We, former and current members of the judiciary, lawyers, academicians and members of other legal professions hereby call for the principles of the rule of law to be consistently upheld in the Slovak Republic. We have been publicly communicating our objections to the violation of these principles through articles, expert opinions or blogs, and a group of judges has also written an Open Letter for the Preservation of Democracy and the Rule of Law in the Slovak Republic. However, the expected reaction of competent persons, at least in a form of professional public discussion, did not occur. On the contrary, the answer is silence, in some cases even intimidation or personal invectives.

We are aware that the conditions for complying with the rule of law principle are difficult during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the European Commission for Democracy through Law (hereinafter referred as Venice Commision) emphasizes, that even in the state of emergency, the fundamental principle of the rule of law must prevail. In this context, the principle of necessity suggests that during the state of emergency only such restrictions on human rights and changes in the division of powers can occurthat are necessary to overcome the emergency situation. At the same time, the purpose of these restrictions and changes in the division of powers must essentially be to overcome the emergency and to return to normalcy. For these reasons, restrictions on human rights and changes in the division of powers that have nothing to do with the emergency situation cannot be justified. At the same time, it recommends that constitutional changes should not be adopted during the state of emergency. In Slovakia, these recommendations are completely ignored and the extent of violation of the rule of law is extremely high. Publicly presented requests from several experts for major constitutional changes to be discussed in advance with the Venice Commission have gone unnoticed. Representatives of the executive power of the Slovak Republic and the constitutional majority of the National Council of the Slovak Republic grossly violate the obligations arising from membership of the Slovak Republic, its bodies and representatives in the Council of Europe and the European Union.

In this regard, we point out the following failures:

1. The Slovak Republic is a state with a flexible constitution and the approval of three-fifths of the deputies in the single-chamber National Council of the Slovak Republic is enough to change it. We negatively perceive that the current parliamentary majority is removing the principle of checks and balances on the part of other powers in the state. In December 2020, the Parliamentbanned the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic from reviewing the compliance of constitutional laws with the substantive core of the Constitution without proper expert discussion and despite the express disapproval of the President of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic. In this way, the government coalition has disproportionately increased its legislative power by removing the main check on the part of the judiciary that could control it. In order to preserve democracy and the rule of law, it is important that decisions of the National Council of the Slovak Republic taken by a political majority can be reviewed by the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic as the final independent judicial instance.

2. Simultaneously, with the weakening of the competence of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, the National Council of the Slovak Republic adopted a constitutional law that will allow it to extend a state of emergency indefinitely, if the government asks parliament every 40 days to approve an extension to be granted within 20 days. We understand the need to declare a state of emergency and its duration from the point of view of public health protection, but it is important that this institute is not abused and beyond the constitutional review.

3. The use of shortened legislative process is also extremely risky. In 2020, more than 60 laws were passed through this procedure. However, many of the adopted legislative changes were not related to the pandemic and its consequences at all. For example, there was a significant change in the Act on the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic and the adoption of several constitutional changes. Such shortened legislative process prevents the involvement of the public in the legislative process and is contrary to the principles of open government. Not only the professional public from the third sector was excluded, but also experts working in government departments, the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic, the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, the General Prosecutor's Office of the Slovak Republic, or in the academic field.

4. Violations of the rule of law also include the application of ex post facto laws contrary to the principles of legal certainty. Furthermore, these have been adopted in the shortened legislative process. For example, the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic suspended the provisions of the Act on the Protection, Support and Development of Public Health of October 2020 excluding the right to compensation for damage and loss of profits due to the implementation of anti-epidemic measures. The Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic accepted the motion of the President of the Slovak Republic objecting the non-compliance of the said provision with the provisions of the Constitution and the Constitutional Act on State Security for further proceedings. Another controversial measure to exclude such compensation was the legal norm, which allowed traders to keep their shops open, but prohibited consumers from visiting them. In this case, it may be an unusual form of evasion of the law.

