An incorrect easement entry. Cadastral correction or a court claim?

When reviewing land before a purchase or dealing with a dispute with a neighbour, you may discover that the title sheet does not match older documents. A right of way agreed by previous owners decades ago may be missing, or the registered easement may be broader than the registration decision allowed. Applying for a correction may seem the first option. There is no need to bring a civil claim, and the law sets a deadline for the authority to decide. In these proceedings, however, the cadastral authority corrects records. It does not decide disputes over whether a right exists. The Czech Supreme Administrative Court reiterated this in 22 As 87/2026 of 24 September 2026. Its Slovak counterpart draws a similar distinction, although in one case it found that an incorrect easement entry could be corrected.

What the Slovak cadastral authority can correct

Correction proceedings are governed by § 59 of Act No. 162/1995 Z. z., the Slovak Cadastral Act. The district office corrects inaccurate data resulting from its own activities or those of other state authorities, notaries or other persons acting on incorrect information supplied by the office. For easements and ownership entries, paragraph 2(a) is often decisive.

Original Slovak statutory wording:

Okresný úrad opraví a) údaje katastra uvedené v § 7, ak sú v rozpore s rozhodnutím o povolení vkladu, verejnou listinou alebo s inou listinou, na základe ktorej bol vykonaný zápis do katastra […]

§ 59 ods. 2 písm. a) katastrálneho zákona

Data entered from a reference register are excluded (§ 42(6)). Other provisions cover, for example, incorrectly depicted boundaries, parcel areas and multiple ownership entries whose correction requires the consent of everyone affected. If the conditions for correction are not established, the office rejects the application or explains why it has not corrected the record (§ 59a(2)). It must decide within 30 days of commencement of proceedings, or within 90 days in justified cases (§ 59a(3)). See our overview of correcting a cadastral error.

When the dispute belongs before a court

In 6Svk/11/2025 of 25 February 2026, the Slovak Supreme Administrative Court considered a case in which the cadastral department had used “correction” to remove a building and its registered co-owners from the title sheet, although ownership was disputed. The administrative court quashed the authorities’ decisions, and the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the authority’s cassation complaint. It emphasised that correction proceedings are non-contentious. Where a “correction” would change the owner, the administrative authority cannot assess whether the ownership dispute is relevant. It also summarised earlier case law. Correction generally cannot resolve disputes over changes to land boundaries or the existence and scope of ownership or other rights in property.

The outcome differed in 7Svk/3/2025 of 30 September 2025. A 1994 agreement granted pedestrian and vehicle access to visitors to certain buildings. The title sheet instead recorded a right for “owners and visitors”. The cadastral department corrected it, but the appellate authority rejected the correction application because it considered the matter disputed, and the administrative court agreed. The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the appellate decision and remitted the case. It explained that § 59(2)(a) permits correction of a discrepancy with the registration decision, rather than directly with the agreement. Under the rules applicable in 1994, however, the agreement bearing the registration approval formed the content of that decision. The entry therefore contradicted the decision. A party’s attempt to interpret the easement more broadly did not by itself make its scope disputed. Neither subsequent changes of ownership nor the later buyer’s acknowledgment of the registered wording prevented correction. The court also criticised the frequent failure to distinguish § 59 before and after the amendment effective from 1 October 2018.

In our view, these judgments show that the nature of the discrepancy matters. Correction may be available if the discrepancy can be established by comparing the entry with its underlying document. If deciding the matter requires determining whether the right arose, ceased or continues within a particular scope, that is for a court.

The Czech court’s approach

The Czech Cadastral Act, Act No. 256/2013 Sb., permits correction of inaccurate data caused by an obvious error in maintaining or renewing the register, or by inaccuracies in measurement, map depiction or parcel-area calculations exceeding permitted tolerances (§ 36(1)). The authority must act on an application within 30 days of receipt, or 60 days in particularly justified cases. Unlike the Slovak procedure, it first makes the correction or notifies the applicant that there is no error. It issues a decision only if an owner or another entitled person objects within 30 days of receiving the notification (§ 36(3) and (4)).

In 22 As 87/2026, the owner of land benefiting from a right of way created in 1927 sought registration of the corresponding burden on neighbouring land. The burden had disappeared from the register during a comprehensive investigation in 2005. The regional court upheld her claim, but the Supreme Administrative Court quashed its judgment and dismissed the claim. An obvious error must be identifiable without detailed legal and factual examination. Reconstructing the register’s history since 1927 and assessing historical documents went beyond that. Correction cannot create, alter or extinguish rights in rem. The dispute over the easement’s existence and scope therefore belonged before the civil courts.

