# What did 'Tribo' Deep Research find about the 'langoš' case?
> Using the Tribo Deep Research Agent, we analyzed 500 court decisions regarding fines from the Financial Administration since 2021 and prepared an overview of arguments that were successful and unsuccessful when challenging fines.
> **This content was translated automatically and may contain inaccuracies.**
**Category:** Showcase
**Author:** alexej-dobrolubov
**Published:** 2026-05-19
**Reading time:** 14 min
---
import DownloadFileCard from '../../../components/common/DownloadFileCard.astro';
Legal research does not usually mean finding one correct judgment. To understand how courts actually rule on a certain type of dispute, we need to analyze an entire body of relevant decisions—to find out which arguments work, which fail, how judicial practice changes over time, and whether there are differences between courts.
However, such an analysis is extremely time-consuming. It requires identifying relevant cases, reading them manually, comparing the arguments, and subsequently synthesizing the conclusions across hundreds of decisions.
This is the type of task that we created the Tribo Deep Research Agent for at Praktik AI.
We gave it this task:
> "Analyze court decisions where an entrepreneur or other entity objects to the illegality or inappropriateness of a fine imposed by the Financial Administration, the tax office, or the customs office. Look at cases since 2021."
Tribo Deep Research read 500 decisions and prepared this executive summary:
---
## 1. Question
The research questions were formulated as follows:
**Primary question:** Under what circumstances do Slovak courts annul decisions of the Financial Administration, tax, or customs offices regarding the imposition of a fine on a legal entity due to its illegality or inappropriateness?
## 2. Executive Summary
**Annulment of a Fine Decision:** The judicial annulment of a fine decision imposed by financial authorities is genuinely achievable, especially if the argumentation focuses on **serious procedural errors** by the tax authority. The most successful line of argument is the illegality of evidence gathered during an enforcement procedure rather than a tax audit [**2S/99/2020**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/364311), [**2S/101/2020**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/364492) and the unreviewability of the decision due to insufficient reasoning [**15Sa/4/2023**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/174793), [**71S/21/2020**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/571018). Courts also consistently apply the constitutional principle of *lex mitior* (the use of the more favorable later legal regulation) [**2Sfk/42/2024**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/4536178), [**2Asan/9/2020**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/324767) and in cases of VAT fraud, they require the tax authority to prove that the legal entity knew or should have known about the fraud [**26S/22/2020**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/523183). Conversely, objections to the amount of a mandatory and tax-specific penalty are almost always unsuccessful [**1S/21/2020**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/303522), [**5S/21/2020**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/284942).
## 3. Strongest Authorities and Why
1. **Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic (NSS SR) and Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic (NS SR):** Their decisions are crucial because they unify the practice of regional courts and define basic interpretive rules. Decisions of the NSS SR are directive for assessing the legality of financial authorities' decisions (administrative justice), while decisions of the NS SR (civil law collegium) are key for interpreting the conditions for compensation for damages under Act No. 514/2003 Coll. (civil proceedings).
2. **Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU):** Its case law is directly applicable and binding on Slovak courts in areas harmonized by EU law, especially concerning VAT. It was based on CJEU case law that Slovak courts formed the requirements for the tax authority to prove the burden of proof when demonstrating participation in fraud [**26S/22/2020**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/523183), [**11S/63/2021**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/307192).
3. **Act No. 563/2009 Coll. (Tax Code):** It regulates the procedural procedure of financial authorities and the conditions for imposing penalties, making its correct application and interpretation central to the courts' assessment of the legality of fine decisions.
## 4. Synthesized Rules
**Regarding the legality of a fine decision:**
*If* the tax authority conducts new evidence gathering on its own initiative during an enforcement procedure (after the tax audit), *then* courts generally consider such evidence gathering illegal and the decision based on such evidence unreviewable and annul it [**2S/99/2020**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/364311), [**2S/101/2020**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/364492), [**2S/41/2020**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/397793).
*If* the legal regulation changes between the commission of the correct offense and the decision on the fine, *then* courts generally apply the more favorable legal regulation (the principle of *lex mitior*), *even if* the transitional provisions of the Tax Code suggest a different procedure [**2Sfk/42/2024**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/4536178), [**2Asan/9/2020**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/324767), [**BA-1S/84/2019**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/5243732).
*If* the tax authority denies the deduction of VAT to a legal entity due to suspicion of fraud in a chain, *then* courts generally annul the decision, *unless* the tax authority safely proves that the given legal entity knew or should have known about the fraud [**26S/22/2020**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/523183), [**11S/63/2021**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/307192), [**8Sfk/11/2023**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/4514381).
*If* the law establishes the amount of the penalty mandatorily and tax-specifically (e.g., interest on delay), *then* courts generally reject objections of inappropriateness or harshness of the law as irrelevant, *because* the proper authority has no scope for proper consideration of its amount [**1S/21/2020**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/303522), [**5S/21/2020**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/284942), [**3Stk/7/2021**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/234313).
## 5. Decisive Factual Factors
**Factors Changing the Outcome When Assessing the Legality of a Fine:**
**Phase of Action in Which Evidence Was Gathered:** Evidence gathered by the tax authority only during an enforcement procedure is a key factor leading to the annulment of the decision.
**Quality of Reasoning:** The absence of addressing key objections or insufficient proper consideration when imposing a penalty (if the law allows it) leads to unreviewability.
**Change in Legal Regulation:** A legislative amendment reducing the fine rate after the commission of the offense is a decisive factor in favor of the legal entity.
**Type of Penalty:** Whether it is a penalty with the discretionary power of the proper authority (where appropriateness is examined) or a mandatory and tax-specifically established penalty (where appropriateness is not examined).
## 6. Conflicts / Exceptions / Development Over Time
During the analyzed period (since 2021), the jurisprudence in the examined area is relatively established and consistent. No fundamental conflicting legal lines were identified among the senates of the highest courts.
The only notable "conflict" is rather systemic—it is the tension between the text of the law and constitutional principles. An example is the already mentioned **principle of *lex mitior***. Although the transitional provisions of the Tax Code may suggest applying the law effective at the time of the offense, courts consistently rule that the constitutional principle of prohibition of retroactivity to the detriment and the principle of more favorable regulation take precedence [**2Sfk/42/2024**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/4536178), [**2Asan/9/2020**](https://app.praktik.ai/court-cases/SK/324767). This is a stable judicial line, not an inconsistency.
## 7. Gaps and Limitations of the Conclusion
The research did not reveal any publicly available methodological guidelines from the Financial Administration or the Ministry of Finance of the Slovak Republic that detail the internal procedure for assessing claims for damages. Legal practice must therefore rely exclusively on the law and jurisprudence.
The analysis is based on published court decisions. It does not include out-of-court agreements within the preliminary negotiation of a claim, nor unpublished decisions of lower-level courts.
The conclusions apply exclusively to legal entities. Assessing claims of natural persons (entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs) may have certain specifics (e.g., in the case of non-property claims).
## 8. Practical Implication
**For a lawyer representing a client challenging a fine:**
1. **Focus on Procedure:** Focus the argumentation primarily on the procedural errors of the tax authority (illegal evidence gathering, unreviewability, insufficient reasoning). Arguments about the "unfair" amount of the fine are a waste of time when tax rates are tax-specifically established.
2. **Check Deadlines and Legislation:** Always check the prescriptive deadlines for imposing a penalty and verify if the legal regulation has changed in the client's favor (*lex mitior*) in the meantime.
3. **Utilize CJEU Jurisprudence:** In cases concerning VAT, actively argue with relevant CJEU jurisprudence, especially regarding the burden of proof in fraud cases.