The Ministry of the Interior (MV) of the Slovak Republic withdrew its cassation appeal against last year’s decision of the Administrative Court in Bratislava, which annulled the personnel order on the dismissal of former National Criminal Agency (NAKA) investigator Pavel Ďurka. His legal representative Peter Kubina informed about it. The Department of the Interior argues the existence of a new, legally relevant fact, which is the new charge brought against Ďurek.
17.06.2026 10:35, updated: 15:23
The Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic was to decide on the cassation complaint. “He even complied with the Ministry’s proposal to grant the suspensive effect of the cassation complaint, and we estimated his decision on the merits of the matter in the near future. However, yesterday, during a random check of the status of the proceedings, we discovered to our great surprise that the Ministry of the Interior quietly withdrew its cassation complaint,” Kubina explained.
The Ministry pointed out that with regard to the accusation against Pavlov Ď. issued a new personnel order on his temporary deprivation of civil service. “Despite the fact that the Ministry continues to insist on its arguments stated in the cassation complaint, it did not consider it reasonable to continue the proceedings at the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic,” it added.
The Department of the Interior continues to insist that it acted lawfully against the police officers who were charged, when it decided to temporarily deprive them of the performance of state service, without the consent of the Office for the Protection of Whistleblowers. According to the Ministry, the legality of such a procedure is also confirmed by the recent judgment of the Administrative Court in Bratislava.
Lawyer Martina Filipová from the BOOM & SMART Slovakia law firm, who represents the department in the proceedings, does not agree with the interpretation that the withdrawal of the cassation complaint means confirmation of the incorrectness of the legal opinion of the ministry. “I consider such an interpretation to be misleading,” she said.
According to Filipova, the ministry withdrew the cassation complaint due to a change in the facts and the issuance of a new personnel order. “Under this situation, further continuation of the proceedings was procedurally and economically pointless. However, the withdrawal of the remedy in no way means resignation to legal argumentation,” she added.
At the same time, Filipová rejects the interpretation according to which the prior consent of the Office for the Protection of Whistleblowers is always required when a police officer with the status of a protected whistleblower is temporarily deprived of the performance of state service. “In my opinion, such an interpretation pushes the purpose of protecting whistleblowers beyond the limits of the law,” she stated.
According to her, the protection of whistleblowers should not create an exception to the rules that apply to other police officers. “The protection of whistleblowers cannot therefore serve as a shield against the legal consequences of criminal prosecution,” concluded Filipová.
However, Kubina perceives the withdrawal of the remedy differently. According to him, it also means factual approval and identification with the challenged decision. “In this particular case, this means that the Ministry of the Interior, under the burden of evidence, actually agrees and identifies with the judgment of the administrative court, which confirmed the illegal status outside the service of Pavel Ď,” said the lawyer.
Not out of service, but reassignment
According to the Office for the Protection of Whistleblowers, the Ministry of the Interior is misleading the public when it claims that the decision of the Administrative Court in Bratislava from May 14 confirmed the existence of an exception for police officers from the Whistleblower Protection Act. “The subject of this procedure was not a temporary position outside the service, but the transfer of a police officer,” the office responded.
He also pointed out that on November 19, 2025, another panel of the Administrative Court in Bratislava decided on the illegality of the temporary off-duty status of a member of the Police Force, which stated that the ministry’s procedure, which bypassed the Office for the Protection of Whistleblowers, was illegal. “And it was during this procedure that the Ministry of the Interior withdrew its cassation appeal against this decision,” added the office.
At the beginning of May, the Minister of the Interior, Matúš Šutaj Eštok, decided to temporarily deprive the police officer Pavel Ďurka, who is currently working as an investigator of the Police Force, of state service. As the Department of the Interior informed at the time, the personnel order was issued as a result of a new indictment filed in March of this year, according to which the named police officer is accused of the crime of abuse of authority of a public official and the crime of extortion, which he was supposed to have committed as an investigator, i.e. in connection with the performance of his official duties.
As part of the Kajúcnik case, Pavol Ďurka was accused of abuse of authority of a public official and blackmail. The accusations are mainly related to criminal proceedings in the case of the criminal group of tákačovs, on which police officers from the team around Ján Čurilla worked in the past. However, they are also partly related to the Purgatory cases.
Last fall, the Administrative Court in Bratislava annulled the personal order of the Minister of the Interior to remove Ďurko from service and stated that the Minister of the Interior Matúš Šutaj Eštok had violated the law. Ďurka subsequently joined the District Police Directorate in Nitra.
After taking office, Šutaj Eštok temporarily suspended several police officers from performing state service, including the so-called Čurrils. He justified this by suspecting the commission of a crime. Since the police officers had the status of a protected whistleblower, according to the Office for the Protection of Whistleblowers, the minister should have turned to him first.
