Disciplinary procedure against Judge Kristina Glezgova - 14th questionmark

Mikulas Geczi, Chairman of the District Court in Lucenec, filed on 8 September 2008 against the Judge a disciplinary motion based on the fact that in a civil law dispute between the legal entity – the petitioner and the general hospital and policlinic Vseobecna nemocnica s poliklinikou, n.o. Lucenec – the defendant, upon the complaint of the hospital over Judge’s prejudice in procedure of 17 December 2006, the Judge stated that she does not feel to be prejudiced and she proposed not to be excluded from the decision making.

She was not excluded by the decision of the Regional Court in Banska Bystrica. In another civil dispute between the natural persons J. S. and his wife and another natural person MUDr. J. H. as a statutory Judge she stated that she knows the defendant who was her schoolmate in the past what might pose doubts to her impartiality. According to the statements of other judges of the District Court in Lucenec the Regional Court in Banska Bystrica on 30 April 2008 excluded all judges of this court in this case and the case was ordered to procedure to the District Court Velky Krtis. In this connection the defendant Vseobecna nemocnica s poliklinikou, n. o. Lucenec in the previous case filed a prejudice complaint because MUDr. J. H. is the statutory representative of the hospital in relation to whom the Judge left herself excluded in another civil case. Regarding this complaint the Judge stated that she does not feel to be prejudiced against the hospital because it is not an organisation she has no personal relation to and she also cannot change the fact that she and the hospital’s director were schoolmates. In the procedure where the natural person MUDr. J. H. is directly the party to the procedure it is a different situation, because this is a procedure of a purely private nature. Also upon to this prejudice complaint of the hospital the Judge was not excluded by the Regional Court in Banska Bystrica from the procedure as decided by the above court on 12 June 2008. She was excluded later upon the repeated prejudice motion filed by the hospital and by the decision of the Regional Court in Banska Bystrica of 31 July 2008. Followingly a disciplinary motion was filed against her because in a short time she submitted to the same party a statement purposely different and this caused a significant disciplinary failure. At the same time the petitioner proposed to impose her the strictest penalty – removal of her judicial position.


Stefan Harabin, Minister of Justice in his decision of 29 September 2008 suspended temporarily her judicial position.

In relation to the filed disciplinary motion the Judge states that the motion is not exactly defined in action. Mainly that she did not submit any different statement to the same party, because in one case it was the hospital and a non-profit organisation and in the second case it was a natural person MUDr. J. H. As long as the petitioner states that the Judge gave an untrue statement  in one of these two procedures with the aim to misguide, the petitioner should in detail define the procedure in which the Judge stated untrue data and in which the data were true, because the reason for a disciplinary motion may only be untrue data. The petitioner also did not give reasons why he qualifies the action of the Judge as a significant disciplinary failure with the proposed strictest penalty. The Judge before the start of the disciplinary motion worked in several judicial areas from 1979 with only a short break, that means almost 30 years. She has always been professionally very good evaluated, no reasoned complaint was filed against her and she has never been disciplinary prosecuted. The Judge assumes that the reason for the inadequate and purposeful sanction was that she was excluded from decision making in the case against Vseobecna nemocnica s poliklinikou, n.o. Lucenec. An indirect proof is also the article in City Newspaper, weekly of the city of Lucenec of 4 December 2009 on ceremony opening of a division of the Lucenec Nemocnica s poliklinikou, n. o. opened by Stefan Harabin, President of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic together with other representatives of the Hospital among which was also MUDr. J. H. who in the last parliamentary elections was the candidate for LS-HZDS and also today he is the candidate for this party in 2010 parliamentary elections.

The Judge asked the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic to terminate her temporary suspension, the Judicial Council in their decision of 12 November 2008 has not reached sufficient number of votes for termination of the temporary suspended judicial position.

The first instance disciplinary court in the case decided on 17 August 2009 and fully released the Judge free because she has not committed any disciplinary failure. The petitioner appealed against the decision on 14 October 2009. The Judge asked Viera Petrikova, Minister of Justice, to recall her suspended position pointing to the liberating decision. The Minister refused her request without giving reasons on 10 February 2010.

The appeal disciplinary court decided the appeal of the petitioner on 22 April 2010 at a non-public hearing and the case was returned to the first instance court for a new procedure with the reason that the court has not dealt with all statements of the Judge in the procedure.

The Judge’s position is still suspended and she waits for a new first instance disciplinary procedure.

Bratislava 3 June 2010

Initiative spokesmen
Katarina Javorcikova
Miroslav Gavalec

Leave your comments

terms and condition.

Comments (2)

  • Guest (Roland Rivera)

    This is very lengthy blog having lot of details on a specific topic but I know mostly people will ignore it because it is not looking interesting. For these type of blog you can also visit www.topessaywriting-services.com essay writing services Now a days people are very busy in their lives that’s why they always want to see something for their enjoyment in free time.

  • Guest (colin)

    They provides new collections of articles Replica Handbags uk for arrangement in anniversary season. These articles cover shoes, coats, handbags, dresses and fragrances. New selections are consistently attainable in bound quantities. These bound quantities leave actualization lovers absent more. Even several fashionable ladies ascertain themselves cat-and-mouse on articles advertisement for the latest actualization of the clothes and handbags.Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Prada, Miu Miu, Jimmy Choo, Burberry, Marc Jacobs, Fendi and fake louis vuitton bags are just a few artist brands in which replica handbags are available. It gives the client abounding best in selecting a cast or a few brands that they would like to be a allotment of in assuming off the designers style. These clones arise in assorted styles and colors that cover wallets, purses, totes, accessory bags, atramentous abrasion and Gucci Replica Handbags abundant added that the accession is endless.

You are here: Home Documents Archive Disciplinary procedure against Judge Kristina Glezgova - 14th questionmark


e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Our partners