{"id":87510,"date":"2026-05-20T14:24:50","date_gmt":"2026-05-20T12:24:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/?p=87510"},"modified":"2026-06-29T08:54:30","modified_gmt":"2026-06-29T06:54:30","slug":"using-a-telephone-while-driving-also-includes-holding-the-telephone-and-using-any-of-its-functions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/using-a-telephone-while-driving-also-includes-holding-the-telephone-and-using-any-of-its-functions\/","title":{"rendered":"Using a telephone while driving also includes holding the telephone and using any of its functions"},"content":{"rendered":"

On January 22nd, 2026, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, in its judgment Case No. 4Stk\/15\/2025, dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court in Bratislava (hereinafter referred to as the \u201cAdministrative Court\u201d) in the matter of judicial review of the decision of the Regional Police Directorate in Bratislava, Regional Traffic Inspectorate, which found the driver of the vehicle guilty of committing an offense against road traffic safety and flow by using a telephone while operating a motor vehicle. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the use of a telephone, within the meaning of Section 4(2)(m) of Act No. 8\/2009 Coll. on Road Traffic and on Amendments to Certain Acts, as in effect at the time the offense was committed (hereinafter referred to as the \u201cRoad Traffic Act\u201d), also includes picking up a telephone device and holding it in one\u2019s hand or manipulating the telephone device.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The driver of the vehicle was found guilty of committing an offense on the grounds that, as a road traffic participant, he violated Section 4(2)(m) of the Road Traffic Act when, on February 16, 2016, at approximately 8:59 p.m., he was driving a motor vehicle on the highway in Bratislava, where he used a telephone while driving. For this traffic violation, the first-instance administrative authority imposed a fine of 30 euros and ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings in the amount of 16 euros. In issuing its decision, the Regional Traffic Inspectorate took into account, above all, the testimony of witnesses\u2014members of the Slovak Police Force\u2014who unanimously stated that, through the right front window on the passenger side, they observed the driver holding a cell phone with the screen lit in his right hand. The driver pointed out that the term \u201cusing a mobile phone\u201d is not the same as \u201cholding a mobile phone in one\u2019s hand\u201d and claimed that he was merely holding the phone and was not operating it in a prohibited manner.<\/p>\n

In the opinion of the administrative court, the term \u201cusing a telephone device\u201d encompasses both holding a telephone device and actively using its functions. According to the administrative court, the driver\u2019s conduct met the elements of the traffic violation specified in Section 4(2)(m) of the Road Traffic Act. In response to the driver\u2019s objections that the decision was based solely on the testimony of members of the Slovak Police Force, and that there was no video or audio recording proving that the offense had been committed, the administrative court explained that in cases where no such recording of the incident exists, the testimony of police officers may in and of itself constitute credible evidence without the need to present additional evidence.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Administrative Court found no reason to depart from the arguments and legal conclusions of the administrative court. The driver argued, among other things, that at the time the Road Traffic Act was enacted, cell phones looked different, were heavy, and were handled differently. According to the driver, the legislature\u2019s intent was not to penalize the mere holding of a telephone device without making a phone call, and therefore, by the term \u201cuse of a telephone device,\u201d the legislature could only have meant making a call, since at the time the Road Traffic Act was enacted, this device could not be used for any other activities. The Supreme Administrative Court, in agreement with the Administrative Court, did not accept the driver\u2019s argument, because at the time the Road Traffic Act was enacted, smartphones were already commonplace and, in addition to making phone calls, were used for other activities, just as they are today.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Administrative Court stated that a driver is required to refrain from any conduct that would impair his or her ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. Above all, a driver is required to focus on driving and monitor traffic conditions. The unquestionable purpose of the statutory prohibition under Section 4(2)(m) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent a driver operating a motor vehicle from engaging in activities that distract their attention and impair their concentration while driving. The legislature has strictly stipulated that a driver may only make phone calls while driving using a \u201chands-free\u201d system. It is prohibited to pick up the phone, hold it, or activate its display. A driver who uses a phone while holding it in their hand reduces their reaction time and their ability to respond immediately to any changes in traffic conditions. As a result, road safety is compromised and the risk of collisions increases, as the driver\u2014whose attention is thus distracted\u2014may not be able to react adequately. In this case, this manifested itself in the vehicle swerving from side to side and crossing lanes.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that it is not decisive whether the driver was making a call, sending a text message, or performing some other action with the phone; rather, what is important is the fact that the driver was holding the phone while driving, which impaired his ability to drive and reduced his attention.<\/p>\n

Based on the foregoing, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the cassation appeal.<\/p>\n

This judgment was adopted unanimously by the Supreme Administrative Court; no further legal remedy is admissible against it.<\/p>\n

The decision was rendered by Panel No. 4 of the Supreme Administrative Court, composed of: President of the Panel JUDr. Monika Vala\u0161ikov\u00e1, PhD., LL.M., and Judges Prof. JUDr. PhDr. Peter Pot\u00e1sch, PhD., and JUDr. Vlastimil Pavlikovsk\u00fd (Judge-rapporteur).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On January 22nd, 2026, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, in its judgment Case No. 4Stk\/15\/2025, dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court in Bratislava (hereinafter referred to as the \u201cAdministrative Court\u201d) in the matter of judicial review of the decision of the Regional Police Directorate in Bratislava, Regional Traffic […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":103,"featured_media":49383,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[73,79,82],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-87510","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-press-release","category-cassation-decisions","category-administrative-agenda"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t