ROAT Observatory / Legal questions
Slovakia · Act No. 248/2026 Coll.
Automated vehicles 2026
The promulgated Act: operating conditions and duties
Act No. 248/2026 Coll., adopted by Parliament on 16 September 2026 as parliamentary print 1329 and promulgated on 9 October 2026 in the Collection of Laws, extends the legal framework for testing and operating automated vehicles, including their use in transport services.[7]
As of 16 October 2026, the Act has been promulgated but is not yet in force. The new rules take effect on 1 December 2026.[7]
Implementing legislationAs of 16 October 2026, process LP/2026/500 is at the consultation stage for the Ministry of Transport’s draft implementing decree laying down detailed rules for the operation of fully automated vehicles. The Act and the draft decree have different legal status.[5]
Original bill and comparison of amendments →
Promulgated text · Act No. 248/2026 Coll.
What the Act provides
Act No. 248/2026 Coll. amends Act No. 8/2009 on road traffic, Act No. 56/2012 on road transport and Act No. 106/2018 on the operation of vehicles in road traffic.[7]
Driver and takeover of vehicle control
The driver definition includes a person driving remotely and an occupant who activated the ADS (automated driving system) used for driving. An oversight operator has a distinct legal status and becomes a driver upon actually taking over. The person who activated the ADS must take over safely and in time when requested by the system or, where circumstances require, without a request, remotely where applicable. Other activities during ADS driving are permitted only if compatible with timely and safe takeover. The explanatory text expressly confirms that other prohibitions without a specific exemption remain applicable, including alcohol and operating a phone without hands-free equipment.[3]
sections 2(2)(x), 3(4–5), 4(1)(c), 5(6) of Act No. 8/2009 [7]
Controlled testing and public-road trials
Controlled testing under section 48a takes place in a secured space outside publicly accessible roads and its results are recorded in a testing report. Public-road trials require a permit. An application for an operator licence under section 49a(1) follows successful controlled testing and obtaining a public-road trial permit. Granting the licence is also subject to the safety requirements in section 49a(4).
Sections 48a, 49a(1–4), 136(3)(l) of Act No. 106/2018 [7]
Licensing, operation approval and transport services
The adopted provisions establish a licence for the operator of a fully automated vehicle. For passenger or goods transport services, section 49b requires both a licence and operation approval, addressing the vehicle type or group, ADS, ODD (operational design domain) and operating area. Vehicle use in road transport also requires permission under section 32a of Act No. 56/2012. The transport authority must grant permission when the conditions in subsection 3 are met. An application must be made in advance. The licensing bar following earlier revocation for the reasons in section 49a(9)(b–d) applies to the three years preceding the application.
section 32a of Act No. 56/2012 and sections 49a(4–5) of Act No. 106/2018; sections 49b–49c [7]
Control centre and oversight operator
Oversight is provided from a control centre in Slovakia. The oversight operator is subject to requirements concerning age, driving entitlement, an employment relationship with the licence holder and training. The centre provides continuous technical oversight, operator identification and communication with the competent authorities. The licence holder prepares and updates the operating documentation. Oversight of several vehicles is possible under permit and licence conditions. After taking over driving, the operator may drive only one vehicle and must not simultaneously oversee another.
section 3(5) of Act No. 8/2009; sections 49a(6–8), 49d–49e and section 49f(5)(c) of Act No. 106/2018 [7]
Operating conditions, ODD and a safe state
The operational design domain (ODD) defines the conditions in which the ADS is intended to perform the dynamic driving task. The vehicle must be able to reach a minimum safe state even after a fault or when timely operator intervention is unavailable. The Ministry of Transport may designate and publish road sections or areas suitable for trials or regular operation. Operation approval also addresses the specific conditions and area of use.
