The Supreme Administrative Court has dismissed long-serving judge Milan Chalupka after he failed to credibly explain the appearance of nearly €700,000 in his bank account – money he claimed did not belong to him.
The court upheld an earlier disciplinary ruling that found Chalupka’s asset declarations were repeatedly incomplete, misleading, and inconsistent with his income, according to SME. Presiding judge Monika Valašiková stated on Tuesday that Chalupka had not dispelled doubts over the lawful origin of his wealth and had misled oversight bodies over a number of years.
“This is a judge with nearly 30 years of experience. It is highly unlikely he was incapable of filing a proper asset declaration,” Valašiková said. The panel concluded that Chalupka had repeatedly made untrue statements and failed to correct them, even after being given multiple opportunities.
Chalupka, who served at the Bratislava Regional Court, did not attend the final hearing. His legal representative, Rastislav Palovič, said his client was prepared for the result but described the ruling as a “dangerous precedent”. An appeal to the Constitutional Court may follow, but the dismissal is final and President Peter Pellegrini is expected to formally remove Chalupka from office in the coming days.
The judge’s financial conduct had raised concerns since early 2023, when the Judicial Council under then-chair Ján Mazák flagged anomalies in his declarations. A 2021 statement listed €670,000 in bank accounts, which Chalupka claimed were earmarked as a future inheritance for his children – supposedly from living grandparents.
When questioned further, he provided shifting explanations. One included a story about a family dispute, after which he and his brother were allegedly asked to return all the money their parents had ever spent on them. No clear evidence supported this claim.
The court also noted that, in several years, Chalupka’s account saw no withdrawals and in some cases increased beyond his official salary. He insisted he lived off contributions from his parents and in-laws, claiming: “At the time, we practically didn’t eat.” He later clarified this was meant figuratively, explaining that his wife spent time with family in Košice and he often stayed at a cottage.
He further claimed that family and friends covered expenses such as holidays abroad, a mobile phone plan, transport, and even the family’s cottage, which he said had been a gift from a doctor.
The court found these explanations unconvincing. “Judges must not lie when dealing with public authorities,” Valašiková said. “Honesty and trustworthiness are essential to judicial office.”
The ruling was unanimous.