5. Unjustified, illogical, contradictory and disproportionate human rights violations often occur during the adoption of anti-epidemic measures. The public and the public authorities concerned are informed very late, while the ones responsible for these actions do not take into account the warnings and opinions of relevant professional chambers, including the Slovak Medical Chamber. Limited personnel, financial or material resources of the Slovak Republic are often wasted. Serious and massive human rights violations do not occur through the law, but through hybrid acts of the Public Health Office, whose competence is disputed in many areas. Although the decrees of this Office are generally binding legal regulations, due to the special status of the Public Health Office (it is neither a central nor a local state administration body) it is not possible to initiate a review of the conformity of its decrees with the constitution and constitutional laws.

6. Legislative and executive power can be expected to take steps that bring popularity to political parties. However, the judiciary should and must act in accordance with other principles. Therefore, there is concern about the change in the judiciary and law enforcement authorities function, in particular their efforts to gain popularity with the public. We are aware of the long-standing existence of problems at the courts, the prosecutor's office or the police. However, the answer must not be populistically attempted illegal action in the fight against crime. The rule of law and applicable law must be respected even when they lead to fewer prosecutions and subsequent convictions, or to fewer persons prosecuted.

7. A major problem of the current situation is the abuse of the institution of detention in order to put pressure on the accused in order to obtain his/her confession or cooperation in detecting other criminal activity. Detention should not be used as a rule and law enforcement authorities, politicians and the public should be aware that this is not a type of punishment. We consider detention to be a fundamental problem in cases where there are obvious delays in criminal proceedings by law enforcement authorities. Such continued detention is contrary to the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Slovak Bar Association, which calls for a public discussion on this topic, has repeatedly pointed out the problems related to the application of the institute of detention in Slovakia.

8. The principle of the presumption of innocence, which should be fully respected, is a key component of the rule of law principle. However, this principle is massively violated by politicians as well as the media, without any expected consequences. By violating the principle of the presumption of innocence, the government seeks to act as a prosecutor of criminals and thus creates a very dangerous atmosphere of hatred in society.

9. Some of the events of 2020 raise concerns about the humiliating treatment in detention, and there are suspicions that the aim of such practices is to obtain the confession of the accused. We draw attention to the urgent need to synchronize the conditions of detention in the Slovak Republic with European standards. In this regard, the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) have long been ignored. According to them, it is inadmissible for persons in the so-called collusive custody to spend 23 hours in their cells without the possibility of any activities and with a very low number of visits.

10. A cause for concern is also the use of the testimony of collaborative witness against judges or police officers as a key evidence in criminal proceedings. These are allowed to enjoy freedom in exchange for testimony against specific persons. We point to the overuse of this institute without a thorough examination of the testimony of such persons, allowing them to enjoy disproportionate benefits (e.g., absence of detention and indictment, even non-seizure of criminal assets). Such disproportionate benefits for collaborative witnesses, if their testimony is the only direct evidence against the accused, have been described by the European Court of Human Rights in the case Adamčo v. Slovakia as not being in accordance with the right to a fair trial.

11. The relationship between the law enforcement authorities and the media is considered a major problem. Despite the fact that information is systematically and on a long-term basis published from the case files to selected media, which then present their biased and subjective view, state authorities have not yet responded to these media excesses and have not stopped the leak of information. According to the information available to us, the competent authorities have not yet intervened in such serious breach of the rules of criminal procedure and the rights of the defence as the publication of the entire minutes of the accused from the pre-trial proceedings. These, as serious procedural errors, have the potential to jeopardize the lawfulness of such criminal proceedings and, as a result, the very decision on the guilt or innocence of the prosecuted persons.

