When can a Czech authority not fine the car owner for the driver's offence?

A driver parked in a reserved car park in Opava without the necessary permit. An ordinary traffic situation that happens daily in dozens of Czech towns. What followed, however, shows how easily administrative authorities can exceed the limits of the law — and why it pays to know your rights.

Opava City Council opened offence proceedings against the identified driver. He apologised for not attending the oral hearing but at the same time sent an e-mail bearing an advanced electronic signature in which he fully admitted the offence. He wrote that he had driven the vehicle himself, parked at the place in question, had no objection to the charge and was ready to pay the fine. The matter seemed clear. The authority, however, discontinued the proceedings against the driver and instead fined the vehicle owner — the registered keeper — CZK 2,000 plus costs of the proceedings.

Why the authority erred

The Czech Road Traffic Act sets a clear hierarchy of liability. The driver is primarily liable for the offence, i.e. the person who actually drove the vehicle. The registered keeper's liability is designed as subsidiary — it applies only if the offence cannot be proven against the driver. This may happen where the driver is unknown, cannot be contacted, is unreachable, is abroad with no possibility of service, or where the keeper names an obviously fictitious person.

In the case at hand, however, none of these circumstances arose. The driver was clearly identified, could be contacted, responded to the authority's requests and even admitted the offence himself. Nevertheless, the council discontinued the proceedings against him merely because he did not appear in person at the oral hearing, and moved on to punishing the keeper.

The Moravian-Silesian Regional Authority, as the appellate body, endorsed this approach, citing case law according to which an admission must be made in person before the administrative authority. The Regional Court in Ostrava and the Czech Supreme Administrative Court, however, rejected this interpretation as incorrect.

What the decision means in practice

In its judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court recalled the basic rule: "If administrative authorities have a real opportunity to identify the offender, they must attempt to do so." This rule applies without exception. An administrative authority cannot, for convenience or procedural economy, skip the driver and go straight to punishing the keeper merely because the driver did not attend a hearing, although he otherwise fully cooperated.

The court stressed that the keeper's liability arises only after the steps envisaged by law against the driver have been fully exhausted. It is not enough that the driver fails to attend a hearing once. It must be examined whether he is really unreachable, whether he is obstructing, or whether there are objective obstacles to further proceedings. Nothing of the kind was found in this case — the driver communicated, admitted the offence and offered to pay the fine.

For entrepreneurs and fleet owners, this decision carries an important message. If you operate company vehicles and one of your employees or contracted drivers commits a traffic offence, you have the right for the authority first to exhaust all possibilities of punishing the actual offender. Only when it is proven that the driver cannot be identified or proceedings cannot be conducted with him can liability pass to you as the keeper.

At the same time, if you properly identify the driver and he admits the offence — even electronically — the administrative authority has no reason to discontinue the proceedings against him and turn to you. An admission made by e-mail with an advanced electronic signature is, under the Czech Act on Liability for Offences, a fully valid procedural act. The requirement of personal presence for an admission has no basis in the law.

This case shows how important it is to know the procedural rules of offence proceedings. Administrative authorities sometimes take the path of least resistance and fine the keeper without actually exhausting the possibilities of punishing the driver. Such an approach can be successfully challenged — as the outcome of this dispute shows: the claimant won before both the Regional Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, and the defendant regional authority had to reimburse his costs.

Source: Czech Supreme Administrative Court, 6 As 76/2026-29