A recent decision by the Bratislava IV District Court banning Denník N from labelling Daniel Bombic as a neo-Nazi, extremist, or antisemite has exposed deep-seated flaws in Slovakia’s judicial process. Issued without consulting the newspaper, the ruling was criticised for procedural shortcomings, ambiguous scope, and failure to examine evidence documenting Bombic’s extremist activities. Prominent legal experts warn that the decision undermines constitutional protections, risking press freedoms while shielding extremist ideologies. Simultaneously, the Judicial Council Chair accused the newspaper of inciting hostility against the judiciary, framing the case as a media attack. Adding to the controversy, Bombic maintains ties to high-ranking politicians, including members of Prime Minister Fico’s government, amplifying fears of state complicity in normalising hate speech and weakening democratic norms. Critics also compare the court’s tolerance toward Bombic with its silence on a recent ministerial intervention releasing a convicted corrupt official, highlighting inconsistencies in judicial standards and further eroding public trust.
The Bratislava IV District Court’s decision to issue an interim injunction preventing Denník N from labelling Daniel Bombic as a neo-Nazi, extremist, or antisemite has been criticised for procedural and substantive shortcomings. The ruling was issued as an ex parte decision, meaning the court acted without notifying Denník N or allowing the publication to present its legal arguments. This lack of adversarial process is a formal inadequacy, as it denied the newspaper an opportunity to counter Bombic’s claims or provide evidence supporting their reporting.
Legal experts have pointed out that while ex parte decisions are permissible under Slovak law, they are typically intended for cases where urgent action is required to prevent irreparable harm. Denník N highlighted that the court failed to consult them during the decision-making process, which they described as a violation of due process. Lukáš Fila, the director of the publishing house, stated: “The court did not contact Denník N before making this decision, depriving us of the opportunity to address Bombic’s claims or present our legal arguments.”
Prominent Slovak legal expert Ján Mazák, former President of the Constitutional Court and Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic, raised significant concerns about the injunction’s ambiguity. He criticised the court’s failure to clarify which specific criminal cases or charges the restrictions applied to, noting the absence of details such as case numbers or jurisdictions. This ambiguity risks making the ruling unenforceable and introduces confusion about its scope. Furthermore, Mazák pointed out that opinions protected under constitutional law, such as labelling someone an extremist based on verified facts, cannot be equated with falsely presenting someone as a convicted criminal.
In a related ruling, another Slovak court previously referred to Bombic as a “follower of extremist groups.” This characterisation arose during a case involving journalist Zuzana Kovačič Hanzelová, where the court found that Bombic had engaged in vulgar and defamatory attacks against her, as well as other public figures, through videos posted on extremist platforms. Despite this, Mazák noted that the court issuing the injunction failed to examine the substantial evidence presented by Denník N documenting Bombic’s extremist behaviour. He deemed this omission a critical failure undermining the legitimacy of the ruling.
Judicial and Political Complicity in Normalising Extremism
Concerns about the independence of Slovakia’s judiciary have been amplified by Bombic’s legal defence team, which includes prominent figures such as Defence Minister Robert Kaliňák and David Lindtner, a legal advisor to Prime Minister Robert Fico. Both Kaliňák and Interior Minister Matúš Šutaj Eštok have repeatedly appeared on Bombic’s flagship podcast, which is known for promoting conspiracies, racism, extremism, and hate speech. The podcast has featured attacks on minorities, liberal values, and public figures, contributing to a climate of hostility and polarisation.
The reach of Bombic’s platform extends even further, with high-ranking political figures lending legitimacy to his activities through public appearances. Prime Minister Robert Fico himself has appeared on Bombic’s podcast, along with Environment Minister Tomáš Taraba and Andrej Danko, the pro-Kremlin vice chairman of the National Council. Additionally, Bombic hosted Smer candidates Erik Kaliňák and Judita Laššáková during their European election campaign, further cementing his role as a political amplifier of extremist ideologies.
Mazák also criticised the timing of the injunction, questioning why a ruling deemed “urgent” was issued in response to articles published over a year ago. This lack of immediacy undermines the legal foundation for such a measure, as urgency is a core criterion for issuing an interim injunction.
Bombic’s activities, including his dissemination of extremist propaganda and hate speech, have reportedly influenced others and exacerbated societal tensions. His output ranges from neo-Nazi gestures to anti-Semitic language and the public dissemination of personal data targeting journalists, activists, and law enforcement officials. Despite these actions, Bombic continues to receive visits and implicit endorsement from Slovak politicians, underscoring the government’s apparent tolerance for extremist actors.
The ruling has drawn criticism from prominent lawyer Peter Kubina, who commented on Facebook: “There is perhaps no greater disregard for a court’s decision than to release a criminal lawfully convicted by the highest judicial authority. If I recall correctly, the Judicial Council remained silent then.” Kubina’s statement references the controversial release of former special prosecutor Dušan Kováčik, convicted of corruption by Slovakia’s highest courts. Justice Minister Boris Susko, a member of Robert Fico’s SMER party, intervened to suspend Kováčik’s sentence, a move widely condemned as an egregious intrusion into judicial independence
Weakening Judicial Credibility and Press Freedoms
Mazák further argued that the injunction risks undermining public trust in Slovakia’s judiciary. By failing to substantiate claims that Denník N violated Bombic’s presumption of innocence or to adequately justify the need for immediate action, the court’s decision appears vulnerable to legal challenge. Mazák stressed that constructive criticism of judicial decisions, such as this one, is a necessary aspect of democratic discourse and should not be misconstrued as an attack on the judiciary itself.
Judge Viera Hadrbulcová, whose ruling prohibited Denník N from labelling Daniel Bombic as a neo-Nazi, extremist, or antisemite, has become the focal point of a controversy involving Slovakia’s judiciary. Marcela Kosová, Chair of the Judicial Council, accused Denník N of orchestrating a “media attack” against Hadrbulcová and announced that the Council would address the matter at a public session on 10 December 2024. Kosová alleged that the newspaper’s coverage had incited public hostility toward the judiciary. Meanwhile, Justice Minister Boris Susko, a member of Robert Fico’s SMER party, criticised Denník N for allegedly allowing vulgar commentary about Hadrbulcová on social media, a claim the newspaper strongly denies.
In this broader climate of judicial controversy, prominent lawyer Peter Kubina weighed in on Facebook, offering a pointed critique. “There is perhaps no greater disregard for a court’s decision than to release a criminal lawfully convicted by the highest judicial authority. If I recall correctly, the Judicial Council remained silent then,” Kubina wrote. His statement references the controversial release of former special prosecutor Dušan Kováčik, convicted of corruption by Slovakia’s highest courts. Justice Minister Boris Susko, a member of Robert Fico’s SMER party, intervened to suspend Kováčik’s sentence, a move widely condemned as an egregious intrusion into judicial independence.
Matúš Kostolný underscored that this case reflects a broader trend of efforts to suppress independent journalism. He stated, “The three words banned by the court are not accusations of criminal acts; they are descriptions of behaviours—attacks on Jews, threats against journalists, doctors, or liberals, and incitements to violence.” Kostolný concluded that this case exemplifies the stakes of press freedom, asserting that “naming dangerous ideologies is a fundamental responsibility of the media, not a violation of law.”
Sources:
Dušan Mikušovič | Denník N
Vladimír Šnídl | Denník N
Ján Mazák | Denník N
Matúš Kostolný | Denník N
