Suspensive effect of an administrative action. How to prove serious harm

An administrative decision generally remains effective and enforceable even after an administrative action is brought. This article concerns Slovak law. Bringing an administrative action has no suspensive effect unless the law provides otherwise (§ 184 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Code). A claimant who needs to suspend the challenged decision’s effects until the court rules must apply for suspensive effect. They must persuade the court that they face serious harm without that protection. In its order in case 3S/23/2026 of 29 July 2026, the Košice Administrative Court rejected such an application and explained what was missing.

When the court grants suspensive effect

Under the general rules, the court decides by order, on the claimant’s application and after the defendant has responded. It is also necessary to check whether a special statute provides otherwise. Section 185 sets the conditions. Paragraph (b) concerns the particular situation where the challenged decision is based on a legally binding EU act whose validity may be seriously in doubt. This article addresses the conditions under paragraph (a).

Original statutory wording:

[…] ak by okamžitým výkonom alebo inými právnymi následkami napadnutého rozhodnutia orgánu verejnej správy alebo opatrenia orgánu verejnej správy hrozila závažná ujma, značná hospodárska škoda či finančná škoda, závažná ujma na životnom prostredí, prípadne iný vážny nenapraviteľný následok a priznanie odkladného účinku nie je v rozpore s verejným záujmom […]

§ 185 písm. a) Správneho súdneho poriadku

Unofficial translation: […] where immediate enforcement or other legal consequences of the challenged administrative decision or measure would threaten serious harm, substantial economic or financial loss, serious environmental harm or another serious irreparable consequence, and granting suspensive effect is not contrary to the public interest […]

Both conditions must be satisfied. According to the Košice court, the risk must be direct, more than merely hypothetical and more than trivial. The claimant bears the burden of proof because parties must prove their assertions (§ 5(9)). The Slovak Constitutional Court had already explained in order III. ÚS 364/2017, paragraph 11 that substantiating the risk is a specific requirement of the application and an assertion alone is insufficient. The Košice court expressly relied on that conclusion.

If the court grants suspensive effect, the challenged decision’s effects are suspended and it cannot serve as the basis for subsequent administrative decisions. Suspensive effect ends at the latest when the decision on the merits becomes final (§ 186). The court may revoke it earlier if the grounds for granting it prove not to have existed or have since ceased to apply (§ 189).

The court must decide the application within 30 days of receiving the defendant’s response to that application or, as applicable, the administrative files if the application was submitted with the action (§ 187(3)). If it grants suspensive effect under paragraph (a), it must decide the action itself within six months of issuing the order granting suspensive effect (§ 187(1)). A cassation appeal against an order concerning suspensive effect is not admissible (§ 439(2)(e)).

Why the application failed in Košice

The claimant stated that he worked as a taxi driver. The challenged traffic inspectorate decision required him to complete a rehabilitation programme with a psychologist and further driving-school obligations within a specified period. He argued that failure to comply would cost him his driving licence and therefore his only income, and prevent him from taking relatives to medical appointments. The court rejected the application for several reasons.

According to the court, withdrawal of the driving licence was not a direct consequence of the challenged decision. It required a separate decision under the Road Traffic Act and, in this case, had already occurred before the action was brought. The alleged harm therefore did not flow directly from the decision under challenge.

The court then assessed the documents. The work activity agreement intended to prove his taxi work was only a photocopy without the claimant’s signature, and it was unclear whether the employer had signed it. It was dated after both the deadline for completing the programme and the withdrawal of the licence, so it appeared to the court to have been prepared to support the application. The court did not dispute that the courses cost money, but without information about the claimant’s finances, such as his savings, it could not infer serious harm. The assertions about transporting relatives remained unsubstantiated because the medical report did not establish a need for accompaniment.

The court did not examine the public interest because the first condition was not met. This is an order of one first-instance administrative court. The requirements it places on an application nevertheless derive from the statute and the Constitutional Court order it cited.

Preparing an application for suspensive effect

The order and § 185 support the following recommendations:

1. Identify the consequence caused specifically by the challenged decision and distinguish it from consequences of other decisions or circumstances.
2. Quantify the harm and substantiate the financial position. For a company, this might include accounts and contracts it risks losing.
3. Attach complete, credible documents. Where an agreement is intended to establish existing work, signatures and the date also matter. In this case, the court assessed those shortcomings together. It did not establish a general rule that a later document has been prepared merely to support the case.
4. Explain why later success in the action would not remedy the harm.
5. Address the public interest too. This is a separate condition, although in this case the court did not go on to examine it after finding that the risk of harm had not been substantiated.

Suspension of effects in enforcement proceedings before the Constitutional Court

Interim protection in constitutional complaint proceedings serves a similar purpose. The Constitutional Court may suspend enforceability of a challenged decision if serious harm is threatened and suspension is not contrary to the public interest (§ 129 of Act No. 314/2018 Z. z.). Its order in case II. ÚS 389/2026 of 1 July 2026 concerned a consumer who applied to discontinue enforcement within 15 days of receiving notice that enforcement had commenced. In this case, the application had suspensive effect under § 61k(2) of the Slovak Enforcement Code. In other enforcement proceedings, the exceptions in subsection (4) must also be checked. The enforcement court rejected the application, and the Constitutional Court accepted the complaint for further proceedings.

The Constitutional Court considered that suspending enforceability would not achieve the purpose because the challenged order imposed no obligation to perform. It therefore assessed the application by its substance and, applying the Slovak Civil Dispute Procedure Code as appropriate, suspended the order’s effects until the Constitutional Court’s decision on the merits became final. While that protection was in place, the application to discontinue enforcement was to be treated as undecided and retain its suspensive effect. The Constitutional Court therefore considered a separate interim measure directed at the enforcement officer unnecessary.

In that order, the Constitutional Court did not decide the consumer’s objections that the payment order had not been served and that the contract contained unfair terms. For the creditor, this was a temporary procedural obstacle, not a decision on whether the claim was well founded. The example describes the protection granted by the order of 1 July 2026, not the current status of that particular enforcement case.

How we can help

If an authority imposes a fine or another measure threatening a company before the court can decide, we prepare an administrative action and an application for suspensive effect supported by evidence of harm. Labour inspectorate inspections and fines are covered by our labour inspectorate inspection service, and other disputes by our court dispute representation service. We assist creditors whose enforcement is delayed by a debtor’s discontinuance application or constitutional complaint through our debt enforcement service. Our article From a payment order to enforcement explains the process.