12. We believe that the cooperation of law enforcement authorities with the media is currently of a systematic nature. It is often used to please the public which calls for strict action in the fight against corruption: there have also been cases when a journalist has, in advance, announced when the public official will be detained. Media interest is abused to discredit specific individuals. In many cases, it was not necessary to send a special commando to detain public officials and humiliate them with handcuffs with the active participation of journalists. They were heard only as witnesses and had not previously avoided co-operation with law enforcement authorities. This gives the impression of tough action of state authorities, but it does not affect how much evidence there really is. Many such detained persons were released immediately, even without charge, after being heard only as witnesses, but tabloid photography of them being handcuffed and accompanied by a special commando remains associated with them, regardless of their guilt or innocence. The rule of law must respect the right to preservation of human dignity. Basic principle of criminal procedure "The fundamental rights and freedoms of persons in cases permitted by law may be infringed only to the extent necessary to achieve the purpose of the criminal proceedings, while respecting the dignity of persons and their privacy" becomes only a phrase in the light of these procedures.

13. We are also concerned about the relationship between governing politicians and the judiciary. Any decisions of law enforcement authorities and courts should not be presented as the success of the executive (as it is often presented by specific politicians). This is reminiscent of the rhetoric of totalitarian regimes, which are building and, in the past built their popularity in our republic also by means of such processes. It is also not possible to accept political statements of members of the government on ensuring impunity for alleged offenders in exchange for providing the information. These have no basis in law.

14. It is unacceptable for the current government to deprive judges of decision-making immunity due to their decisions. This is guaranteed by the constitution. And it is unacceptable for this government to maintain the decision-making immunity for other public officials making decisions in criminal, administrative or other proceedings. This step can seriously jeopardize the independence of the judiciary, especially in combination with the newly introduced type of criminal offence of "bending the law". Ultimately, such judicial reforms will have a negative impact on parties of proceedings who, as a result of systematic pressure on judges (by introducing new offences with vaguely worded essential facts) and also intense efforts to limit the independence of the advocacy without relevant reason will only experience slowdowns in process and formalistic decision-making, which cannot be considered fair or right in the 21st century civilized world. Justice and access to it undoubtedly retreat from the citizen because of the means presented by the government and its officials. This is what all the judicial professions agree on in principle.

15. The Presidency of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) also expressed reservations about judicial reform in three areas of judicial reform - interventions in the term of office of members of the Judicial Council, transfer of judges to a lower court without consent to change the court system and functional immunity of judges. According to the opinion, the amendment to the Constitution, which provides for the explicit possibility of dismissing the President, Vice-President and a member of the Judicial Council at any time before their term of office expires, is not in line with CCJE and European standards on judicial independence in general. Measures which undermine the security of the term of office of members of the Judicial Council give rise to the suspicion that the purpose of those measures is to influence its decision making. The intended measure will inevitably lead to politicization, or at least the appearance of politicization, of the work of the Judicial Council, as its members will depend on those who elected or appointed them, not only in connection with their appointment but also in the exercise of their mandate. The length of mandate of the members of the Judicial Council should end only at the end of their term of office, retirement, resignation or death, or their removal from office in the event of such gross misconduct as to justify such conduct. The change which introduces the transfer of judges to a lower court without consent to a change in the judicial system will, in its view, be in line with European standards only if the principles of term of office security and non-transferability, which are key elements of judges' independence, are respected. In this context, precise and clear provisions at legislative level should be further introduced. The CCJE also criticizes the amendment limiting the term of office immunity of judges, which significantly reduces the existing guarantee of judicial independence. The opinion concludes that the fight against corruption should not undermine the principle of the independence of the judiciary.

16. The so-called Judicial map, as a reform of the judiciary to eliminate the corruption, is an unnecessarily expensive experiment that will only put distance between the citizen and the justice, prolong the length of proceedings, ultimately increase the cost of proceedings for the state and reduce the quality of decisions (reducing entry requirements for the purpose of alleged specialization is not a way to improve decision-making and to increase the quality of human resources in the judiciary). In addition, it is the result of a process from which the professional reservations of the most competent - judges - were completely excluded. In this context, we point out that a serious analytical basis important for judicial reform, which was to predicate of the complexity of cases handled at individual courts, which was supposed to be the result of the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic project "case weighting", was not used and this relevant project was allegedly suspended.

