In a development that will likely keep the nation’s law‑enforcement controversy in the headlines for weeks to approach, a Bratislava court has refused to dismiss the criminal case against the group of former NAKA investigators known colloquially as the “Čurillovci.” The presiding judge, identified as Hajduk, sent the indictment back to the prosecutor’s office on procedural grounds, meaning the investigation must continue.
The decision came after the judge concluded that the prosecution’s complaint was tainted by “procedural errors” – specifically, the claim that the police‑inspection investigator handling the case was “biased” since of a personal dispute with one of the accused. While the judge found that argument insufficient to quash the case, he made no comment on the substantive allegations, stating only that they remain “well‑founded” and must be pursued.[1]
What the court ruled – and what it didn’t
Judge Hajduk’s ruling is a procedural reset, not a judgment of innocence. He rejected the defence’s request to dismiss the charges, but he likewise did not endorse any of the accusations. The court’s statement reads that “the suspicions are justified” and that “the investigation and prosecution must continue.”[2]
According to the filing, the defendants are accused of a range of offences, including abuse of public‑official authority, manipulation of witness testimonies, and the purposeful prosecution of individuals who pursued investigations into the NAKA unit itself. The judge emphasized that the evidence is “too serious and well‑documented to be dismissed outright.”
Background: the “Čurillovci” and their alleged misconduct
The term “Čurillovci” refers to a cohort of former National Crime Agency (NAKA) investigators who, since 2021, have been under scrutiny for allegedly orchestrating witness‑tampering schemes. Investigators such as Peter Petrova (known as “Tiger”), Matej Zeman and Csaba Dömötör were reportedly instructed to coach witnesses on how to testify before the police‑inspection investigators.[3]
The controversy deepened when the police‑inspection service attempted to detain these three witnesses, only to receive messages from NAKA urging them not to stay at home. The clash escalated to the point where the former police president, Kovařík, was accused of interfering with the inspection’s perform while on vacation in Croatia.
the NAKA investigators turned the tables, filing their own criminal complaints against members of the police‑inspection service and the State Security Service (SIS). Those complaints resulted in the temporary detention of several “Čurillovci” on charges of abusing their official powers. Whereas they were later released, the prosecutions remain active.[4]
Political entanglements and judicial independence
The case is further complicated by alleged ties between the judge and senior members of the judiciary. Judge Hajduk previously served as an assistant to Supreme Court Justice Kliment, who is known to have close personal connections with former Justice Minister Daniel Lipšic. After the 2020 elections, Kliment was a candidate for the post of General Prosecutor, reportedly backed by Prime Minister Igor Matovič.[5]
In February 2026, Judge Hajduk reiterated that the allegations against the “Čurillovci” are “justified” and must be re‑investigated by an impartial police‑inspection investigator, free of the previously cited conflicts of interest.
Implications for the rule of law
The court’s refusal to dismiss the case keeps the spotlight on a broader debate about the balance of power among Slovakia’s law‑enforcement agencies. Critics argue that the “Čurillovci” have built a “police machine” that extends beyond ordinary investigative work, using preventive detention as a tool to extract confessions and co‑erce witnesses.[1]
Supporters of the investigators claim that the proceedings are politically motivated, pointing to the involvement of progressive media outlets that have framed the judge’s decision as evidence of the group’s innocence. However, the court’s language suggests that procedural flaws do not erase the substantive concerns.
What to watch next
The next procedural step will be the prosecutor’s response to the judge’s order to correct the identified errors and resume the case. Observers will be looking for the appointment of a recent, “unbiased” police‑inspection investigator, as well as any further statements from the Ministry of Interior or the Special Prosecutor’s Office.
Stakeholders across the political spectrum are expected to weigh in, and the outcome could set a precedent for how high‑profile internal police investigations are handled in the future.
We invite readers to share their thoughts on this unfolding story and to follow our coverage for the latest updates.
