The competent authority is obliged to duly justify the decision not to grant a request for the return of a suspended driving license from the perspective of road safety and traffic flow

On August 15, 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, by judgment case file no. 1Stk/7/2024, changed the judgment of the Administrative Court in Bratislava by annulling the defendant’s measure regarding the non-return of the withheld driving license and returning the case to the defendant for further proceedings. The Cassation Court stated that the current legal regulation imposes on the defendant the obligation to examine the justification for withholding the driving license from the point of view of the safety and smoothness of road traffic throughout the entire period of its withholding. It is therefore necessary to examine a possible request for the return of the withheld driving license from this point of view and to duly justify the decision of the competent authority in this regard.

The plaintiff was stopped by a patrol of the Police Force of the Slovak Republic while driving a motor vehicle and her breath alcohol was measured. Following this fact, her driving license was confiscated on the spot, and the competent authority subsequently issued a decision to confiscate the driving license. After four and a half months, the plaintiff requested the return of her driving license, arguing that the reasons for its confiscation had ceased to exist. She had not driven since the confiscation of her driving license, had not committed any offense, had undergone a psychiatric examination to determine alcohol dependence, and had also pointed out that during the 16 years of holding a driving license, she had not committed any offense or crime related to alcohol. The defendant did not grant the plaintiff’s request for the return of her driving license by issuing a measure. The Administrative Court dismissed the plaintiff’s action against the defendant’s measure.

The Cassation Court, examining the case in question, referred to Section 70(6) of the Road Traffic Act and stated that this provision imposes an obligation on the competent authorities, at every stage of proceedings concerning an administrative or criminal offence for which a penalty or sanction of a ban on driving a motor vehicle may be imposed, to examine the justification for the provisional suspension of a driving licence from the point of view of the safety and smooth running of road traffic. It is the criterion of safety and smooth running of road traffic that is decisive in the competent authority’s correct consideration of whether to return the suspended driving licence or not. The suspension of a driving licence under Section 70(1)(a) and (3) of the Road Traffic Act is a security measure that is not intended to fulfil a punitive but a protective function.

The criteria relevant to the assessment of the justification for the duration of the suspension of a driving licence, in the opinion of the Cassation Court, may relate to (i) the nature of the act and the circumstances of its commission, (ii) the person whose driving licence was suspended, (iii) the length of the proceedings in connection with the course of which the driving licence is suspended and (iv) other relevant circumstances, if applicable. The competent authority is obliged to justify its reasoning. The mere fact that proceedings are being conducted regarding an act for which a penalty or sanction of a ban on driving a motor vehicle may be imposed is not, in the opinion of the Cassation Court, a fact that would in itself constitute a reason for the further suspension of the driving licence during these proceedings. If, before the relevant proceedings have been legally concluded, it is established that the reasons for the further suspension from the point of view of road safety and smooth traffic do not exist or have ceased to exist, the driving licence must be returned in accordance with Section 70(6) of the Road Traffic Act.

Applying the above legal considerations, the Cassation Court concluded that the defendant should have examined the facts in the plaintiff’s case that may be relevant from the point of view of the existence and duration of reasons for the protection of road safety and the smooth flow of traffic, whether there had been any change in circumstances between the detention and the issuance of the decision to withhold the driver’s license, and properly substantiated his correct reasoning. However, such reasoned correct reasoning is absent from the defendant’s measure, while the facts stated by the plaintiff could have been relevant facts in the context of assessing the reasonableness of the detention of the driver’s license from the point of view of road safety and the smooth flow of traffic.

For these reasons, the Cassation Court ruled that the contested judgment of the Administrative Court is based on an incorrect legal assessment of the case and the defendant’s measure is unreviewable due to incomprehensibility or lack of reasons. Therefore, it changed the contested judgment of the Administrative Court by annulling the defendant’s measure and returning the case to the defendant for further proceedings.

This judgment was adopted by the Supreme Administrative Court unanimously, no appeal is admissible against it.

This decision was made by Panel No. 1 of the Supreme Administrative Court, composed of: President of the Panel JUDr. Jana Hatalová, PhD., LL.M. and members of the Panel JUDr. Katarína Cangárová, PhD., LL.M. (judge rapporteur) and JUDr. Marián Fečík.