Sections 49b–49e of Act No. 106/2018 [7]
Notification duties and ADS updates
The licence holder must notify the ministry of an accident or safety event without delay. A relevant cyber incident has a separate 24-hour deadline; periodic safety reports follow the licence timetable. The 15-day deadline after implementation concerns routine ADS updates without an effect on safety or ODD, notified through updated documentation. The licence holder must also notify changes to licensing conditions under section 49a(6)(g).
sections 49a(6)(g), (i–k), 49b, 49d, 49f(3), 136 of Act No. 106/2018 [7]
Data recording, retention and provision
New section 49f distinguishes whole-journey telemetry, event recording from 30 seconds before a safety event to 10 seconds afterwards, and oversight data including every centre command and operator response time. Telemetry is retained for 30 days after the journey; event and oversight data for two years, with a specific rule preserving them until the final conclusion of administrative or criminal proceedings that have begun. Records must be traceable to the active ADS version. Third-party camera data are anonymised for regulatory supervision unless identification is necessary to clarify an accident or safety event.
sections 49f(1–9) of Act No. 106/2018 [7]
Penalties and supervision
For specified breaches of licence-holder duties, section 148(10) provides a fine of EUR 5,000–50,000. This includes breaches concerning data integrity, retention and provision under section 49f(6–8), and operation without required section 49b approval. Breaches of oversight-operator duties under section 49a(8) are subject to a fine of EUR 1,000–5,000. Failure to provide technical documentation and explanations required for supervision may result in a procedural fine.
section 138 of Act No. 8/2009; sections 148(10) and 150 of Act No. 106/2018 [7]
LP/2026/500 · draft under consultation
What the draft implementing decree specifies
The Ministry of Transport’s draft follows the four matters delegated by section 136(3)(l) of Act No. 106/2018 as amended by Act No. 248/2026 Coll. This analysis uses the draft text and supporting reports in consultation package LP/2026/500, checked on 16 October 2026.[5][7]
This is a draft, not an implementing decree in force. Section 5 proposes 1 December 2026 as the commencement date.[5]
1Report on testing results
The draft requires identification of the tester and vehicle, including ADS hardware and software versions. The report would describe the environment, plan, methods and every scenario, including failures, incidents, deviations and operator interventions. It would also assess loss of localisation, connectivity or sensors and the number and reasons for unplanned interventions against distance travelled. Its conclusion would address the minimum level of functional safety and readiness for the next validation stage in real traffic.
§ 1 of the draft decree [5]
2Control centre and operator availability
The control centre would continuously monitor vehicle condition and behaviour within the approved operational design domain. During operation, it would ensure operator availability and channels for immediate contact with police, road managers and emergency services. A time-synchronised record would identify the person overseeing each vehicle at every moment.
§ 2 of the draft decree [5]
3Technical oversight and the proposed ten-vehicle limit
The draft distinguishes monitoring, remote assistance and direct remote driving. One operator could simultaneously monitor no more than ten vehicles in fully automated mode. For direct driving, the draft permits only one vehicle. The entity operating the vehicles would specify the maximum permissible response time, oversight handover rules and procedures for simultaneous events affecting several vehicles in the control-centre documentation.
§ 3 of the draft decree [5]
4Operational safety report
The report would cover distance travelled in automated mode, critical events involving loss or exceedance of ODD conditions, failures and operator interventions with reasons. It would also cover all software updates and their safety effects, corrective action and cyber incidents, including attempted unauthorised access and communication disruption.
§ 4 of the draft decree [5]
Ten vehicles does not mean ten vehicles during direct driving. The proposed ceiling concerns monitoring. When a person takes over driving one vehicle, the Act also prohibits simultaneous oversight of another. The draft decree does not remove that prohibition.[5][7]
ROAT assessment and open questions
The draft gives more detail on testing evidence and the organisation of oversight. It does not itself set measurable test acceptance thresholds or a uniform operator response time. Readiness for the next validation stage under section 1(3) should not be confused with evaluation of successful public-road trials.[5]
A ceiling of ten vehicles does not itself demonstrate that overseeing that many vehicles is safe. The actual number must comply with permit and licence conditions. The draft requires response times and simultaneous-event procedures to be specified but does not prescribe how to justify them against the ODD and operator workload.[5][7]
Listing direct remote driving as a form of technical oversight in draft section 3(1) must be read alongside the statutory distinction between an oversight operator and a driver. The label of an activity does not change the legal position of a person who actually takes over driving. An explicit account of the transition between roles would remove this ambiguity.[5][7]
The section 4 report would record all software updates and their safety effects. The draft does not specify a threshold for reassessing approvals or repeating validation. Periodic reporting does not replace notification of a safety event without delay or the separate statutory 24-hour notification of a relevant cyber incident.[5][7]
The submission report mentions a vehicle safety card for emergency services. The normative draft (sections 1–5) does not contain a specific duty to prepare that card. The supporting report alone therefore cannot be treated as establishing that duty.[5]
ROAT legal assessment
Unresolved issues in the Act
The adopted provisions clarify the legal status of the persons involved, operating conditions and data rules. Further examination is needed particularly for safety evidence before licensing, the relationship between authorisations and the organisation of oversight. The following conclusions are ROAT’s interpretation and recommendations.
