The Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic ruled based on the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the substantive interpretation and application of the lex mitior principle
On 11th February 2026, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court, by judgment Case No. 1SVs/2/2022, amended the judgment of the Regional Court in Bratislava (hereinafter referred to as the “administrative court”) by quashing the decision of the National Labour Inspectorate as well as the Labour Inspectorate Bratislava, and remitted the case back to the Labour Inspectorate Bratislava for further proceedings. In the case at hand, the Supreme Administrative Court referred preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, regarding both its scope and the substantive interpretation of the scope and application of the lex mitior principle contained therein, asking whether a panel of the court of cassation is obliged to take into account a change in legislation in favour of the offender that occurred during the cassation proceedings, i.e., after the decision of the administrative court was issued.
A fine of 200 euros was imposed on the driver of the vehicle for committing an offense by driving a vehicle transporting concrete equipped with a recording device that lacked a valid periodic inspection.
Both the driver and his employer – the company BAJI Trans, s. r. o. – challenged the decision by filing an administrative lawsuit with the administrative court. The administrative court rejected the employer’s lawsuit, arguing that only the driver was charged with the offense and the employer, as the owner of the vehicle, lacked standing. to bring the proceedings. The driver argued that the administrative offense proceedings should not have taken place at all, because the concrete transport vehicle should have been exempt from the scope of vehicles required to use recording equipment (tachographs). He sought to have the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic declare that the Ministry of Transport and Construction of the Slovak Republic failed to fulfill its obligation to grant an exemption from the Regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council of the EU for vehicles transporting concrete, thereby harming entrepreneurs and violating the principle of equality. The administrative court dismissed the driver’s lawsuit as unfounded, stating that the powers regarding exemptions are merely an option, not an obligation for a Member State, and it is up to the Member State whether to adopt exemptions in the relevant national legislation, which had not occurred at the time of the proceedings.
Both the driver of the vehicle and his employer filed a cassation complaint against the judgment of the administrative court. During the cassation proceedings, the obligation to equip vehicles used for the delivery of ready-mixed concrete with a tachograph was abolished, following the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15th July 2020 amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 as regards minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 as regards positioning by means of tachographs.
The panel of the court of cassation assessed whether it was obliged to take into account a change in legislation in favour of the offender of a misdemeanour or an administrative offense that occurred during the cassation proceedings, or after the decision of the administrative court was issued. The referring panel did not agree that a later, more favourable legislation for the offender of a misdemeanour should be applied in the cassation proceedings if the change in legislation occurred only after the date of the decision of the administrative court. The panel of the court of cassation referred the case to the Grand Panel due to the existence of a dissenting legal opinion expressed in the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. 2 Asan 6/2019, dated 27 October 2021.
The Grand Panel of the Supreme Administrative Court, within its decision-making process, concluded that in order to resolve the disputed legal issue, it was necessary to submit a reference for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU, as the decision in the case at hand, where EU law was applied, required an interpretation of the lex mitior principle contained in Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
The Grand Chamber of the CJEU decided on the preliminary questions of the Grand Panel of the Supreme Administrative Court by its judgment in Case C-544/23 dated 1st August 2025 (The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on a case concerning the lex mitior principle – Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic).
The Grand Panel of the Supreme Administrative Court, after receiving the answers to the preliminary questions, assessed the conclusion reached by the CJEU that if the national court were to conclude that the administrative fine imposed on the driver was of a criminal nature, this court would be obliged to apply in his case the more favourable legislation within the meaning of the last sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, namely Section 2(2) of Act No. 461/2007 Coll. in conjunction with Regulation No. 2020/1054, regardless of the fact that this legislation entered into force only after the decision of the administrative court, which is considered final under national law, whereby this obligation is not affected by the fact that the referring national court is obliged to decide taking into account the situation at the time of the issuance/promulgation of that decision.
According to the Grand Panel of the Supreme Administrative Court, the imposed fine served a punitive purpose and was of a criminal nature. The Grand Panel of the court of cassation confirmed that although the driver had a statutory obligation to use a tachograph at the time the fine was imposed, this obligation subsequently ceased to apply to these vehicles. During the cassation proceedings, this demonstrably led to the adoption of a more favourable legislation in favour of the driver, consisting in a change in the qualification of the act, which must be taken into account. The act under consideration is no longer a misdemeanour, and therefore it will be necessary to stay the administrative proceedings.
This decision was adopted unanimously by the panel of the Supreme Administrative Court; no remedy is admissible against it.
The decision was rendered by the Grand Panel of the Supreme Administrative Court consisting of: President of the Panel JUDr. Marián Trenčan, and Judges JUDr. Elena Berthotyová, PhD., JUDr. Marián Fečík, Prof. JUDr. PhDr. Peter Potásch, PhD., JUDr. Petra Príbelská, PhD., JUDr. Anita Filová (Judge-rapporteur), and JUDr. Juraj Vališ, LL.M.