The aim of the procedure for the correction of errors in the cadastral register is to ensure consistency between the factual and legal situation

Correction of errors in the cadastral register is a specific legal institute, the aim and purpose of which is to ensure consistency between the factual and legal situation, and thus to ensure legal certainty and legality. The prerequisite for the cadastral administration to act in accordance with Section 59(1)(a) of the Cadastral Act (in the version in force until 30 September 2018), i.e. to carry out a correction even without an application for correction of the cadastral data, is that the cadastral data contradict a public document or another document or the results of an investigation into changes in the cadastral data or the results of a revision of the cadastral data. A contradiction between the cadastral data and a public document is also a situation in which the cadastral administration has recorded only part of its data, resulting in an incomplete record.

The Cadastral Department of the District Office decided in the matter of termination of the procedure for correction of the error in the cadastral register, which concerned the transformation of the decision of the Council of the District National Committee (hereinafter also referred to as the “Council of the DNC”) from 1960 into the cadastral register, which should have decided on the separation of the settlement Gomboš from the cadastral territory of the municipality Perín-Chym and its annexation to the cadastral territory of the municipality Veľká Ida.

The subject of the municipality’s cassation complaint was the judgment of the Administrative Court in Košice (Case No KE-6S 175/2018 of 31 January 2024), which did not consider the procedure for the transformation of the decision of the Council of the DNC into the cadastral records to be a procedure for the correction of an error in the cadastral records. The Administrative Court considered the decision of the Council of the DNC itself to be incomplete and defective, since it did not even contain a geometrical plan including the geodetic definition of the area of the settlement in question, which should have rendered the decision unrecordable in the cadastral records.

In his cassation complaint, the complainant argued, inter alia, that the decision of the Council of the DNC, which also dealt with the annexation of the settlement to the cadastral territory of the complainant, had already been accepted by the cadastre and that, on the basis of the decision, the new municipalities had been created. The complainant also argued that the reasoning that the settlement in question was a settlement without a cadastral territory was not entirely correct, referring to the resolution of the Council of the Regional National Committee of 1960, on the basis of which other ‘settlements’ had been annexed to other municipalities in that way, a legal situation which is still accepted and considered as lawful today.

The Court of Cassation finds that the judgment of the Administrative Court is based on an error of law. In the present case, it is possible to use the procedure for the correction of an error, since a prerequisite for the procedure of the cadastral administration pursuant to Section 59(1)(a) of the Cadastral Act (as in force until 30 September 2018) is that an error is corrected if the data in the cadastre contradict a public document or another document, or the results of an investigation into changes to the cadastral data, or the results of a revision of the cadastral data. A contradiction of cadastral data with a public document shall also be understood as this situation where the cadastral administration has entered only part of its data, which has resulted in its incomplete and therefore incorrect entry. The Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic stated that in the present case, due to the existence of a decision with constitutive effects, it was an objection of mootness and not a real dispute. The cadastral data contradicted the public deed in question, it was an erroneous registration, and therefore it was appropriate to use the institute of proceedings for correction of an error in the cadastral register pursuant to Section 59(1)(a) of the Cadastral Act (as in force until 30 September 2018).

The resolution of the Council of the DNC can therefore be considered a public document with constitutive effects, since this decision has not been revoked in the manner prescribed by law, thus producing legal effects which are binding on all the entities concerned. The interpretation by the Administrative Court of that act, that it may be regarded as a null and void act, is not, in the opinion of the Court of Cassation, convincingly reasoned and interpreted. Similarly, the conclusions on the impossibility of identifying the boundaries of the settlement in question in the absence of a geometrical plan in the resolution of the Council of the DNC appeared to the Court of Cassation to be incorrect, in the light of the existing documents in the file, which, according to the administrative court, were not properly dealt with in its decision on the merits.

On the basis of the above, the cassation panel decided to annul the judgment of the Administrative Court in Košice and to remand the case for a new decision after a thorough examination and evaluation of all the relevant evidence, the Administrative Court being bound by the legal opinion of the Court of the Cassation.

No remedy shall be allowed against this judgment.

The decision of the panel was adopted by 3 votes to 0.

On 27th February 2025, the Panel No. 3 of the Supreme Administrative Court, composed of: the President of the Panel, JUDr. Michal Dzurdzík, PhD. and members of the Panel JUDr. Katarína Benczová and JUDr. Zuzana Šabová, PhD, decided on the cassation complaint lodged under Case No. 3 Svk 12/2024.