(MIS)INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION AND JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: CASE STUDY SLOVAKIA

In a democratic state such as the Slovak Republic, the separation of the branches of state power “works” and, above all, the separation of the judiciary, which is to ensure justice. Judges are supposed to achieve justice through established legislation and have limited opportunity to change it., We can at first sight monitor the activity of judges, who may not be in full compliance with the established legislation. One such example may be the case of the police raid in Roma settlement (Moldava nad Bodvou, 2013), which is even more interesting because it violated the human rights of individuals. In addition, these victims have been put into the position of accused by the state, whose duty is to protect the rights of these persons. Is judicial activism present in such case in such country? If so, in what form? Is possible to identify influence of political actors and their populism within this case? Considering this, we work with Brubaker’s (2017) understanding of populism conceptual task of analytical category “as a discursive and stylistic repertoire” (360) or “useful conceptual tool” (358). The article aims to study (non)presence of judicial activism in the conditions of the Slovak judiciary, with a specific focus on cases of human rights violation from the side of a state. This article focuses specifically on injured persons in the case of a police raid in a Roma settlement in Moldava nad Bodvou, Slovakia. Judicial activism, in the context of its original meaning, refers to such activity of the judicial branch of the state, which leads to the questioning of existing legislation and its "rewriting" through court decisions (Keenan, 2004). The importance of judicial activism has changed over time and has acquired not only a negative but also a positive connotation. We are researching on how decision is making practice of courts perceived from populistic perspective. As well as describing the role of leading political actors in violation of human rights in this whole case since 2013. How can we perceive it in Slovakia in the decision-making practice of courts? What kind of role, from the populistic perspective, has played the leading political actors in the violation of human rights? The aim is also to point the relationship among “independent” branches of political discourse in Slovakia and “backsliding” in understanding of human rights after 30 years of representative democracy in Slovakia.