17. We also very sensitively perceive, from the point of view of preserving the principles of the rule of law, the effort to jeopardize or even deprive the advocacy in Slovakia of its independence, especially in the area of disciplinary proceedings. Its relevant objections, as well as objections of its individual members to the incorrectness and unfoundedness of such a procedure are either overlooked or negated by allegations of dysfunction of Slovak Bar Association disciplinary proceedings, which are based on lack of knowledge of regulations, course of proceedings and disciplinary decisions. In his letter, the President of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) drew the attention of the Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic to the seriousness of the situation, in which he expressed his support for independent advocacy in Slovakia.

18. We are concerned about government and some pro-government media attacking freedom of speech. Authors of opinions that are in opposition (not political, but only of opinion) are ridiculed, humiliated and discredited.

19. In conclusion, we state that we consider it dangerous if the elimination of the rule of law in Slovakia takes place in the name of European values. State institutions often repeat that by means of their steps they try to anchor Slovakia in the Euro-Atlantic area. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the relevant institutions of the European Union and the Council of Europe disavow themselves from the actions of the Slovak state institutions if they are not in accordance with the rule of law. We will keep these international institutions informed about the situation in Slovakia.

Call signers :

Judges:

1.      JUDr. Milan Ľalík

2.      JUDr. Patrik Števík

3.      JUDr. Eva Bieliková

4.      JUDr. Dagmar Buchalová

5.      JUDr. Ayše Pružinec Eren

6.      JUDr. Dana Jelínková- Dudzíková

7.      Mgr. Marcela Kosová

8.      JUDr. Boris Tóth

9.      JUDr. Roman Benedikovič

10.  JUDr. Michaela Frimmelová

11.  JUDr. Ľubica Novotná

12.  JUDr. Martin Smolko

13.  JUDr. Peter Šamko

14.  JUDr. Magda Floreková

15.  JUDr. Blanka Malichová

16.  JUDr. Peter Rajňák

17.  JUDr. Iveta Zelenayová

18.  JUDr. Nora Vladová

19.  JUDr. Oľga Nižňanská

20.  JUDr. Pavol Juhás

21.  JUDr. Ján Golian

22.  JUDr. Erika Némethová Stiffelová

23.  JUDr. Roman Huszár

24.  JUDr. Monika Valašíková PhD.

25.  JUDr. Viera Malinowska

26.  JUDr. Zuzana Mališová

27.  JUDr. Andrea Kralovičová

28.  JUDr. Michaela Králová

29.  JUDr. Monika Školníková

30.  JUDr. Danica Veselovská

