  but 
concerns emerged over the limitation of financing of certain NGOs 198. The commitment 
to  further  strengthen  civil  society  has  been  taken  over  by  the  new  Government199.  A  new 
Register of Non-Governmental Non-profit Organisations200 was launched  in December 2020. 
It  represents  a  single  public  register  of  all  organisations  defined  by  the  respective  Act 
operating in Slovakia and aims to further improve transparency. Concerns have been reported 
by  stakeholders  regarding  verbal  attacks  from  public  authorities  and  politicians  on  activists 
and  civil  society  organisations201  and  the  deliberate  limitation  of  public  funds  for 
organisations  that  promote  gender-equality202.  Moreover,  the  COVID-19  pandemic  has  put 
the  operations  of  a  number  of  civil  society  organisations  under  strain  and  stakeholders 
expressed  particular  concerns  as  regards  general  repercussions  of  the  pandemic  on  the 
financial situation of NGOs203.  

human rights of the Slovak National Center for Human Rights; contribution from the ENNHRI for the 2021 
Rule of Law Report, pp. 309-312. 

198  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovakia, p. 14. 
199  Program Statement of the Government of the Slovak Republic for 2021 – 2024, pp. 16-17.  
200  Established  by  Act  No.  346/2018  on  the  Register  of  Non-Governmental  Non-profit  Organisations;  the 

register is available at https://ives.minv.sk/rmno/?lang=sk. 

201  Contribution from Via Iuris (Civil Liberties Union) for the 2021 Rule of Law Report and contribution, pp. 

13-14 and contribution from the ENNHRI for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 294.  

202  This refers to the process of redistribution of subsidies for the promotion of gender equality by the Ministry 
of Labour, Social  Affairs and Family in 2020 to support conservative pro-life  organisations,  which do not 
generally focus on gender equality issues. In addition, following the adoption of act of 17 December 2020 
amending Act no. 544/2010 Coll. on subsidies, instead of gender equality, equal employment opportunities 
and organisations promoting  marriage and family values  will be supported. See contributions for the 2021 
Rule of Law Report provided by the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions, p. 294, Civil 
Liberties Union for Europe, p.14, and ENNHRI, pp. 294-295.  

203  Despite  effort  by  the  government  that  provided  additional  support  of  1.1  million  EUR  to  support  NGOs 
activities  that  are  mitigating  the  impact  of  COVID-19,  press  release  of  the  Ministry  for  Regional 
Development  of  12  August  2020,  Vice-Premier  Remišová:  1.1  mil  EUR  for  help  to  non-governmental 
organisation  with  fights  agaist  COVID-19;  Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to 
Slovakia. See also contributions from Via Iuris (Civil Liberties Union) for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 
15-17.  

20 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law report 
can  be  found  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-
law/rule-law/rule-law-mechanism/2021-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation. 

Aktuality.sk (2021), NAKA again detained financier Kvietik and several people from the Slovak Land 
Fund (NAKA opäť zadržala finančníka Kvietika aj viacero ľudí zo Slovenského pozemkového fondu) 
(https://www.aktuality.sk/clanok/892385/naka-opat-zadrzala-financnika-martina-kvietika). 

Bureau of Consultative Council of European Judges (2020), Opinion of 9 December 2020, CCJE-
BU(2020)3. 

Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2021), Media pluralism monitor 2021. 

Civil Liberties Union for Europe (2021), Contribution for Europe for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

Communication platform of Slovak judges and the Association of Slovak judges (2021), contribution 
for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2010), Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. 

Council  of  Europe  (2020):  Recommendation  of  20  May  2020  on  the  2020  National  Reform 
Programme  of  Slovakia  and  delivering  a  Council  opinion  on  the  2020  Stability  Programme  of 
Slovakia, COM(2020) 525 final. 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2005), Second interim opinion on constitutional reforms in 
the Republic of Armenia, CDL-AD(2005)016. 

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2010),  Report  on  Constitutional  Amendment,  CDL-
AD(2010)001. 

Council  of  Europe,  Venice  Commission  (2013),  Opinion  on  the  Draft  Amendments  to  the  Organic 
Law on Courts of General Jurisdiction of Georgia, CDL-AD(2013)007-e. 

Consultative Council of European Judges (2007), Opinion No. 10. 

Consultative Council of European Judges (2016), Opinion No. 19. 

Court of Justice of the European Union, Judgment of 25 July 2018, LM, C‑ 216/18 PPU.  

Court of Justice of the European Union, Judgment of 18 May 2021, Joined Romanian Cases, C-83/19, 
C-127/19, C-195/19, C-291/19, C-355/19 and C-397/19. 

Court of Justice of the European Union, Judgment of 20 April 2021, Repubblika, C-896/19. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2019),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. 

