The disciplinary appellate chamber acquitted a judge of a disciplinary motion

The subject of the public hearing of the disciplinary appellate chamber on 21 March 2024 was the appeal of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic against the decision of the disciplinary chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, Case No. 31 D 17/2021 of 8 November 2022.

In its first instance decision, the disciplinary chamber reasoned that the judge of the Bratislava III District Court, Marián Kurinec, as a lawful judge in a case pending before that court, had partially disregarded the legal opinion of the appellate contained in the resolution of the Regional Court in Bratislava, thereby causing further delays in the proceedings. In the opinion of the disciplinary chamber, the judge’s conduct culpably breached his duty as a judge to be bound by the legal opinion of the appellate court and, as a result, culpably breached his duty to act conscientiously in the case to which he was assigned. The disciplinary chamber imposed on him the disciplinary measure of a reduction of 30 % of his salary for a period of six months.

In her appeal, the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic continued to demand the most serious disciplinary measure, namely the removal of Marian Kurinec from his position as a judge, since, in her view, he had committed a serious disciplinary measure incompatible with the office of judge.

However, the disciplinary appelatte chamber did not agree with the first instance decision and acquitted the judge from the disciplinary motion because the act committed by the disciplinary defendant did not constitute a disciplinary offence (Article 34(2)(b) of the Code of Disciplinary Procedure). The appellate chamber reasoned that if a judge is to be disciplined for committing a particular act, the act in question must undoubtedly have occurred. The chamber therefore examined in more detail whether the Regional Court had written a clear, specific and unequivocal legal opinion on the matter in question in its repealing decision. The findings showed that the Regional Court in Bratislava had referred the case back to the judge for the purpose of supplementing the evidence in order to establish the facts of the case. However, in the opinion of the disciplinary appellate chamber, no legal opinion was expressed in the decision of the Regional Court.

It would only be possible to sanction a disciplinary accused for a given act if the appellate court had stated in its decision repealing the case a clear legal opinion on the specific case, whereas such a situation could arise if the higher court had stated in its decision the precise and specific legal standard to be respected in the proceedings in question and the manner in which it interpreted the legal standard. If, in those circumstances, the judge had not respected the legal opinion of the appellate court and had ruled in a different manner, then it would be possible to consider that the legal opinion of the higher court had not been respected within the meaning of Article 391(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In the disciplinary case of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic c/a Judge JUDr. Marián Kurinec, the Chamber 42Do of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic decided composed of JUDr. Monika Valašiková, PhD., LL.M. (Judge-Rapporteur); JUDr. Jana Hatalová, PhD., LL.M.; JUDr. Katarína Cangárová, PhD. LL.M.; JUDr. Rastislav Dlugoš, PhD.; Mgr. Peter Mach, PhD.