It is incompatible with the principle of the presumption of innocence in matters of proper punishment to require a suspect to prove his innocence

On August 22, 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, by judgment cale file no. 2Stk/2/2025, changed the judgment of the Administrative Court in Bratislava (hereinafter referred to as the “Administrative Court”) by annulling the decision of the Chamber of Veterinarians of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter referred to as the “Chamber”) in the matter of a written warning to a veterinarian and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that in administrative offense proceedings, the suspect cannot be required to prove his innocence. The burden of proof lies with the administrative authorities, who must prove the violation of the legal norm with reliable evidence. The mere absence of a written record of the instruction does not mean that the instruction was not provided.

In the case in question, the Chamber imposed a disciplinary measure on the veterinarian for failing to provide instruction, according to the dog owner, about the possibility of having a blood test performed by another veterinarian. On the contrary, the veterinarian stated that he had instructed the owner orally. The Chamber did not recognize the veterinarian’s procedural defense, since he did not prove that he had actually instructed the dog owner orally and the burden of proof to prove the instruction rests with the veterinarian.

The Administrative Court dismissed the plaintiff’s administrative action.

The Supreme Administrative Court stated that such a transfer of the burden of proof is contrary to the principle of the presumption of innocence and the principle of in dubio pro reo (in doubt for the benefit of the accused). At the same time, it pointed out that the absence of a written record of the instruction does not mean that the oral instruction was not carried out.

According to the Cassation Court, if a veterinarian needed a blood test that he could not perform himself, he was obliged to obtain informed consent from the dog’s owner to continue with further actions without this test (the so-called negative reversal). However, the statutes of the Chamber do not prescribe the form of instruction or consent. The veterinarian is obliged to keep records of his activities, including a record of instruction and consent, but the absence of a written record in itself does not prove that the instruction or consent was not provided. In the absence of a record in the register, administrative liability can only be imposed for violation of the obligation to keep records of the performance of private veterinary activities.

In the situation where the dog owner claimed that she was not properly instructed and the veterinarian claimed that he had instructed the dog owner orally, and at the time of the visit to the veterinary clinic there was no other witness present, the fact that the veterinarian neglected to instruct the animal owner about the possibility of performing a hematological and biochemical blood test in another veterinary facility cannot be considered sufficiently proven.

In the event of reasonable doubts about the course of the facts, it is the duty of the administrative authorities to proceed in accordance with the principle of in dubio pro reo (in doubt in favor of the accused).

In the further proceedings, the Chamber will have to clarify the contradiction between the testimony of the animal owner and the veterinarian and reassess the facts.

The judgment was adopted unanimously and no appeal is admissible against it.

This was decided by Panel No. 2 of the Supreme Administrative Court, composed of: President of the Panel JUDr. Elena Berthotyová, PhD. (judge rapporteur) and members of the Panel JUDr. Marián Trenčan and prof. JUDr. Juraj Vačok, PhD.