31.  Mgr. Adriana Šimková

32.  JUDr. Dana Káčerová

33.  JUDr. Zuzana Bartalská

34.  JUDr. Alena Purgat Martinusová

35.  JUDr. Jana Hatalová PhD.

36.  JUDr. Ľubomír Hudák

37.  JUDr. Iveta Willantová

38.  JUDr. Katarína Ondrejáková

39.  Mgr. Anna Križáková

40.  JUDr. Daniela Bergerová

41.  Mgr. Zita Leimbergerová

42.  JUDr. Renáta Nemčeková PhD.

43.  JUDr. Vladimíra Slobodová

44.  Mgr. Dáša Štefániková

45.  Mgr. Eva Vallová

46.  Mgr. Jana Weissová Bakičová

47.  JUDr. Roman Fitt

48.  JUDr. Maroš Maškovič

49.  JUDr. Petra Priečinská

50.  JUDr. Zuzana Posluchová

51.  JUDr. Michaela Pacherová PhD.

52.  JUDr. Dáša Filová

53.  JUDr. Elena Kúšová

54.  JUDr. Paulína Pacherová

55.  JUDr. Dana Šiffalovičová

56.  JUDr. Jana Grendárová

57.  Mgr. Michal Kačani

58. JUDr. Daniela Kotrecová

59. Mgr. Miroslav Lehoczký

60. JUDr. Elena Erbenová

61. JUDr. Ľudmila Králiková

62. JUDr. Natália Slivenská

63. JUDr. Zuzana Moťovská Dobošová

64. JUDr. Ina Šingliarová

65. JUDr. Branislav Harabin

66. JUDr. Zuzana Kučerová

67. JUDr. Marek Filo

68. Mgr. Vladimír Zimányi

69. JUDr. Jana Kurnotová

70. JUDr. Iveta Halvoňová

71. JUDr. Martin Kolesár

72. JUDr. Roman Farkaš

73. JUDr. Ondrej Hvišč, PhD.

74. JUDr. Stanislav Libant

75. Mgr. Andrea Hadnagyová

76. JUDr. Peter Brňák

77. JUDr. Jana Tvrdá

78. Mgr. Ingrid Degmová Pospíšilová

79. JUDr. Igor Burger

80. JUDr. Zuzana Hlistová

81. JUDr. Mária Petrušková

82. Mgr. Zuzana Antalová, OS BB

83. Ing. Mgr. Anna Přikrylová

84. Mgr. Pavol Tomík

85. JUDr. Milota Tóthová

86. JUDr. Róbert Jankovský

87. JUDr. Marián Dunčko

88. JUDr. Oliver Kolenčík

89. JUDr. Magdaléna Bošková

90. JUDr. Ivo Hlucháň

91. JUDr. Beata Gešvantnerová

92. JUDr. Michal Mravec

93. JUDr. Katarína Kochan Mórová

94. Mgr. Dalibor Miľan

95. JUDr. Ľubomír Bundzel

96. JUDr. Eva Hudobová

97. JUDr. Terézia Mecelová

98. JUDr. Gabriela Šimonová

99. JUDr. Ida Takáčová

100. JUDr. Katarína Zaťková

101. JUDr. Jana Ocelková

102. JUDr. Helena Lodúchová

103. Mgr. Eva Strašková

104. JUDr. Pavel Lukáč

105.  JUDr. Edita Kušnírová

106. JUDr. Anna Repková

107. JUDr. Bianka Gelačíková

108. JUDr. Viera Šebestová

109. JUDr. Viliam Dohňanský

110. JUDr. Róbert Foltán

111. JUDr. Milan Straka

112. JUDr. Simona Štanglovičová

113. JUDr. Antónia Bednarčík

114. JUDr. Helena Kosorinová

115. Mgr. Linda Anovčinová

116. JUDr. Viera Sládečková

117. JUDr. Pavol Laczo

118. JUDr. Viliam Hlaváč

119. JUDr. Harald Stiffel

120. JUDr. Mária Gazdačková

121. JUDr. Eva Fulcová

122. JUDr. Miroslava Saxová

123. JUDr. Ľubomír Bundzel st.

 

 

Attorneys:

