On the 13th of March, a Slovak newspaper published an investigative article mapping the holiday homes of politicians, influential figures, and oligarchs in a remote Croatian seaside village. It was revealed that the Defence Minister in Fico’s Cabinet and his right-hand man, Rober Kaliňák, had a villa in the destination. Asked about a specific piece of property, he openly admitted to the journalists:
More than six years ago, my wife purchased the property in question from an elderly Croatian family for €296,000. In fact, it is not a villa, but two apartments. The property is more than 50 years old, so it has undergone renovation. [1]
The point of the article was not necessarily to question the ownership of Kaliňáks’ holiday home. It is known that Kaliňák is a relatively wealthy politician and business owner, but rather the curious fact that the property neighbours other prominent lawyers and lobbyists. On the same day the story broke, however, it became clear that this was a bigger issue than all of the initially involved expected. Within a few hours of the article being published early in the morning, two opposition parties held a press conference, where opposition MP Veronika Remišová, who is the Chairwoman of the Parliamentary Committee on the Incompatibility of Functions, revealed that the Defence Minister failed to declare the seaside villa owned by his wife in Croatia.[2] Within a day, the controversy escalated into a full-blown scandal.
Both the Defence Minister and the Chairwoman accuse each other of breaking the law and the Constitution, and at least one of them is likely to lose their office and face a significant fine. In this blog, I will examine the case to understand the legal obligations of the parties involved and explore the broader implications.
Who Declares What, When, and How?
The declaration of financial assets by
public officials in Slovakia is governed by Constitutional Act No 357/2004
Coll. on the Protection of Public Interest in the Performance of Public Office.[3]
The Act sets out rules that govern, manage, and ideally help prevent
conflicts of interest among public officials, who are required to disclose
their assets, income, debts, and business engagements annually upon assuming office
(Art 7(1)).
The annual submission of these asset and
interest declarations reduces the monitoring costs of the oversight bodies and
enables easier identification and scrutiny of any potential sources of undue
influence. Crucially, oversight bodies are empowered to discipline public officials
in case of non-compliance, and violations can result in penalties ranging from
financial sanctions to removal from office.[4]
Through these provisions, the Act endeavours to protect the public interest and
maintain trust in government institutions by encouraging transparency and
accountability throughout the public sector.
When public officials declare their interest, they provide information, through a standardised form, about, among other things, their income,[5] property and assets held by their spouse and minor children living with them in the same household, including personal data (Art 7(1)e). However, unlike the part of the declaration relating to the public official, the immediate family’s information is confidential and kept off the public record. Yet it is this part that has been contested in Kaliňák’s case, because, as the Minister himself admitted, the property was purchased by his wife, not him.
When Chairwoman Remišová then revealed that the Defence Minister failed to
declare the property in question, it was alleged that she infringed on the
right to privacy of the Minister’s wife and family. The Minister and his party have now filed a complaint to have the Chairwoman removed and fined over €80,000, equivalent to 12 months’ salary.[6]
The Minister himself faces a fine of three months’ salary for failing to
declare his assets.
Now, let me unpack this case. The allegation
that Chairwoman Remišová infringed on the privacy of Minister Kaliňák’s family
seems unsubstantiated. One only has to recall that the Chairwoman did not make public the information about the ownership of the seaside villa. It was
the Minister who first confirmed it with the media. The Chairwoman did step
outside of the law, but the breach lies elsewhere.
Do Not Rush the Process
If the oversight body doubts the
completeness or accuracy of a public official’s asset declaration, it can request
an additional explanation. For example, to determine whether the declared value
of a real estate or movable property matches the official’s known income. If the
supplied explanation is deemed unsatisfactory, the oversight body can then
initiate review proceedings against the official, either on its own authority or based on
a qualified petition (Art 9(2)). The official against whom the proceedings are
conducted can comment on the proceedings and, if the oversight body finds them
to be in breach of
their duty to declare assets and interests, appeal the decision to the Constitutional Court.
