The call of Slovak lawyers protesting against the continuous violation of the rule of law in the Slovak Republic

‚‚ Veritatem sequi et tueri iustitiam ‘‘
‚‚ Seek the truth and protect justice ‘‘
‚‚ Právu a spravodlivosti sa v nejakej krajine darí nielen vďaka tomu, že sudca sedí na stoličke
v ustavičnej pohotovosti a že polícia vysiela drábov, ale preto, lebo k tomu každý prispieva svojím dielom. Každý je povolaný a povinný rozšliapnuť hlavu hydre svojvôle a nezákonnosti, bez ohľadu na to, kde ju vystrčí. Každý, kto užíva požehnania práva, má aj zo svojej strany prispievať k tomu, aby sa moc zákona a úcta k nemu zachovávali, skrátka, každý je rodeným bojovníkom za právo v záujme celej spoločnosti ‘‘
Rudolf von Ihering
právny vedec
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.