1.      JUDr. Marica Pirošíková

2.      JUDr. Andrea Havelková

3.      JUDr. Matúš Gémeš

4.      JUDr. Mag. Ján Čarnogurský

5.      JUDr. Bohumil Novák

6.      JUDr. Martin Burian

7.      JUDr. Elena Ľalíková

8.      JUDr. Kvetoslava Živčáková

9.      JUDr. Branislav Samec

10.  Mgr. Ľubomír Hagara

11.  Mgr. Ivana Štefanková

12.  JUDr. Lenka Špiriaková PhD.

13.  JUDr. Magdaléna Hromcová

14.  JUDr. Erik Schmidt LL.M Exec. MA

15.  JUDr. Zuzana Čížová

16.  JUDr. Martin Roháľ Iľkiv PhD.

17.  JUDr. Sylvia Hatvany

18.  Mgr. Alexandra Čižmáriková

19.  Mgr. Viktória Hellenbart

20.  JUDr. Juraj Bizoň

21.  JUDr. Martina Kmeťová

22.  JUDr. Miroslav Zobok

23.  JUDr. Pavol Gráčik

24.  JUDr. Soňa Soboňová

25.  JUDr. Zuzana Štrbáková

26.  JUDr. Tomáš Suchý

27.  JUDr. Lenka Maďarová

28.  JUDr. Vladimír Vráblik

29.  JUDr. Beáta Vrábliková

30.  JUDr. Ing. Zuzana Šníderová

31.  JUDr. František Vavráč

32.  JUDr. Katarína Šoltésová

33.  Mgr. Silvia Podlipná

34.  JUDr. Erika Hriňová Czíziová

35.  JUDr. Ján Krnáč

36.  Mgr. Elena Szabóová

37.  JUDr. Zuzana Hancínová

38.  JUDr. Boris Bohunský

39.  JUDr. Tomáš Rosina

40.  JUDr. Zuzana Budská

41.  JUDr. Zuzana Riehsová

42.  JUDr. Pavol Malich

43.  JUDr. Radoslav Hajdúch

44.  JUDr. Ivan Čurilla

45.  Mgr. Michal Šaling

46.  JUDr. Martin Kirňak

47.  JUDr. Matej Hodál

48.  Mgr. Branislav Šuba

49.  JUDr. Peter Jankovský

50.  JUDr. Juraj Kuráň

51.  Mgr. Miloš Glonek

52.  JUDr. Štefan Neszméry

53.  JUDr. Martin Kello

54.  JUDr. Alexander Filo

55.  JUDr. Martin Repáň

56.   JUDr. Peter Ďurica

57.  JUDr. Ľuboš Jurčo

58.  Mgr. Petra Jurčová

59.  JUDr. Michaela Tőrőková

60.  JUDr. Anna Orthová

61.  Mgr. Martin Spišiak

62.  JUDr. Štefánia Bohátová

63.  JUDr. Ján Benčura

64.  JUDr. Jozef  Veselý

65.  JUDr. Ľubica Sopková

66.  JUDr. Stanislav Vilém

67.  JUDr. Milan Valašik

68.  JUDr. Milan Valašik ml.

69.  JUDr. Matej Valašik

70.  JUDr. Radko Timkanič

71.  JUDr. Miroslava Tencerová

72.  JUDr. Michaela Plavková

73.  JUDr. Ján Gereg

74. Mgr. Martina Masárová

75. JUDr. Katarína Chalková

76. JUDr. Michal Treščák, ml.

77. JUDr. Pavol Erben

78. JUDr. Ing. Veronika Puškár Škodová, PhD.

79. JUDr. Marián Prievozník, PhD.

80. JUDr. Martin Bezák, PhD.

81. JUDr. Peter Weis

82. JUDr. Miroslav Abelovský

83. Mgr. Juliana Sumková

84. JUDr. Martin Čizmárik

85. JUDr. Viera Kuruczová

86. JUDr. Branislav Pecho

87. JUDr. Martin Bezák

88. JUDr. Renáta Endrödyová

89. JUDr. Zuzana Cenigová

90. Mgr. Peter Ivor

91. JUDr. Erika Beňová

92. JUDr. Alena Virdzeková

93. JUDr. Vojtech Földes

94. Mgr. Viera Földesová

95. JUDr. Zuzana Nabělková

96. JUDr. Renáta Matejová

97. JUDr. Iveta Bračoková

98. JUDr. Lukáš Machala

99. JUDr. František Kurnota

100. Mgr. Jiří Kučera

101. Mgr. Branislav Máčaj

102. JUDr. Michal Rosina

103. Mgr. Patrícia Urbanová

104. JUDr. Stanislav Kováčik

105. Mgr. Ľudmila Krajinčáková Blahová

106. JUDr. František Pitoňák

107. JUDr. Ivan Vanko

108. Mgr. Michaela Weberová

109. JUDr. Róbert Keller

110. JUDr. Karol Kovár

111. Mgr. Pavol Kováčik

112. Mgr. Martin Spišiak