Applying this to the Minister’s scandal, without the Committee’s decision, even if the facts of the case were clear, the Chairwoman or any individual member of the Committee should not have commented on the proceedings. It is, of course, possible that the Chairwoman doubted the likelihood of the Committee, which is government-controlled, finding against its own Minister, even in such a clear case.[7] One could argue that she acted in the public interest by breaking the law to protect the people’s right to know, especially in a political context where breaches of ethical standards have historically gone unmonitored and unsanctioned. The bottom line is, however, that the process was not followed. Kaliňák was not given the right to speak to the Committee before the Chairwoman made her public statement, even though he did comment to the media.
The government is now trying to remove Remišová from the Committee and fine her €80,000, but it is unclear on what grounds. Her removal from the position of the Chairwoman is perhaps up to the political discretion of the Parliament, but the fine is not. The Constitutional Act on the Protection of Public Interest allows the Committee to fine an MP up to 12 months’ salary for breaching the obligations and powers stemming from the Act; however, neither of the fact situations that warrant such a fine appears to apply to the conduct of the Chairwoman.[8] It remains to be seen what case the government will present, as the complaint against the Chairwoman has already been filed by the Minister and is likely to be decided soon. Remišová declared her intent to litigate the fine.
Defence Minister’s Defence
Curiously,
Minister Kaliňák has argued that he did not fail to declare the holiday home;
he purposefully left it out of the declaration, thereby breaking the law and
the Constitution, to protect his family from the “hate” spread by the
opposition.[9] In
a video shared on social media, the Minister stated he anticipated the Chairwoman,
or other opposition Committee members, would not respect the confidentiality of
his asset declaration (admittedly based on prior experience)[10]
and has therefore chosen to protect the public interest in the right to privacy
by not disclosing his wife’s property.[11]
This is an
interesting argument, not only because it invites others to follow by example and shirk their legal obligations for similar reasons, but it seems misplaced nonetheless. It is true that the public
has an interest in the protection of privacy, in general; however, the
declaration of assets of a public official is a specific mechanism that, by
design, infringes on this right in the
interest of transparency and the public’s right to know.
From a legal-theoretical standpoint, the
idea that holders of public office must act primarily in public rather than
in their own private interest is a foundational principle that underscores the
fiduciary nature of public power. Public office is a public trust, and withholding
information from the public, thereby limiting its ability to hold the elected representative
accountable, is a breach of this trust. What the Minister sought to protect, if we were
to take his defence at face value, was the personal interest of himself and his
family.
Case law on
this topic in our geographical space includes Wypych v Poland, decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).[12]
In that case, a Polish local politician argued that broad mandatory public
declarations of assets violated his right to privacy and refused to make them.[13]
However, the Court held that such disclosure pursued a legitimate aim of preventing
corruption and was not disproportionate. Furhtermore, the Court found that the online
publication of asset declarations, including information about family members,[14]
constituted an infringement on the applicant’s private life, but that it was
justified under Article 8(2) of the Convention to achieve one or more of the
legitimate aims “necessary in a democratic society” and it was based on law.[15]
The decision to stand for election to Parliament
is voluntary, and Minister Kaliňák, as a career politician, must have been aware
of both the privileges but also the requirements of the office when accepting it.
As the ECtHR stated in Wypych, the issue of the “financial situation of persons
holding such office is one of legitimate public interest and concern,” and
while politicians also have a legitimate expectation for privacy, due to the
nature of the elected office, this expectation is not necessarily a conclusive
factor.[16]
The opposition seeks to dismiss the Minister, but it is unlikely to succeed, as it lacks the majority even to call the extraordinary session of parliament to initiate a vote of no confidence.[17] It will be interesting to observe how the government will discipline the two main actors involved in this case, and whether the sanction for the misconduct will be proportionate for both.
