Legal principles stated by the Court approved by the Plenary of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic at its session on 16th April 2026

20.04.2026
News and press releases

The Supreme Administrative Court publishes the legal headnotes of judicial decisions approved for publication in the Collection of Opinions and Decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic at the plenary session on 16 April 2026.

  1. keywords: material need; dependent child

    A child older than 25 years of age who is preparing for a future profession, and thus a jointly assessed person under Section 3, paragraph 1, letter f) of Act No. 417/2013 Coll. on assistance in material need, as amended, may only be a child who is not yet able to support himself and for whom the parents’ maintenance obligation continues due to his preparation. On the contrary, a child older than 25 years of age who has already acquired the ability to support himself by completing preparation for a future profession is not a jointly assessed person under this provision, even if he is studying at a university full-time again.

    [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic Case No. 7 Ssk 41/2024 of 29th January 2025: President of the Panel Michal Novotný (Judge-rapporteur), members of the Panel JUDr. Jana Martinčeková and JUDr. Martin Tiso]

  2. keywords: old-age pension

    For the assessment of a substitute period pursuant to Section 9(1)(k) of Act No. 100/1988 Coll. on Social Security, the decisive objective circumstance is whether a person is or is not largely or completely helpless within the meaning of Section 36 of Decree No. 149/1988 Coll. implementing the Act on Social Security. The Social Insurance Agency must thus assess whether the person’s state of health is such that that he or she requires assistance with the actions described in these provisions. If the decision states only that “according to the data of the Social Insurance Agency” the person is not helpless, its reasoning does not comply with Section 209(4) of Act No. 461/2003 Coll. on Social Insurance and is unreviewable for lack of reasons.

    [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic Case No. 7 Ssk 102/2024 of 28th May 2025: President of the Panel Michal Novotný (Judge-rapporteur), members of the Panel JUDr. Jana Martinčeková and JUDr. Petra Vysaníková]

  3. keywords: service pension

    If the provision of Section 68(16) of Act No. 328/2002 Coll. on Social Security of Police Officers and Soldiers refers to an increase by the “percentage of increase in pension benefits established in general regulations on social insurance for the calendar year”, this is understood as the percentage determined until 31 December 2023 pursuant to Section 82(1) and from 1 January 2024 pursuant to Section 82(1)(a) of Act No. 461/2003 Coll. on Social Insurance, i.e. the percentage of year-on-year growth in consumer prices for pensioner households reported by the Statistical Office for the first nine months of the calendar year preceding the year in which the benefits are increased. Pursuant to Section 68(1) of Act No. 328/2002 Coll., the service pension paid until 30 June of that year shall be increased by the percentage determined in this manner as of 1 July of the calendar year. On the contrary, for the purposes of the cited Section 68(16) of this Act, the provision of Section 82(1)(b) and (2) of Act No. 461/2003 Coll. effective from 1 January 2024, nor the provision of Section 293fzc of this Act effective from 1 July 2023, cannot be applied.

    [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, Case No. 7 Ssk 27/2025 of 26 June 2025: President of the Panel Michal Novotný (Judge-rapporteur), members of the Panel JUDr. Jana Martinčeková and JUDr. Petra Vysaníková]

  4. keywords: material need

    The Office of Labour, Social Affairs and Family, by a decision which increases assistance in material need from a certain date by the amount of its previous reduction within the meaning of Section 10(3) of Act No. 417/2013 Coll. on Material Need Assistance, does not only decide on the amount of this assistance, but simultaneously also on the fact that the grounds for this reduction ceased to exist precisely as of the date on which it increased the assistance. Therefore, in the appeal proceedings against this decision, the Central Office of Labour, Social Affairs and Family must examine whether the grounds for this reduction existed until that date (i.e., whether they had not ceased earlier), especially if the recipient raises such an objection in the appeal. If it refuses to address these grounds, it violates the provision of Section 59(1) of the Administrative Procedure Code.

    [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, Case No. 7 Ssk 37/2025 of 30th July 2025: President of the Panel Michal Novotný (Judge-rapporteur), members of the Panel JUDr. Jana Martinčeková and JUDr. Petra Vysaníková]

  5. keywords: employment

    1. The Regulation of the Minister of the Interior of the Slovak Republic No. 103/2005 of 14th December 2005, published in the Official Gazette of the Ministry of the Interior of the Slovak Republic, is not a generally binding legal regulation of the Ministry within the meaning of Article 123 of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic.
    2. When Act No. 73/1998 Coll. does not grant the authorities acting in matters of a service relationship (pursuant to Sections 231 to 247a of this Act) the powers to compel a third party to submit a statement or produce a document, even though they were essential for the taking of evidence, this may constitute an important reason for the administrative court, upon the plaintiff’s motion, to obtain such a statement (testimony) or document itself and examine it as evidence pursuant to Section 119 of the Administrative Court Code.