What to do if the entry does not match the document

Choose the procedure according to whether the problem is a recording error or a dispute about a right. We recommend these steps:

• Identify the document underlying the entry. Obtain the agreement, registration decision or historical document from the collection of deeds and compare it with the title sheet.
• If the entry plainly contradicts the registration decision or the document on which it was based, apply for correction.
• If the parties disagree about whether the easement arose, ended or has a particular scope, a claim for a declaration that the right exists or does not exist may be appropriate (§ 137(c) of the Slovak Civil Dispute Procedure Code). The appropriate claim, defendants and urgent legal interest must be assessed in the particular case. Urgent legal interest need not be proved where it follows from a specific statutory provision.
• During the dispute, you may request a note recording the court proceedings (§ 39(1) of the Slovak Cadastral Act). For Czech property, the note disputing an entry under § 24 of the Czech Cadastral Act serves a similar purpose. The authority enters it at the request of a person who proves that they have asserted their right in court.

Slovak cadastral data on rights in property are presumed reliable and binding unless the contrary is proved (§ 70(2) of the Slovak Cadastral Act).

How this will work under the new Civil Code

The new Slovak Civil Code was promulgated on 30 October 2026 as Act No. 260/2026 Z. z.. Under § 1920, it will take effect on 1 July 2027. Until then, the existing rules apply. The new code regulates servitudes and changes the consequences of a discrepancy between an entry and the actual legal position when property is subsequently transferred. However, the future cadastral procedure must also be assessed in light of related legislation. As of 2 November 2026, the accompanying bill is still undergoing the consultation process. It is therefore not possible to guarantee that today’s procedure and deadlines will remain unchanged.

• The registered position will protect the buyer. A person who acquires land for consideration and in good faith from the registered owner will be protected even if the entry does not reflect reality. Necessary rights of way and rights in rem arising directly by law regardless of registration will be exceptions (§ 1503).
• An unregistered easement may cease to exist. A servitude missing from the title sheet will bind the buyer of the burdened land only if the buyer could and ought to have discovered it from the circumstances, if this was agreed, or if the law provides for it. Otherwise, it will cease to exist (§ 1470).
• A note disputing an entry will have specific legal effects. For an entry without legal grounds, § 1505 provides protection against subsequent acquirers as well. The affected owner should request the note within two months of learning of the entry. They must also prove, within two months of delivery of the request, that they have asserted their right in rem before a court. Otherwise, the cadastral authority will delete the note. If the owner was not duly notified of the registration of another person’s right, the first period will be three years from registration. Once that period expires, the owner’s right in rem will operate only against a person who procured the entry and was not in good faith.

The Slovak cadastre already allows notes drawing attention to a disputed right or court proceedings. The change therefore concerns the note’s new effects under private law, rather than the mere ability to record a dispute. Section 1504 of the new code provides protection where a discrepancy arises only later. The two-month periods described above concern an original discrepancy under § 1505.

Unless a specific transitional provision states otherwise, the creation of existing easements and rights or obligations arising before the act takes effect will be assessed under the previous law. The legal relationship concerning the right in rem itself will be governed by the new code from its effective date (§ 1893(2)). For older entries, the transitional provisions therefore require a separate assessment, including the rule on time limits in § 1896. The date of the original entry alone is not enough to conclude that the new two-month periods have already expired.

If you already know of a discrepancy, promptly use the documents to distinguish a recording error from a dispute about a right and choose the appropriate procedure. In a dispute, also consider having it recorded in the cadastre. An application for correction does not replace judicial protection.

Status as of 2 November 2026. This section is based on the promulgated text of Slovak Act No. 260/2026 Z. z., which takes effect on 1 July 2027. It may still be amended before then. These future rules should not be confused with the law currently in force.

How we can help

We assess the documents underlying the entry and advise whether to seek correction or bring a court claim. We handle disputes about the scope or existence of an easement through our easement and declaration of ownership services. If the authority suspends proceedings or rejects an application, we can help with suspended and rejected cadastral proceedings. Before a purchase, property due diligence can identify discrepancies between the title sheet and the documents. See also removal of an old easement.

This article provides general information and does not replace an assessment of a particular case.