According to the national contribution to the EMN Annual Report on Migration and Asylum 2019 (information provided by MO MoI SR):

The line of reasoning of the defendant who claims that the plaintiff had a legal representative present during the hearing who, unlike the plaintiff, is well versed in the law, could not hold, since the examination of the asylum seeker in the court proceedings represents one of the most important means of evidence as well as one of the most important rights an asylum seeker has and, as such, cannot be abandoned solely on the grounds of the lack of interpreters on the list or due to time constraints. Moreover, exceeding the time limit for the decision in the matters of asylum due to the existence of objective causes, even more so if these are not caused by the party to the proceedings or the court, must not be to the detriment of the plaintiff’s right to fair trial