Key facts of the case:

The plaintiff petitioned the defendant with his application to temporarily remove the car from the official registry of vehicles pursuant to Article 119a of the Act No. 8/2009 on traffic, as amended (Zákon č. 8/2009 Z.z. o cestnej premávke, v platnom znení ). After the duration of the period during which the car was removed from the official registry, the plaintiff submitted the same application. However, the defendant viewed the application as a request to extend the period for the which the car would be removed from the official registry and charged the applicant with a higher administrative fee. Once the applicant refused to pay this fee, the defendant stopped the administrative procedure.

The plaintiff argued that the procedure was not legal and that he did not submit an applicant to extend the period. The plaintiff argued that his application clearly stated that it was an application to temporarily remove the car from the official registry. The plaintiff argued that the petitioner arbitrarily and wrongly considered this as an application for the extension of the said period and unjustly charged the applicant with a higher administrative fee. The plaintiff considered the decision to cease the administrative procedure due to the failure to pay the fee as violation of relevant laws.

According to the defendant, the plaintiff should have first requested to register the car and only then submit another application for the temporary removal from the registry. The court, however, did not find any laws that would require such procedure. For these reasons, the Court sided with the argument of the plaintiff that ceasing the administrative procedure due to the failure to pay the administrative fee violated the applicant’s right to good administration.

Legal background against which the case unfolded: 

• Art. 119a Act Noc 8/2009 Coll, on traffic, as amended (Zákon č. 8/2009  Z. z. o cestnej premávke )
• Art. 19 (2) 71/ 1967 Coll. on Administrative Procedure (Zákon č. 71/1967 Z.z. o správnom konaní)
• Article 41 of the Charter 

Key legal question raised by the Court:

Whether the defendant was entitled to cease the procedure concerning the plaintiff’s application to remove the car from the official registry due to failure to pay administrative fee.

Outcome of the case:

The court hold that:

• The administrative body inaccurately evaluated the application and consequently imposed wrong administration fee for the application.
• The administrative body was not legally entitled to cease the administrative procedure.
• The administrative body was not entitled to require the plaintiff to fulfil the obligation and to follow the procedure that was not imposed by any legal regulation.
• The first instance court that was motioned by the plaintiff should not have dismiss the motion of the plaintiff.

For these reasons, the Court

• Annulled the decision of the first instance court and returned it for the reviewed hearing .
• Awarded the plaintiff with remedies of his legal expenses.