The public concerned, in the position of a party to the proceedings, is entitled to file an administrative action within two months from the finality of the decision of the administrative authority.

On April 30th, 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, by resolution Case No. 19SVs/7/2024, annulled the resolution of the administrative court and returned the case for further proceedings. The Court concluded that even the concerned public, acting as a party to the proceedings, is entitled to file an administrative action within two months from the finality of the decision of the administrative authority.

The Grand panel of the Supreme Administrative Court ruled in a jurisprudential dispute between cassation panels on the legal question of whether the time limit for filing an administrative action by a claimant in the position of public concerned — regardless of their participation in the administrative proceedings—is always governed solely by Section 181(3) of Act No. 162/2015 Coll., the Code of administrative court procedure, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the ‘APC’); that is, within two months from the finality of the decision of the public administration authority.

The subject of assessment was the timeliness of filing the administrative action. The claimant, acting as concerned public and having participated in the administrative proceedings, filed the administrative action within two months from the finality of the contested decision of the public administration authority. However, the administrative court dismissed the action as late, arguing that for a participant in the proceedings, the time limit for filing an administrative action begins upon notification (delivery) of the decision of the administrative authority, not from its finality.

The Grand panel stated that the relevant legal provisions establish a general requirement formulated by the legislator, according to which the public concerned must file an administrative action within two months from the finality of the decision of the public administration authority, regardless of its participation in the administrative proceedings. This linguistic interpretation is supported by a systematic interpretation of procedural legal regulations and by the legislator’s consistent approach in specifically defining procedural conditions for access to court for the concerned public, irrespective of its participation in the administrative proceedings. This interpretation is also supported by legal scholarship and is not contradicted by the explanatory memorandum. Furthermore, such an interpretative approach is grounded in the constitutional principle of legal certainty and the associated requirement of legal predictability and the legitimate expectations of natural and legal persons that, if they act in a manner anticipated by law, it will lead to consequences that the applicable law associates with such conduct (in the present case: the timeliness of filing an administrative action if it is filed within two months from the finality of the decision of the administrative authority).

According to the opinion of the Grand panel, the view that, in cases where the public concerned becomes a participant in the administrative proceedings, it would be appropriate for them to have the same time limit for filing an administrative action as other participants, cannot be denied its rationality. However, even the argument based on the appropriateness of ensuring equal time for all participants to prepare and file a lawsuit—starting from the delivery of the decision — cannot, by itself, constitute a decisive reason for interpreting a linguistically clear rule set out in Section 181(3) of the APC procedure in a way that would violate other constitutional principles. Such an interpretation could be surprising for members of the concerned public, including the consequence of missing the deadline for filing an administrative action.

The Grand panel concluded that the public concerned, regardless of its participation in the administrative proceedings, is entitled to a two-month period from the finality of the decision of the public administration authority to file an administrative lawsuit. In the case under review, the time limit for filing the lawsuit was therefore met. Consequently, the administrative court, by dismissing the lawsuit as late, ruled based on an incorrect legal assessment of the matter. The Grand Chamber annulled the contested resolution of the administrative court and returned the case for further proceedings.

This decision was adopted unanimously by the Grand panel of the Supreme Administrative Court and is not subject to any legal remedy.

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