ZOJ Calls on Judicial Council to Protect All Judges without Distinction

Bratislava, 30 March (TASR) - The 'For Open Justice' (ZOJ) judicial initiative has expressed its concern regarding the Judicial Council's current procedure for protecting judges against verbal attacks, ZOJ spokesman Filip Demo has informed TASR. ZOJ views the resolutions adopted by the Judicial Council regarding verbal attacks on judges as insufficient, as they fail to state the basic circumstances of the case or the names of the judges concerned to whom protection should be provided. ZOJ strongly rejects a selective approach to the protection of judges and calls on the Judicial Council to act transparently, to respect the independence of judges and to protect all judges without distinction. ZOJ, for example, criticised a resolution of the Judicial Council from 18 March concerning verbal attacks on judges. According to ZOJ, the resolution was merely general in nature, with the Judicial Council condemning inappropriate verbal attacks on judges without it being clear which judge was being protected or for what reasons. The association stated that, based on the content of the discussion, the Judicial Council addressed a verbal attack against Judge Tomas Hajduk at its meeting. However, it stated that the discussion largely focused on criticism of his ruling in a specific criminal case. The association also pointed to the differing approach by the Judicial Council in similar situations in the past. It noted that in December 2024 the Council adopted a specific statement explicitly rejecting specific media attacks against judge Viera Hadrbulcova. Likewise, in a resolution from February 2025, the Council strictly condemned unacceptable remarks made by a specific individual against judge Peter Pulman. "We reject such a selective approach by the Judicial Council to the protection of judges. It is inadmissible for the Judicial Council to provide targeted and specific protection only to some judges, while in the case of others it limits itself to general and non-specific statements without concrete support. Such an approach undermines confidence in the impartiality of the Judicial Council and contradicts its role of protecting the independence of judges without distinction," added ZOJ. ko/df