The Grand panel respects the competence of the Competence panel to decide on questions of competence and the precedential binding nature of its decisions

The Grand panel of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic on April 30, 2025, by ruling Case No. 19SVs/5/2024, returned the case to the 8S Panel of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic for a decision. It expressed respect for the precedential binding nature of the decisions of the Competence panel on competence issues and the absence of its authority to overturn or confirm the related legal conclusions of the Competence panel.

The Grand panel of the Supreme Administrative Court was faced with the dilemma of whether and how to decide a question of competence, the resolution of which gave rise to a dispute between the cassation panels. It found that such a question of competence had already been addressed in its decision-making by the Competence panel of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic and Supreme Administrative Court.

In its argument, it pointed out the fact that case law and practice distinguish between two basic types of binding force of decisions of the highest courts, namely precedential (judicial) binding force and cassation (instance) binding force, while in practice the same decision may have the characteristics of both types of binding force. Based on the provisions of Section 18(4) of Act No. 162/2015 Coll. on the Administrative Procedure Code, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the “APC”), the Grand panel stated that the decision of the Competence panel on the resolved competence issue exceeds the effects inter partes and has a precedential effect on all identical or similar cases pro futuro. The decision of the Competence panel is binding not only for the courts that have come into procedural contact with the disputed issue (i.e. the courts hearing a specific disputed matter), but also for all courts that have been or will be presented with the same disputed competence issue for hearing and decision in the future. Otherwise, the institutional anchoring of the Competence panel and its operation on the procedural boundary between general and administrative justice would lose its meaning.

The decisions of the Grand panel and the Competence panel thus have similar binding force or similar effects. The Grand panel therefore expressed respect for the competence of the Competence panel to decide on disputes over competence and for the mutual coexistence of these two judicial bodies, unifying their decision-making activity.

Taking into account the equivalent precedential binding nature of the decisions of the Competence panel and the Grand panel, considering the principles of legal certainty and foreseeability of law contained in the need for constitutionally compliant interpretation, it therefore concluded that the legal opinion expressed in the decision of the Competence panel should not be “overturned” or “confirmed” by the decision of the Grand panel of the Supreme Administrative Court in the context of assessing a preliminary question. In other words, the decisions of the Competence panel and the Grand panel are of a similar nature, which means that if a certain legal question has already been assessed by the Competence panel in relation to the jurisdiction of the court, it is not necessary (even if the reasons given in Section 22(1) of the APC are met) to submit it to the Grand panel for a decision. The Competence panel and the Grand panel do not act as competitors, but as partners, and mutual respect between these highest panel bodies of the supreme courts, including the acceptance of the decision-making of the Competence panel by the Grand panel, should be an immanent part of judicial culture, or legal practice in general.

The Grand panel is not considered to be an entity that the legislator intended to alternate, supplement or revise the decisions and legal opinions of the Competence Chamber contained therein, if the disputed issue does not deviate from the definitional framework of a dispute of competence. Since in the case in question the disputed legal issue was by its nature a dispute of competence, which was decided by the Competence panel, and the Cassation panels are bound by such a decision, the Grand panel concluded that the case should be returned to the referring Panel, whose task will be to decide the case on the merits.

This decision was adopted by the Grand panel of the Supreme Administrative Court unanimously, and no appeal is admissible against it.

The decision was made by the Grand panel of the Supreme Administrative Court, composed of: President of the Panel JUDr. Marián Trenčan and members of the Panel JUDr. Petra Príbelská, PhD., JUDr. Marián Fečík, Prof. JUDr. PhDr. Peter Potásch, PhD., JUDr. Anita Filová, Mgr. Kristína Babiaková and JUDr. Rastislav Dlugoš, PhD.