The Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic has settled the case of a police officer who, during a routine police operation, committed a particularly gross violation of his oath of office and official discipline

On May 26, 2026, the Supreme Administrative Court, in its judgment Case No. 8Asan/10/2021, dismissed a police officer’s cassation complaint against the judgment of the Regional Court in Bratislava (hereinafter referred to as the “administrative court”) in the matter of reviewing the legality of a decision by the Ministry of the Interior of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter referred to as the “Ministry of the Interior”) to dismiss a police officer from service due to a gross violation of official discipline. While performing his official duties, the police officer, through disproportionate use of force, unlawfully interfered with the rights and personal liberty of others and engaged in conduct that undermined the credibility of the Police Force of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter referred to as the “Police Force”). 

The police officer, as the commander of a motorized emergency patrol unit, stopped a passenger vehicle during a traffic stop and asked the female driver to present her documents and the vehicle’s required equipment. During the stop, he began behaving arrogantly toward the driver, shouted at her, used vulgar language toward her, and invaded her personal space. In response to her subsequent reaction—in which she pushed him away from her immediate proximity—the police officer used physical force and restraints against her, handcuffed her, and then, with the assistance of another patrol that had been called in, escorted her and her daughter to the local police station. After drafting the official record of the arrest, he issued the driver a fixed-amount fine of 10 euros for an alleged misdemeanour, while the driver and her passenger were required to remain at the police station for more than an hour. During the restriction of their personal freedom and the use of coercive measures, the police officer failed to provide the women with any legal instructions as required by law. By a personnel order, the Minister of the Interior dismissed him from the police force for this action, as he unlawfully restricted the women’s personal liberty and conducted the operation against them in violation of the provisions of Section 8(1) and Section 9(1) of Act No. 171/ 1993 on the Police Force, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the “Police Force Act”).

The police officer sought the annulment of the Ministry of the Interior’s decision through an administrative action. He argued, among other things, that he had not committed any act that could be defined as a particularly gross violation of his oath of office and official duties. He disagreed that his continued employment would be detrimental to the important interests of the state service and would constitute serious grounds justifying his dismissal from the police force, especially since he had previously been considered superior in achieving operational results and apprehending offenders.

The Administrative Court upheld the minister’s conclusion that the police officer had acted in violation of the duties of a member of the police force. It noted that a police officer is required to maintain professional discipline and, through his conduct, serve as a role model for other citizens; while performing state service, he is required to observe the rules of professional courtesy and behave decently. They are also required to refrain from any conduct that could undermine the dignity of the police force or jeopardize public trust in it. The Administrative Court ruled that the police officer had violated the fundamental duties of a police officer in a particularly egregious manner, and although he had previously been an exemplary officer, the violation of legal regulations could not be tolerated; the court considered this ruling to be lawful.

The police officer filed a cassation complaint against the Administrative Court’s judgment.

The Cassation Court stayed the proceedings on the cassation complaint due to parallel criminal proceedings against the police officer, in which, according to the Cassation Court, an issue of significance for the Cassation Court’s decision was being addressed—namely, the legality and admissibility of evidence obtained in the criminal proceedings.

After receiving the judgment of the Regional Court in Bratislava, in which the police officer was legally found guilty of the felony of deprivation of personal liberty in a single act concurrently with the misdemeanour of abuse of authority by a public official, The Cassation Court resumed proceedings on the cassation complaint and rendered its judgment.

The Supreme Administrative Court concurred with the conclusions of the administrative court and the minister that the police officer’s conduct during the official intervention grossly deviated from the legal framework available to police officers for the performance of their official duties, and that this intervention was so serious and excessive that retaining the police officer in the police force would be detrimental to the important interests of the civil service.

The Cassation Court, in accordance with the administrative court’s conclusion, emphasized that qualities such as honesty, courage, discipline, and a willingness to devote one’s efforts to protecting the rights and property of citizens are fundamental prerequisites for service in the police force. A police officer who lacks these qualities and acts in a manner contrary to them seriously undermines his or her credibility. The Cassation Court deemed lawful the administrative court’s conclusion that retaining the police officer in active duty would be detrimental to the vital interests of the state service. It is not only the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, the Police Force Act, and related implementing regulations, but also the legitimate expectations of the public that form the legal and ethical foundation for every police officer, in the performance of their profession, to serve as a role model for others through their conduct, and his exemplary conduct, in accordance with legal regulations and the moral standards of society, must be one of the decisive factors enabling others to turn to the police officer with confidence when seeking assistance and protection against unlawful acts by others, or in protecting their lives, health, or public order.

The Cassation Court found no merit in the police officer’s cassation objections. The administrative authorities assessed the police officer’s conduct in a legally sound manner and duly substantiated their decision. It considered the administrative court’s judgment to be based on a correct legal assessment of the case and therefore dismissed the cassation complaint.

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

This decision was rendered by Panel No. 8 of the Supreme Administrative Court, composed of: President of the Panel JUDr. Anita Filová and Panel Members Mgr. Kristína Babiaková and JUDr. Rastislav Dlugoš, PhD. (Judge-rapporteur).