European Commission (2020), Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in 
Slovakia.  

European Commission (2021), EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European  Commission  (2021),  Press  Release  No.  03/2021,  OLAF  closes  cases  on  EU  agricultural 
funds  in  Slovakia  (https://ec.europa.eu/anti-fraud/media-corner/news/21-01-2021/olaf-closes-cases-
eu-agricultural-funds-slovakia_en). 

European Commission carried out by the Council of Europe Commission for the Efficiency of Justice 
(2017), Efficiency and quality of the Slovak judicial system, Assessment And recommendations on the 
basis of CEPEJ tools, CEPEJ-COOP(2017)14. 

21 

 
European Commission carried out by the Council of Europe Commission for the Efficiency of Justice 
(2020), CEPEJ Experts’ review of the Judicial Map Reform in the Slovak Republic. 

European Commission carried out by the Council of Europe Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, 
Annual Study. 

European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  Judgment  of  24  July  2012,  Maxian  and  Maxianova,  44482/09, 
status of execution (http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-7711). 

European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 15 September 2015, Javor and Javorova, 42360/10, 
status of execution (http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-7717). 

European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  Judgment  of  27  June  2017,  Ivan,  57405/15,  status  of  execution 
(http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-47309). 

European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  Judgment  of  of  31  August  2018,  Balogh  and  others,  35142/15, 
status of execution (http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-51541). 

European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 9 March 2021, Bilgen v Turkey, 1571/07. 

European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (2012-2013), Report on Minimum standards for the 
evaluation of professional performance and the irremovability of members of the judiciary. 

European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (2021),  Contribution for the 2021 Rule of 
Law Report. 

GRECO  (2019),  Fourth  Evaluation  Round,  Addendum  to  the  Second  Compliance  Report,  Slovak 
Republic. 

GRECO (2019), Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, Slovak Republic. 

GRECO  (2021),  Fourth  Evaluation  Round,  Second  Addendum  to  the  Second  Compliance  Report, 
Slovak Republic. 

(2021),  Slovakia:  GRECO 

in  prevention  corruption  of 
GRECO 
parliamentarians, judges and prosecutors (https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/slovakia-greco-regrets-
slow-progress-in-preventing-corruption-of-parliamentarians-judges-and-prosecutors). 

regrets  slow  progress 

OECD (2012), Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, Phase 3: Slovak Republic. 

OECD (2014), Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, Follow-Up to the Phase 3 Report 
and Recommendation: Slovak Republic. 

OECD  (2017),  Implementing  the  OECD  Anti-Bribery  Convention,  Phase  1bis  Report:  Slovak 
Republic. 

Public  Defender  of  Rights  (2020),  Annual  report  on  the  activities  of  the  Public  Defender  of  Rights 
(Správa 
2020), 
ochrancu 
(https://www.vop.gov.sk/files/VOP_VS20_SK_1.pdf). 

verejného 

obdobie 

činnosti 

práv 

roka 

za 

o 

Slovak Bar Association (2021), Contribution for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

Slovak  Bar  Association  (2021),  Press  release  of  23  March  2021,  The  President  of  the  Slovak  Bar 
Association  visited  new  Director  General  of  the  Prison  Guard  (Predseda  SAK  navštívil  nového 
generálneho 
stráže), 
(https://www.sak.sk/web/sk/cms/news/form/list/form/row/596497/_event). 

väzenskej 

riaditeľa 

justičnej 

Zboru 

a 

Slovak Constitutional Court, Judgment of 30 January 2019, Pl ÚS 21/2014-96. 

Slovak Constitutional Court, Judgment of 14 October 2020, Pl ÚS 22/2020. 

Slovak Constitutional Court, Judgment of 31 March 2021, Pl ÚS 2/2021. 

Slovak  Government  (2018),  Anti-Corruption  Policy  of  the  Slovak  Republic  for  2019-2023 
(https://rokovania.gov.sk/download.dat?id=588DFBA123494910A70AF18737B85A81-
034BF7E75BABC88FC3A419E44DED1345). 

22 

 
Slovak  Government 
(https://rokovania.gov.sk/download.dat?id=F75436C4AF3C4D96AE93D60FD6BCA184-
99C291B1BA87B0B9BF1E773CB8DA6BA0). 

(2019),  National  Anti-Corruption  Program  of 

the  Slovak  Republic 

Slovak  Government  (2020),  Annual  report  on  the  activities  of  the  Public  Defender  of  Rights 
(https://www.vop.gov.sk/files/VOP_VS20_SK_1.pdf). 