Suggested citation: Šimon Drugda, “Defence Minister’s Missing Asset Declaration” (slovakconlaw, 1 April 2025) <https://slovakconlaw.blogspot.com/2025/04/defence-ministers-missing-asset.html>
[1] Peter Sabo and Martin Turček, “Minister Kaliňák priznal vilu v
Chorvátsku. Neďaleko má zaujímavých susedov” (aktuality.sk, 13 March
2025) <https://www.aktuality.sk/clanok/iEaEa68/minister-kalinak-priznal-vilu-v-chorvatsku-nedaleko-ma-zaujimavych-susedov/>
[2] Hnutie Slovensko, “O majetkových priznaniach Roberta Kaliňáka” (YouTube,
13 March 2025)
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW6e700uFfs&ab_channel=HnutieSLOVENSKO>
[3] The Act applies to a wide range of officials, including elected
representatives, government members, senior civil servants, Constitutional
Court judges and others entrusted with public authority (Art 2(1)).
[4] The oversight body varies according to the office; for example, in
the case of a university rector’s financial declaration, the body vested with
the power to review the assets and potentially discipline them is the
university’s academic senate. However, in the case of a public official, the
oversight body will primarily be the Parliamentary Committee on the
Incompatibility of Functions (Art 9(1)).
[5] By supplying their income tax return, or another document issued for tax purposes, containing the amount of income that a public official received for the previous calendar year. (Art 7(2)).
[6] Peter Dlhopolec, “Slovak MP Veronika Remišová faces 80,000 fine
after exposing Minister Robert Kaliňák’s undeclared Croatian villa” (The
Slovak Spectator, 25 March 2025) <https://spectator.sme.sk/politics-and-society/c/slovak-mp-veronika-remisova-faces-80000-fine-after-exposing-minister-robert-kalinaks-undeclared-croatian-villa>
[7] The government could have also stalled as the statutory period for
review proceedings is up to 180 days under Art 9(5) of the Constitutional Act on
the Protection of Public Interest in the Performance of Public Office. Alternatively,
it could have refused to initiate or decide the review proceeding. To find against a public official, the Committee needs to decide by a
three-fifths majority of the members present, and the government coalition controls
eight out of 14 seats.
[8] The misconduct that could trigger the highest fine generally
involves using a public office for personal gain, soliciting gifts, using one’s
personal likeness for advertising, and similar conduct (Art 4(2)).
[9] “Minister obrany Kaliňák hovorí, že rodinnú nehnuteľnosť v Chorvátsku nepriznal z dôvodu hejtu” (dennik.n, 30 March 2025) <https://dennikn.sk/minuta/4553683/> accessed on 1 April 2025
[10] “Court sentenced MP’s assistant for hacking account of former
interior minister” (The Slovak Spectator, 25 September 2018) <https://spectator.sme.sk/politics-and-society/c/court-sentenced-mps-assistant-for-hacking-account-of-former-interior-minister>
[11] Rober Kaliňák, “A few words of explanation…” (Facebook, 14
March 2025) <https://www.facebook.com/smersd/videos/9523057091049518/>
[12] Wypych v. Poland, App. No 2428/05 (25 October 2005)
[13] As a town councillor, Wypych was required to make a wide asset declaration,
which he alleged infringed on the “right to respect for his private and family
life has been breached by public access to unreasonably extensive and detailed
information about his financial resources and his and his family’s property.” ibid
[14] Such a declaration was intended to “discourage attempts to conceal
assets simply by acquiring them using the name of [one’s] spouse.” ibid
[15] Tilman Hoppe “To hide or not to hide? Disclosing finances and
interests” (UNODC.org)
<https://www.unodc.org/dohadeclaration/en/news/2021/29/to-hide-or-not-to-hide_disclosing-finances-and-interests.html>
accessed 1 April 2025
[16] Wypych v. Poland, App. No 2428/05 (25 October 2005)
[17] Natália Jabůrková, “Koalícia ignoruje národnú radu, tvrdí Šimečka
po neúspešnom odvolávaní ministra” (aktuality.sk, 1 April 2025)
<https://www.aktuality.sk/clanok/fNvgq0t/koalicia-ignoruje-narodnu-radu-tvrdi-simecka-po-neuspesnom-odvolavani-ministra/>
