The client of a resocialization center is not directly affected by the cancellation of the accreditation granted to this resocialization center in terms of their rights or legally protected interests

On November 25, 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, by judgment case file no. 7Svk/12/2025, dismissed the cassation complaint of a client of a resocialization center against the judgment of the Administrative Court in Bratislava (hereinafter referred to as the “Administrative Court”) in the matter of the cancellation of the accreditation granted to the resocialization center Čistý deň, n. o. (hereinafter referred to as the “resocialization center” or “Čistý deň, n. o.”) by the Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter referred to as the “Ministry of Labor”). The Cassation Court ruled that the cancellation of the accreditation did not affect the legally protected interests of the client directly, but only indirectly, and therefore the active material standing of the client of the resocialization center to file an administrative action was not given. The Supreme Administrative Court also stated that, pursuant to Act No. 305/2005 on the social and legal protection of children and social guardianship (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on the Social and Legal Protection of Children”), the state is not obliged to provide the client with a specific resocialization program of his choice for the entire duration of the program in an unchanged scope and in the resocialization center chosen by him.

The Ministry of Labor agreed with the proposal of the accreditation commission and revoked the accreditation granted to the non-profit organization Čistý deň, n. o. for the implementation of measures of social and legal protection of children and social guardianship. During the administrative proceedings for the revocation of accreditation, the clients of the resocialization facility objected that the revocation of accreditation would thwart their opportunity to complete the process of resocialization and withdrawal from addictive substances in the environment and with the help of professional care, which they trust as the only one.

The client of the resocialization facility, in the procedural position of the plaintiff, argued that he was disabled as a result of a mental illness, had completed two long-term rehabilitation stays in two different resocialization centers, and that the Čistý deň, n. o. facility had a positive impact on his health, there was a significant reduction in the indication of psychopharmacological treatment by a psychiatrist, he found a job in the field and feels safe and satisfied in the facility.

The Administrative Court dismissed the administrative action of the client of the resocialization facility due to the absence of his active legal standing.

The Supreme Administrative Court confirmed the position of the Administrative Court that it is not enough if a certain person is affected in his rights only indirectly. In the case in question, the client was affected only through the contractual relationship between him and the entity whose accreditation was withdrawn, which was changed by the cancellation of the accreditation. The decision to cancel the accreditation applies exclusively to the accredited entity and the cancellation of the accreditation had no direct impact on the rights granted by law or the interests of the clients protected by specific legal regulations.

The Supreme Administrative Court stated that it was not necessary for the administrative court to deal specifically with the plaintiff’s interest in the specific content of his personal life, because this interest lacks the protection required by specific positive law. The Supreme Administrative Court pointed out that legally protected interests cannot be identified with any interests of a client of a resocialization center, and certainly not with his personal life situation. For the emergence of active material standing to file an administrative action, it is not sufficient if a certain person is affected by an act of a public administration body only indirectly, for example, in such a way that the act affects the right or obligation of another person (in this case, the resocialization center) and a change in the legal status of this second person changes the possibilities under which the first person can exercise his rights. A legally protected interest within the meaning of Section 3, paragraph 1, letters a), b) and c) of the Code of Administrative Procedure covers situations where the law expressly provides protection for the interest of a certain person, although this interest does not have the character of a right that could be directly enforced against another person. The client’s interest in completing a resocialization stay in a specific resocialization facility of his choice cannot be considered a legally protected interest within the meaning of Section 178, paragraph 1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure.

The Supreme Administrative Court added that the Constitution of the Slovak Republic does not protect private life to such an extent that it would prohibit any change in the conditions of an individual’s private life without his consent, but only by prohibiting unauthorized interference with private life. In the case at hand, it is not possible to establish an unauthorized interference with the private life of a client of a resocialization center, despite the fact that the resocialization center’s accreditation was revoked, the client’s private life changed in certain ways. Such a change occurred only indirectly and on the basis of a legal procedure against another entity – the resocialization center, of which he was a client.

For the reasons stated above, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the cassation complaint as unfounded.

The Supreme Administrative Court adopted this judgment unanimously; no appeal is admissible against it.

The decision was made by the Panel No. 7 of the Supreme Administrative Court, composed of: the President of the Panel JUDr. Jana Martinčeková and the members of the Panel Mgr. Michal Novotný and JUDr. Martin Tiso.