The law-making process is one of the extremely important forms of local self-government activities. By means of law-making, local self-government regulates the conditions of life and behaviour of the local community living in a particular area of local self-government. Through law-making, therefore, local self-government can significantly interfere with an individual's life. The paper is focused on the analysis of the current legal regulation of the local self-government law-making process in the Slovak Republic and the identification of its weak points. The authors examine the results of control activities of authorities performing the review of constitutionality and legality of local law-making. On this basis, we submit a number of suggestions and incentives for changing the current legal regulation of law-making competence of local self-government.

The authors of the paper deal with the philosophy of the privatization of elements of criminal justice, which in the last decades influenced the development of criminal justice in European countries, including the Slovak Republic. The philosophy of privatization in relation to criminal justice represents a wider acceptance of the individual interests of the subjects of criminal procedure. It is the strengthening of powers of the parties to the proceedings and at the same time the entrusting of criminal dispute solution to their own hands. Therefore, the aim of the paper is to examine the expanding philosophy of privatization of the Slovak criminal justice system (the so-called negotiating procedure, a.k.a. plea bargain agreement) which, with the aim of facilitating and simplifying the resolution of a criminal case, has brought the possibility of negotiating with the State the conditions for admitting the guilt of the accused, in exchange for imposing a less severe punishment. However, the aim of the paper is not only to examine the current legal regulation of this expanding phenomenon but also to show its seamy sides and to present comprehensible and reasonable legal opinion relating to its suitability. In the paper, the authors, therefore, deal with the question of whether the philosophy of privatizing the criminal justice is in compliance with the traditional values of the continental legal system. At the same time, they try to answer whether the philosophy of the so-called negotiated justice is not contrary to the fundamental principles of criminal justice. In the paper, the authors also ask questions like: Can the punishment be subject to negotiating? Is it justified on the ground of the society’s morality and fundamental values of the legal system if the State negotiates with the perpetrators of crime the conditions of their confession and the length of the punishment? Does the negotiated punishment fulfill its basic functions (preventative, repressive, protective, moral condemnation by society)?

In a democratic state following the principle of rule of law, every person (including state authorities) must bear a legal liability for an unlawful act committed. However, recent socio-political events in Slovakia have brought to the forefront a number of legal questions regarding the liability of the head of the state for his unlawful acts. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to examine the current legal regulation of presidential liability, which belongs to one of the controversial issues of the Slovak legal order. At the same time, it is an issue which is not a frequented subject of legal science (jurisprudence) research. Therefore, its examination and critical evaluation is necessary. However, the aim of the paper is not only to point out to the current legal regulation of this relatively unexplored legal institution, but also to show its seamy sides and to present a comprehensible and reasonable legal opinion relating to key characteristics of legal liability of the President of the Slovak Republic. The authors are of the opinion that the legal regulation of the liability of the President of the Slovak Republic is extremely brief. In addition, it contains a number of ambiguities and questions which, in the future, can cause a lot of complications in the eventual prosecution of the president. For this reason, it is more than desirable to resolve at least some of the issues referred to in the paper before the dispute arises. In every democratic state it is essential that the terms of application of legal institutions or legal provisions are understandable, clear, and certain. In the case of the institution of liability of the Slovak President, this requirement is certainly not fulfilled.

The recodification of criminal law realised in the Slovak Republic in 2005 brought several new elements to criminal proceedings. One of them was the expansion and significant strengthening of the discretion of the public prosecutor in criminal proceedings. However, this authority of the public prosecutor’s office is, in many cases, perceived sensitively and controversially in Slovak society, especially in connection with many cases and scandals, when the prosecutor simply stated that ‘the act did not occur’. One of the related problems is the fact that the injured party in the Slovak Republic has essentially no powers that would, independently of the prosecutor’s office, ensure the control of the prosecutor’s discretionary powers directly through an independent and impartial court. This situation also stems from the fact that the public prosecutor’s office has a prosecution monopoly in Slovak criminal proceedings. However, the current prosecution monopoly of the prosecutor’s office is not a rational consequence of its historical development in our territory but a consequence of the coup d’état in 1948 and the subsequent onset of the communist regime. The possibility for other entities (e.g., the injured party) to exercise their rights through criminal law institutions has thus been minimised. Based on the above, the aim of this paper is to examine the existing scope of the discretion of public prosecutors in Slovakia, analyse the possibilities of controlling the exercise of these powers, and answer the question of how to improve the current possibilities of the control.

Freedom of expression, in the context of recent events in our history—such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the situation in Ukraine—has once again sparked a significant and widely followed public debate about its limits. The escalation of these situations has revealed many of the negative aspects of freedom of expression and its direct and devastating impact on people’s everyday lives. In particular, hate speech and the spread of disinformation have gained strength, with effects not only in terms of legal liability or financial consequences relating to damages and harm, but also in ways that directly impact public health. Calls to avoid wearing facemasks and questioning of vaccines and protective measures have not only fuelled vulgar online debates and even physical attacks, but have also led to direct consequences for individual and public health. Therefore, it is essential that freedom of expression has limits—limits that do not amount to censorship. Only public authority—the state—has the legitimate power to set such boundaries. As EU member states are undergoing processes of legal unification and harmonization of their legal systems, it is important to also consider the stance of EU institutions on the future legislative framework of freedom of expression. This is particularly important given that individual member states do not share the same values or approaches to this issue. The aim of this paper is to assess the contribution of the European Union to the development of freedom of expression through selected legislative and non-legislative activities. The paper will also include a proposal for a forward-looking solution.

The specialization of public prosecution offices has been a growing international trend, particularly in addressing complex forms of crime such as corruption, economic crime, and organized crime. Many countries have established specialized prosecution bodies to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of law enforcement in these areas. However, Slovakia has recently taken a different approach by abolishing its Office of the Special Prosecution, a decision that contrasts sharply with prevailing global tendencies. This paper explores the reasons behind this shift, analyzing the political and legal arguments presented by both proponents and opponents of the abolition. The paper examines whether this move aligns with the rule of law and international legal obligations and considers its potential consequences for the effectiveness of criminal justice in Slovakia. While the paper is based on legal principles and comparative methods, it acknowledges the inherently political nature of decisions concerning the structure of prosecution services.