The Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic has upheld the imposition of a fine on the company for violating Act on Consumer Protection by unsolicited activation and charging for a premium television package

On July 17, 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the company’s cassation complaint by judgment No. 3Stk/12/2023 in the case concerning a fine imposed for violating the prohibition on requesting payment from a consumer for a service they did not order.

The company operating television broadcasting activated a premium television package for its clients – consumers – without their request during a specified period. Subsequently, the company informed consumers via email that if they did not deactivate the premium package, a specified fee would be charged. After the free period of providing the premium package ended, the company issued invoices to four consumers and requested payment. The Central Inspectorate of the Slovak Trade Inspection (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Central Inspectorate’) imposed a fine of €32,000 on the company for violating Section 4(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, and the Regional Court in Bratislava (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Administrative Court’) dismissed the company’s administrative lawsuit against the decision to impose the fine.

Within the scope of the company’s objections, the Supreme Administrative Court examined the moment at which the prohibition on requesting or accepting payment from a consumer for a service or digital content delivered without being ordered was violated. According to the Supreme Administrative Court’s opinion, the unsolicited delivery of the service occurred when the company activated the premium television package. Since the company informed consumers via email that payment would be required unless the service was deactivated, the email itself constituted a request for payment for an unsolicited service, thereby violating Section 4(11) of the Act on Consumer Protection.

The Supreme Administrative Court also assessed whether the amount of the fine was properly justified. It stated that both the Central Inspectorate and the Administrative Court provided a proper and thorough justification for the imposed sanction. In the opinion of the Supreme Administrative Court, the amount of the fine was also appropriate.

For these reasons, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the company’s cassation complaint, thereby upholding both the dismissive judgment of the administrative court and the correctness of the decision issued by the Central Inspectorate.

This decision was adopted unanimously by the panel of the Supreme Administrative Court and is not subject to appeal.

The decision was rendered by Panel No. 3 of the Supreme Administrative Court, composed of: President of the Panel JUDr. Katarína Benczová, and Judges JUDr. Eva Vékonyová and JUDr. Zuzana Šabová, PhD.