Unless there is an obligation explicitly imposed by law that the plaintiff has violated, it cannot be said that an administrative offense has been committed
On 22th January , 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, in its judgment Case No. 4Stk/17/2025, dismissed the appeal against the annulling judgment of the Administrative Court in Bratislava (hereinafter referred to as the “Administrative Court”) in the matter of reviewing the legality of a decision by the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter referred to as the “Ministry of Justice”), by which the Ministry of Justice found a court-appointed expert witness guilty of committing an administrative offense under Section 27(1)(b) of Act No. 382/2004 Coll. on Experts, Interpreters, and Translators and on Amendments to Certain Acts, as amended, in the version effective through 30th June, 2018 (hereinafter also referred to as the “Act on Experts”), for which the Ministry of Justice imposed a sanction in the form of a monetary fine on the expert witness.
A court-appointed expert witness in the field of handwriting analysis, who is also a clinical and forensic psychologist, prepared an expert report that included a graphological analysis. In administrative proceedings, the expert witness was found guilty of committing an administrative offense and was fined 300 euros because his report, including its attachments, contained formal deficiencies; it was not prepared in accordance with the client’s request; and it lacked a list of references, a description of how new comparative materials were obtained, and a detailed description of the methodology used.
In reviewing the administrative court’s decision, the court of cassation referred to the case law of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic (Constitutional Court ruling, Case No. II. ÚS 476/2016), which states that one of the fundamental principles of criminal punishment is the principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (the principle of legality). This principle encompasses the idea that only the law may define what constitutes a criminal offense and prescribe a penalty for it, as well as the principle that criminal law must not be applied in an expansive manner to the detriment of the accused. The court of cassation held that the administrative court had correctly determined that the Ministry of Justice’s action was unwarranted, since the law did not provide that the conduct of a court-appointed expert constituted an administrative offense for which an appropriate administrative sanction could be imposed. Only conduct whose characteristics are defined by the elements of the offense set forth in the law may be sanctioned, and only a system of sanctions prescribed by law may be applied. Unless the law or another legal regulation imposes an obligation on an expert to list the literature used in the expert opinion or to specify the method of obtaining new comparative materials, no tort liability can be inferred from such conduct. The Ministry of Justice erred in classifying the aforementioned act as an administrative offense under Section 27(1)(b) of the Act on Experts.
The court of cassation concurred with the administrative court’s position that the Ministry of Justice had also incorrectly assessed the issue of the applicable legal provisions at the time the decision was made. If the fine had been imposed under the legal provisions in effect at the time the administrative offense was committed, the outcome would have been more favorable for the court-appointed expert witness. The legal provisions in effect at the time the offense was committed—i.e., pursuant to Section 27(3) of the Act on Experts, as amended and effective through 30th June, 2018—allowed for the imposition of a written reprimand or a monetary fine of up to 1,650 euros. Under the subsequent legal provisions effective as of 1th July, 2018, Section 26(3) of the Act on Experts permitted the imposition of only a fine ranging from 50 euros to 2,000 euros. According to the administrative court, by applying the later legislation, the Ministry of Justice violated the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law provisions, which also applies in the context of administrative sanctions. This is because if several laws come into effect between the time the offense is committed and the judgment is rendered, the criminality of the offense is assessed and the penalty is imposed in accordance with the law that is more favorable to the offender.
The court of cassation considered the administrative court’s legal assessment of the case under review to be correct and in accordance with the law, and found that the administrative court had adequately addressed the matter, had rationally substantiated its reasoning, and had reached the correct factual and legal conclusions; therefore, it dismissed the Ministry of Justice’s cassation appeal as unfounded.
The Supreme Administrative Court issued the judgment unanimously; no appeal is admissible against it.
The decision was rendered by Panel No. 4 of the Supreme Administrative Court, composed of: President of the Panel JUDr. Monika Valašiková, PhD., LL.M. (Judge-rapporteur), Judges Prof. JUDr. PhDr. Peter Potásch, PhD., and JUDr. Vlastimil Pavlikovský.