    [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, Case No. 7 Ssk 43/2025 of 30 July 2025: President of the Panel Michal Novotný (Judge-rapporteur), members of the Panel JUDr. Jana Martinčeková and JUDr. Petra Vysaníková]

  6. keywords: expulsion of a student from studies at a university; agreement on the provision of higher education to a foreign student

    The annulment of the decision on the exclusion of a student from studies at a university results in a situation where his studies – as a public law relationship – have been renewed and can only be completed in the ways defined by law, namely properly (Section 65 of the Higher Education Act) or otherwise (Section 66 of the Higher Education Act).

    [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, Case No. 8 Svk 13/2023 of 30th April 2025: President of the Panel JUDr. Anita Filová (Judge-rapporteur), members of the Panel Mgr. Kristína Babiaková and JUDr. Rastislav Dlugoš, PhD.]

  7. keywords: environmental impact assessment

    The subject of assessment pursuant to Section 4(1) and (2) of Act No. 24/2006 Coll. on Environmental Impact Assessment (interpreted in accordance with EU law) is only such a strategic document that contains, among other things, the definition of rules and procedures for the permitting, approving or execution of one or more projects.

    [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, Case No. 8 Svk 13/2024 of 19th June 2025: President of the Panel JUDr. Anita Filová (Judge-rapporteur), members of the Panel Mgr. Kristína Babiaková and JUDr. Rastislav Dlugoš, PhD.]

  8. keywords: banking activity; state aid; disclosure of information

    Financial assistance provided by the Ministry of Finance of the Slovak Republic through the Export-Import Bank of the Slovak Republic to its clients pursuant to Section 25(1) and (2) of Act No. 67/2020 Coll. on Certain Extraordinary Measures in the Financial Sector in Connection with the Spread of the Dangerous Contagious Human Disease COVID-19 cannot be classified under banking secrecy within the meaning of Section 8(1) of Act No. 211/2000 Coll. on Free Access to Information.

    [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, Case No. 8 Svk 13/2025 of 19 June 2025: President of the Panel Mgr. Kristína Babiaková (Judge-rapporteur), members of the Panel JUDr. Anita Filová and Judge JUDr. Rastislav Dlugoš, PhD.]

  9. Keywords: free access to information; stay of proceedings; cessation of the ground for continuing the proceedings

    1. The provision of Section 101 of the Administrative Court Code, which regulates the mechanism of satisfaction of the plaintiff by issuing a new decision, measure, or performing another act, can only be applied while maintaining identity with the subject of judicial review.
    2. If it is clear from all the circumstances of the case at hand that a change in the legal status of the plaintiff can no longer occur by issuing a decision on the merits, because the consequences of the public administration authority’s action were removed during the administrative judicial proceedings, the purpose of the administrative judicial proceedings has been fulfilled and the administrative court does not need to issue a decision on the merits.

    [Resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, Case No. 2 Svk 23/2024 of 29th October 2025: President of the Panel prof. JUDr. Juraj Vačok, PhD. (Judge-rapporteur), members of the Panel JUDr. Elena Berthotyová, PhD. and JUDr. Marián Trenčan]

  10. Keywords: asylum; subsidiary protection; family reunification; subsequent application; persecution; assessment of religious grounds

    A real threat of persecution must be individually proven and realistically foreseeable.

    [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, Case No. 2 Sak 4/2025 of 31 July 2025: President of the Panel JUDr. Elena Berthotyová, PhD. (Judge-rapporteur), members of the Panel JUDr. Marián Trenčan and prof. JUDr. Juraj Vačok, PhD.]

  11. Keywords: non-extension of subsidiary protection; SIS opinion

    Information from intelligence services (SIS and Military Intelligence) cannot be “merely an expression of the author’s opinion”, without a proper factual basis recorded in the file and verifiable by a court. Both the defendant and the administrative courts must have the opportunity to assess the credibility and persuasiveness of such intelligence information. It is not enough to just present a story, but it must be supported by specific data that make it believable.

    [Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, Case No. 2 Sak 5/2025 of 26th September 2025: President of the Panel JUDr. Elena Berthotyová, PhD. (Judge-rapporteur), members of the Panel JUDr. Marián Trenčan and prof. JUDr. Juraj Vačok, PhD.]