The Slovak Supreme Administrative Court (NSS SR) has ruled in favor of the appeals filed by the Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic (PMÚ), overturning two decisions made by the Bratislava Administrative Court. The cases pertained to an inspection carried out by PMÚ in 2017 at the premises of PENAM SLOVAKIA, a.s.

Interestingly, the lawsuits were not filed by the business entity that was inspected, but rather by PENAM, a.s., based in the Czech Republic, and an individual who was a statutory body member of PENAM SLOVAKIA at the time of the lawsuit's filing.

The Administrative Court initially partially upheld the lawsuits, prohibiting PMÚ from handling copies of email communications made during the inspection and ordered the destruction of these copies. In response, PMÚ appealed to the NSS SR.

Key points from the NSS SR's decision include the following: Active legal standing is a fundamental requirement for filing a lawsuit against an intervention by a public authority. Only individuals or legal entities that can demonstrate a direct infringement of their own subjective rights or legally protected interests may file a lawsuit. A lawsuit cannot be filed to protect the rights of another entity.

The NSS SR emphasized the need for an individual assessment of whether and how the inspection or its consequences directly affected the legal sphere of the specific plaintiff. It is insufficient to merely suggest a hypothetical or potential future infringement of rights.

Furthermore, the inspection was not directed against the plaintiffs. The PMÚ inspection took place at PENAM SLOVAKIA, while one lawsuit was filed by PENAM, a.s. from the Czech Republic, and the other by an individual who was a statutory body member of PENAM SLOVAKIA. The inspection was not conducted at these plaintiffs' premises, nor were they mentioned in the authorization for the inspection.

The Administrative Court must first properly address the issue of active legal standing for both plaintiffs in the further proceedings. Only if it concludes that a specific plaintiff has demonstrated a direct infringement of their own rights can it proceed to substantively review their objections.

Both NSS SR decisions are final and not subject to appeal.