A change in the territory of a cadastral district involves a complex set of legal relationships of both public and private law, and these have an impact on the standing of a local authority in proceedings before an administrative court

On the 12th of December 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, in its judgment Case No. 3Svk/23/2025, annulled the judgment of the Administrative Court in Košice (hereinafter referred to as the “Administrative Court”), by which the Administrative Court had annulled the registration of the boundary change between the cadastral districts of Ľubica and Kežmarok in the Real Estate Cadastre, carried out by the Kežmarok District Office, Cadastral Department (hereinafter referred to as the “District Office”), and remanded the case to the Administrative Court for further proceedings. The court of cassation concluded that Resolution No. 429/2005 of the Government of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter “the Government Resolution”) constituted the relevant public-law basis for the registration of the change in the territory of the cadastral district, by which the district office was bound in the registration proceedings.

In the case at hand, the district office recorded a change to the cadastral territory of the municipality of Ľubica and the city of Kežmarok on the basis of a government resolution. The government resolution in question was issued pursuant to the then-effective provisions of Section 2(5) and (6) of Act No. 369/1990 Coll. on Municipal Administration, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on Municipal Administration”). The government resolution in question was issued pursuant to the then-effective provisions of Section 2(5) and (6) of Act No. 369/1990 Coll. on Municipal Administration, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on Municipal Administration”). In its administrative action, the municipality of Ľubica sought the annulment of the registration of the change in the territories of the cadastral territory, and the administrative court granted the municipality’s claim. The town of Kežmarok filed a cassation appeal against the administrative court’s judgment.

The court of cassation began by noting that a change in the territory of a cadastral area involves a complex set of legal relationships of both public and private law, and that these have an impact on the standing of a local government entity in proceedings before an administrative court. Although the exercise of local government powers is not in itself a subjective right, such a top-down intervention by the state places municipalities in a subordinate position within a vertical relationship, as it determines their rights and obligations. A decision to change the boundaries of a cadastral area results in a municipality gaining or losing property. A change in cadastral boundaries determines the territorial scope of the municipality and defines the territorial basis for the exercise of self-government. Consequently, there is an impact on the municipality’s property rights related to real estate ownership, general property management, tax revenues, and income from lease agreements. A municipality therefore has standing to sue when it alleges that the state or an administrative authority has interfered with its self-governing powers, as these are directly linked to its rights of a subjective nature.

In the case at hand, the administrative court, taking into account the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, Case No. PL. ÚS 19/05 of April 30, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “Constitutional Court ruling”), in which the Constitutional Court found that the provisions of Section 2(5) and (6) of the Act on Municipal Administration were inconsistent with the first sentence of Article 1(1) and Article 67(3) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, stated that the government’s resolution had lost its effect as a result of the aforementioned Constitutional Court ruling.

In the opinion of the court of cassation, the Constitutional Court’s ruling did not have retroactive effect with respect to the government’s resolution, which had been issued at that time on the basis of the valid and effective provisions of the Act on Municipal Administration. The Constitutional Court’s ruling revoked the statutory authority of the Government of the Slovak Republic arising from the provisions in question only pro futuro, not retroactively. The Constitutional Court’s ruling revoked the statutory authority of the Government of the Slovak Republic arising from the provisions in question only pro futuro, not retroactively. By inferring retroactive effects of the Constitutional Court’s ruling also with respect to the government resolution, the administrative court acted contrary to the Constitutional Court’s case law (Constitutional Court ruling, Case No. PL. ÚS 5/2021 of May 12, 2021, or Case No. PL. ÚS 3/2022 of March 2, 2022).

The court of cassation further held that, in general, a government resolution is an internal administrative act, and the government cannot use it to establish, modify, or revoke the subjective rights and obligations of natural and legal persons. In order to have legal effect, the content of a government resolution must be incorporated into a law, another generally binding legal regulation, or an individual administrative act issued pursuant to a law.

The court of cassation therefore stated that the government resolution, which was issued pursuant to the provisions of Section 2(5) and (6) of the Act on Municipal Administration in effect at the time, constituted a certain anomaly both within the legal system and in public administration itself. This resolution contained a decision to alter the territory of municipalities and had an impact on their territorial identity. This resolution contained a decision to alter the territorial boundaries of municipalities and had an impact on their territorial identity. However, it did not contain any administrative or technical defects that would prevent its implementation, meaning that it was both normatively and technically capable of producing legal effects. The court of cassation therefore holds the view that the government resolution constituted a sui generis public-law instrument, and although it was atypical in nature, what is decisive is its effect and not the current legal perspective on its registrability. At the time of its adoption, the government had the authority to decide on this territorial-administrative matter, and the resolution was considered a relevant public-law act. In the registration proceedings, the district office—and in this case, its cadastral department—has a record-keeping role and examines only whether the document is a registrable instrument under the law, whether the document meets the formal requirements for registration, and whether the information in the document is consistent with the cadastral register. In registration proceedings, the district office is bound by the content of the public document and does not act as a supervisory authority over the legality of decisions made by other public authorities. Therefore, the debate conducted by the administrative court regarding doubts about the change in the territory of the cadastral district did not constitute a relevant basis for accepting the conclusions regarding the ineligibility of the registration document for entry.

This decision was adopted unanimously by a panel of the Supreme Administrative Court; no appeal is admissible against it.

The decision was adopted by Panel No. 3 of the Supreme Administrative Court, composed of: President of the Panel JUDr. Michal Dzurdzík, PhD., and Judges JUDr. Katarína Benczová and JUDr. Zuzana Šabová, PhD.