Presumption of Innocence in Matters of Administrative Punishment
In the legal system of the Slovak Republic, the principle of presumption of innocence is a fundamental pillar of justice. This principle, enshrined in the Constitution of the SR as well as in international conventions, means that everyone is considered innocent until their guilt is proven. The Supreme Administrative Court of the SR (SAC SR) in its recent decision file no. 2Stk/2/2025 of 22 August 2025 emphasized this principle in the context of administrative punishment. The judgment clearly states that administrative authorities must not shift the burden of proof onto the accused – this would be contrary to the principle of in dubio pro reo (in case of doubt, in favor of the accused).
The SAC SR decision concerns disciplinary proceedings against a private veterinarian who was punished with a written admonition by the Chamber of Veterinary Surgeons of the SR (CVS SR). The veterinarian was treating a dog suspected of kidney failure, where a biochemical blood test was required. Since he could not perform it himself, according to CVS SR, he was obliged to inform the dog’s owner of the possibility of turning to another veterinarian or to obtain written consent (negative reverse) to continue treatment without the test.
The dog’s owner claimed that she had not received the information, while the veterinarian stated that he had informed her orally. CVS SR rejected his defense as unproven and imposed the penalty, thereby shifting the burden of proof onto the veterinarian – he had to prove that he had provided the information. The Administrative Court in Bratislava dismissed the veterinarian’s action, but the SAC SR annulled the judgment and returned the case to CVS SR for further proceedings.
The SAC SR emphasized:
The burden of proof lies with the administrative authority: CVS SR had to prove the breach of duty with reliable evidence. The absence of a written record of the information does not mean that oral information was not provided.
The principle of presumption of innocence also applies in administrative punishment: The suspect does not have to prove their innocence – this would be incompatible with constitutional guarantees.
The in dubio pro reo principle: In case of doubt, the authority must decide in favor of the accused.
In practice, this means that the NSS SR judgment file no. 2Stk/2/2025 will serve as a supporting argument in disciplinary proceedings and administrative offenses, pointing to the incompatibility of shifting the burden of proof onto the prosecuted person.