Slovak Government (2021), Input from Slovakia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

Slovak  Government,  Plan  of  Legislative  Tasks  of  the  Government  of  the  Slovak  Republic  for  2021 
(https://www.slov-lex.sk/legislativne-
procesy?p_p_id=processDetail_WAR_portletsel&p_p_lifecycle=2&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=vi
ew&p_p_cacheability=cacheLevelPage&p_p_col_id=column-
2&p_p_col_count=1&_processDetail_WAR_portletsel_fileCooaddr=COO.2145.1000.3.4201465&_p
rocessDetail_WAR_portletsel_file=pl%C3%A1n-
2021.pdf&_processDetail_WAR_portletsel_action=getFile). 

Slovak  Government,  Program  Statement  for  2020  –  2024  (https://www.mpsr.sk/programove-
vyhlasenie-vlady-slovenskej-republiky-na-obdobie-rokov-2020-2024/800-17-800-15434/). 

Slovak 
Program 
(https://www.nrsr.sk/web/Dynamic/DocumentPreview.aspx?DocID=494677). 

Government, 

Statement 

for 

2021 

– 

2024 

Slovak  Government  (2021),  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan  (Plán  obnovy  a  odolnosti  Slovenskej 
republiky) (https://www.planobnovy.sk/files/dokumenty/kompletny-plan_obnovy.pdf) 

Slovak 
(https://pravnystat.eu/en/). 

lawyers,  Open  call  and  contribution 

for 

the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report, 

Slovak 
(https://www.health.gov.sk/Zdroje?/dokumenty/mzsr/rezortny-protikorupcny-program.rtf). 

anti-corruption 

Sectorial 

Ministry 

Health, 

of 

programme 

Slovak  Ministry  of  Justice,  Analytical  Center  (2020),  Odporúčania  pre  tvorbu  novej  súdnej  mapy 
(http://web.ac-mssr.sk/wp-content/uploads/2020/sudna_mapa/nova_sudna_mapa_3_0_final.pdf). 

Slovak  Ministry  of  Justice,  Analytical  Center  (2020),  Recommendations  for  preparation  of  a  new 
judicial 
(http://web.ac-mssr.sk/wp-
content/uploads/2020/sudna_mapa/nova_sudna_mapa_3_0_final.pdf). 

map 

Slovak  Ministry  of  Justice,  Analytical  Center  (2020),  Reform  of  the  Judicial  map  (http://web.ac-
mssr.sk/wp-content/uploads/2020/sudna_mapa/Reforma_sudnej_mapy_na_citanie.pdf). 

Slovak  Ministry  of  Justice,  Timeline  of  the  drafting  process  of  the  Judicial  Map  Reform 
(http://web.ac-mssr.sk/wp-
content/uploads/2020/sudna_mapa/20210223_Casov%C3%A1_os_Sudna_mapa_v.2.pdf). 

Slovak  Ministry  for  Regional  Development  (2020),  press  release,  Vice-Premier  Remišová:  1.1  mil 
EUR  for  help  to  non-governmental  organisation  with  fights  agaist  COVID-19    (Vicepremiérka 
Remišová:  1,1  milióna  eur  na  pomoc  mimovládnym  organizáciám  v  boji  s  COVID–19) 
(https://www.mirri.gov.sk/aktuality/podpredsednicka-vlady/vicepremierka-remisova-11-miliona-eur-
na-pomoc-mimovladnym-organizaciam-v-boji-s-covid-19/). 

Slovak  National  Center  for  Human  Rights  (2019),  Annual  report  on  compliance  with  human  rights 
(http://www.snslp.sk/wp-content/uploads/Sprava-o-LP-v-SR-za-rok-2020-.pdf). 

Transparency International (2020), Exporting corruption.  

Transparency International (2021), Corruption Perceptions Index 2020.  
UNCAC, Implementation Review - 1st cycle (2010-2015), Country Review Report of Slovak Republic, 
(https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/CountryVisitFinalReports/2013_07_11_Slovaki
a_Final_Country_Report.pdf). 

23 

 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Slovakia 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in April 2021 with: 

Judges For Open Judiciary 
Judicial Council 

  Association of Judges 
  Government Office - Corruption Prevention Department 
 
 
  League of Human Rights 
  Ministry of Culture 
  Ministry of Health 
  Ministry of Interior 
  Ministry of Justice  
  National Centre for Human Rights 
  Police National Crime Agency 
  Open Government Partnership 
  Prosecutor General’s Office  
  Public Defender of Rights 
  Slovak Bar Association 
  Slovak Council for Broadcasting 
  Special Prosecutor’s Office  
  Supreme Court 
  Transparency International 
  Via Iuris 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings: 

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

24 

 
 
  Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Philanthropy Advocacy 
  Protection International  
  Reporters without Borders 
  Transparency International EU 

25