113. Mgr. Ivan Mazanec

114. JUDr. Lenka Ivanová

115. JUDr. Katarína Rosinová

116. Mgr. Vladimír Cipciar

117. Mgr. Matej Heringeš

118. JUDr. Danuša Tichá

119. Mgr. Roman Birčák

120. JUDr. Natália Trubanová

121. Mgr. Matej Krajčí, PhD.

122. JUDr. Peter Škriečka

123. JUDr. Eva Krištofiaková

124. JUDr. Igor Macúch

125. JUDr. Radovan Repa

126. Mgr. Martin Siman

127. JUDr. Erik Magal

128. JUDr. Milan Kuzma

129. JUDr. Edita Gavorová

130. JUDr. Mária Filipová

140. JUDr. Richard Hulín

141. JUDr. Július Buček

142. JUDr. Eva Kocková

143. JUDr. Ľudovít Štanglovič

144. JUDr. Ivica Firstová

145. Mgr. Roman Balco

146. JUDr. Ľuboš Novák

147. JUDr. Ján Kubiš

148. JUDr. Petra Izakovičová

149. Mgr. David Štefanka

150. Mgr. Marianna Tóbiková

151. Mgr. Igor Cibuľa

152. Mgr. Jana Pašková

153. JUDr. Mária Dideková

154. JUDr. Peter Púchovský

155. JUDr. Martin Gubka

156. JUDr. Zoltán Koreň

157. JUDr. Radoslav Kačur

158. JUDr. Eva Skačániová

159. JUDr. Juraj Kula

160. JUDr. Igor Chovan

161. JUDr. Peter Kubík

162. JUDr. Erika Simanová

163. Mgr. Lukáš Kysucký

164. JUDr. Milan Hrbek

165. JUDr. Martina Sečanská

166. Mgr. Ľuboš Kráľ

167. JUDr. Danica Bírošová

168. JUDr. Ingrid Zlochová

169. JUDr. Monika Čambáliková

170. JUDr. Zuzanan Vicianová

171. JUDr. Ľubomír Lipovský

172. JUDr. Danica Rusnák Borisová

173. JUDr. Martin Masný

174. JUDr. Pavel Mičunek

175. JUDr. Eva Mészárosová

176. JUDr. Katarína Almášiová

177. JUDr. Gabriel Almáši

178. JUDr. Ondrej Krempaský

179. JUDr. Andrej Greguš, LL.M

180. Doc. JUDr. Zuzana Mlkvá Illýová, PhD.

181  JUDr. Denis Koprda

182 JUDr. Peter Tóth

183 JUDr. Anna Kecerová Veselá

184 JUDr. Albína Vágóová

185 JUDr. Petra Leško

186 JUDr. Martina Gombosová

187. JUDr. Andrej Vilhan

188. JUDr. Roland Kovács

189. JUDr. Igor Raáb

190. JUDr. Katarína Marková

191. JUDr. Marta Rybárová

192. JUDr. Ján Farkaš

193. JUDr. Zuzana Ondrejovičová

194. JUDr. Andrea Vladárová

195. JUDr. Ľubomír Cisarík

196. JUDr. Milan Rojček

197. JUDr. Veronika Slašťanová, PhD.

198 JUDr. Juraj Špirko

199 JUDr. Rastislav Posluch

200 JUDr. Zuzana Betáková Krkošková

201 JUDr. Svetlana Machová

202 JUDr. Ing. Marcela Martinkovičová

203 JUDr. Eva Krchňáková

204 JUDr. Alexandra Korbeľová

205. Mgr. Janette Adamcová

206. Mgr. Lukáš Trojan

207. JUDr. Martin Maisner, PhD, MCIArb. 

208. JUDr. Matúš Košara

209. JUDr. Alena Sedláčková

210. JUDr. Peter Toman, LL.M

211. Doc. JUDr. Ľubomír Fogaš, CSc.

212. JUDr. Maroš Jakubek, PhD.

213. Mgr. Ing. Zuzana Boľošová

214. JUDr. Ladislav Války, LL.M

215. JUDr. Róbert Ešek

216. JUDr. Jozef Merica

217. Mgr. Milan Kantuľák

218. JUDr. Ján Jenča

219. Mgr. Jaroslav Martiňuk

220. JUDr. Miroslav Kriška

221. JUDr. Ing. Dušan Tomka

222. JUDr. Vladimír Lamačka ml.

223. Mgr. Mgr. Martin Danišovič

224. JUDr. Lucia Danišovičová

225. Mgr. Klaudia Szekeres

226. JUDr. Janka Hazlingerová

227. JUDr. Richard Bauer

228. Mgr. Lucia Gašpieriková

229. PhDr. JUDr. Jaroslava Balážiová

230. JUDr. Jana Uhrinová

231. JUDr. Katarína Kováčková, MBA

232. JUDr. Ján Kuriačka

233. Mgr. Martin Škubla

 

