When is a time-barred insurance premium—which the payer paid to the Social Insurance Agency after it was legally assessed—considered to have been paid without legal grounds?

On March 25, 2026, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, in its judgment Case No. 7Ssk/115/2025, amended the administrative court’s judgment by overturning the decisions of the Social Insurance Agency, which had denied the premium payer’s (a physician’s) request for a refund of premiums paid, and remanded the case to the Social Insurance Agency for further proceedings. The Supreme Administrative Court held that if the premium payer validly objected to the statute of limitations on the right to assess premiums but, at the same time, paid the premiums as a result of the commencement of enforcement proceedings, such premiums were paid without legal ground and must be refunded by the Social Insurance Agency.

The Social Insurance Agency did not accept the payer’s statute of limitations objection, lawfully assessed the premiums, and initiated enforcement of the decision, upon which the payer paid the premiums. At the same time, she filed an administrative action against the Social Insurance Agency’s decision, in which she maintained her statute of limitations objection, and the administrative court ruled in her favour. Subsequently, the Social Insurance Agency issued a new decision suspending the proceedings regarding the assessment of premiums; however, it refused to refund the premiums paid, arguing that the payer had voluntarily paid an existing (although time-barred) debt. The Administrative Court concurred with this view and therefore dismissed the payer’s administrative action.

The Supreme Administrative Court considered the decisive legal issue to be whether premiums paid under circumstances such as those in which the payer acted constitute premiums paid without legal grounds within the meaning of Section 145(1) of the Social Insurance Act. Therefore, to hear the cassation complaint, it scheduled a hearing at which it gave the parties ample opportunity to comment on the matter and adjourned the announcement of the decision by two weeks.

In its judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court agreed that the Social Insurance Agency’s claim had not been terminated by the statute of limitations on the right to assess premiums, so that the premium received in satisfaction of that claim is not, as a matter of course, a premium received without legal grounds. However, the provision of Section 145(1) of the Social Insurance Act does not require that the premiums be received without legal grounds, but rather that they be paid without legal grounds. In assessing whether there was a legal ground for the payment, the perspective of the debtor (the person obligated to pay or remit premiums) is more relevant than that of the creditor (the Social Insurance Agency). The purpose of the statute of limitations on the right to assess premiums is to prevent the Social Insurance Agency from using its public authority to assess premiums to compel the premium payer to pay them. If the payer actively objected to being compelled to pay by raising the statute of limitations objection and only decided to pay after the premiums had been legally assessed, without simultaneously withdrawing her objection (on the contrary, she continued to assert it through an administrative action), then even the Social Insurance Agency could not regard this payment as an expression of voluntary fulfillment of its time-barred claim. On the contrary, in such a case, it must have been clear to the Social Insurance Agency that the payer intended, through the payment, to comply with a legally binding and enforceable decision that compelled her to pay the assessed debt, thereby averting the threat of its enforced collection.

From this, The Cassation Court concluded that if the premium payer had duly raised a well-founded statute of limitations objection against the assessment of the premium—which the Social Insurance Agency did not accept—and the Agency nevertheless lawfully (and enforceably) assessed the premium, whereupon the payer paid the assessed premium, it was not a premium paid voluntarily due to the existence of a claim by the Social Insurance Agency. On the contrary, it was a premium paid solely to comply with enforcement in the form of a legally binding and enforceable decision and to avert its potential consequences. Although this payment led to the expiration of the Social Insurance Agency’s claim, as soon as the administrative court overturned its decision on the grounds that the right to assess the premiums had become time-barred, this enforcement can no longer be considered a legal basis for payment. Therefore, if the payer made such a payment involuntarily, she did so without legal grounds and was entitled to a refund of these premiums pursuant to Section 145(1) of the Social Insurance Act. The mere fact that the claim for insurance premiums has since been extinguished by payment does not prevent the Social Insurance Agency from assessing and recognizing the previously raised statute of limitations objection in subsequent proceedings. This is because the revocation of a final decision on the assessment of premiums and the emergence of a claim for a refund of premiums under Section 145(1) of the Social Insurance Act mean that the claim must be reconsidered as if it had not been extinguished by payment.

This decision was adopted unanimously by the Panel of the Supreme Administrative Court; no appeal is admissible against it.

The decision was rendered by Panel No. 7 of the Supreme Administrative Court, composed of: the President of the Panel Mgr. Michal Novotný and Panel members JUDr. Jana Martinčeková and JUDr. Eva Vékonyová.