Academic community:

1.      Doc. JUDr. Branislav Fábry

2.      JUDr. Ing. Jaroslav Dolný, PhD.

3.   gen. Dr.h.c. prof. JUDr. Jaroslav Ivor, DrSc.

 

Prosecutors:

1.  JUDr. Stanislav Lešo

2. Mgr. Silvia Kollárová

3. JUDr. Miriam Jakabovičová

4. JUDr. Beata Vítková

Other law professions :

1.      Mgr. Judita Laššáková

2.      JUDr. Albína Božek

3.      Mgr. Filip Ľupták

4.      JUDr. Alexander Števík ml.

5.      JUDr. Emília Kršíková

6.      JUDr. Mária Pecníková

7.   Mgr. Michaela Janečková

8.  JUDr. Maroš Piľa

9.  Mgr. Karin Vrtíková

10. Mgr. Miroslav Ľuba

11. Mgr. Jozef Ďurica

12. JUDr. Henrieta Schuchmannová

13. JUDr. Veronika Gróf Mikovíniová

14. JUDr. Viera Marczellová

15. JUDr. Tereza Vacvalová

16. JUDr. Katarína Jusková

17. Mgr. Pavel Kováčik

18. JUDr. Mária Zervan

19. Mgr. Matej Mihály, LL.M

20. Mgr. Bc. Jakub Zacharovský

21. JUDr. Miroslava Erbenová

22. JUDr. Jakub Podmanický

23. JUDr. Danica Molnárová

24. JUDr. Marián Mikl

25. JUDr. Peter Kriško, PhD.

26. JUDr. Stanislav Furda

27. JUDr. Ján Lasák, LL.M

28. JUDr. Peter Križko, PhD.

29. Mgr. Beata Pastorková

30. Mgr. Katarína Králiková

31. JUDr. Andrej Lipa

32. JUDr. Natália Fándlyová

33. JUDr. Natália Richtáriková

34. JUDr. Karol Kovács

35. JUDr. Alena Kovácsová

36. JUDr. Zuzana Otáhalová

37. Mgr. Viera Hradiská

38. JUDr. Ladislav Kopál

39. JUDr. Lívia Mistríková

40. Mgr. Hana Lehotayová

41. JUDr. PhDr. Štefan Palatický, MBA

42. JUDr. Viera Muríňová

43. Mgr. Simona Dvořáková

44. Mgr. Daniela Lengyelová, PhD.

45 Mgr. Igor Varga

46 JUDr. Ing. Natália Horváthová

47 Mgr. Martina Almášiová

48 Mgr. Martin Figura

49. JUDr. Andrea Ondreášová

50. Mgr. Bibiana Mozoľová

51. JUDr. Marcela Morsztýnová

52. JUDr. PhDr. Milan Španír LL.M

53 JUDr. Radim Kochan PhD.

54 JUDr. Jarmila Harvánková

55. Mgr. Jozef Halgoš

56. JUDr. Edita Bandáková

57. Mgr. Dávid Lučivjanský, PhD.

58. Doc. JUDr. Ján Štefanica, PhD.

59. JUDr. Vladimíra Jurčovičová

60. Mgr. Ivana Sedláčková

61. JUDr. Viera Sokirková

62. Mgr. Štefan Kin

63. JUDr. František Palovský

64. Mgr. Vladimír Suchánek

65. Mgr. Matej Benčura

66. JUDr. Gabriel Volšík

67. Mgr. Petra Balážová

 

 

Túto výzvu podporila aj Únia obhajcov ČR, celé znenie podpory www.uocr.cz

 

To support the call, contact us at info@pravnystat.eu, or use the form.