01Driver, ADS activation and the transition from oversight to driving
The distinction is a substantial improvement. However, new section 5(6) assigns takeover to the person who activated the ADS and, unlike the driver definition, does not expressly require that person to be inside the vehicle. Activation, assignment of oversight and takeover must therefore be distinguished. ROAT recommends a clear transfer of that duty at shift changes and records of the human’s actual role. Corresponding application of section 4 to the operator does not itself resolve physical duties after an unoccupied vehicle crashes.
LP/2026/500 · draft update: Draft sections 2 and 3 add synchronised operator assignment and oversight handover rules. Including direct driving among forms of oversight must nevertheless be read with the statutory distinction between roles.[5] Draft decree analysis →
sections 2(2)(x), 3(4–5), 4(1)(c), 5(6) of Act No. 8/2009 [7]
02Multi-vehicle oversight: what happens when one vehicle needs takeover?
The concurrency prohibition must be reflected in centre organisation: taking over one vehicle must not leave the others without available oversight. Handover to another operator and a safe response when capacity is exhausted follow from the combined duties; they do not establish a new statutory vehicle-to-operator ratio. Recording response time under section 49f provides evidence but does not set a permissible limit. That limit needs justification for the particular ADS, ODD and intervention mode.
LP/2026/500 · draft update: Draft section 3(2–3) now specifies a ceiling of ten monitored vehicles and requires a maximum response time, oversight handover and simultaneous-event procedures. Justification of capacity and response time for the specific ODD and workload remains open.[5] Draft decree analysis →
section 3(5) of Act No. 8/2009; sections 49a(6–8), 49d–49e and section 49f(5)(c) of Act No. 106/2018 [7]
03Permission when conditions are met and three distinct authorisations
The changes make individual decisions more predictable. They neither merge the three procedures nor precisely separate the evidence each requires. Vehicle approval, operator competence and permission for a particular service require separate assessment. The more specific footnote to Articles 39 and 41 of Regulation 2018/858 does not itself establish an exemption from national licensing. Nor should the section 49c list of suitable roads be treated as an individual operating permission.
section 32a of Act No. 56/2012 and sections 49a(4–5) of Act No. 106/2018; sections 49b–49c [7]
04Evidence of safety before licensing remains the central issue
ROAT’s concern is the absence of an express link to evaluated real-road trial results and acceptance criteria. Safety reports during operation do not replace this entry-stage question. Implementing rules may specify matters within statutory powers; guidance should not create new licensing conditions without a legal basis. If successful road validation is to be an independent mandatory condition, it needs clear legal provision and rules on reusing existing technical evidence.
LP/2026/500 · draft update: Draft section 1 details the testing report. Its conclusion concerns readiness for further road validation; it does not add measurable acceptance criteria or an express link between licensing and evaluated public-road trial results.[5] Draft decree analysis →
Sections 48a, 49a(1–4), 136(3)(l) of Act No. 106/2018 [7]
05Event reporting and ADS updates: different deadlines serve different duties
Where a cyber incident is also a safety event, both duties may apply: the 24-hour period cannot automatically justify postponing notification required without delay. Updates need a documented assessment of their safety and ODD effects. Subsequent notification of a routine update does not authorise expansion of the approved area or operating conditions. ROAT recommends separating routine maintenance from changes requiring review of existing approvals and possible revalidation.
LP/2026/500 · draft update: Draft section 4 adds safety-report content, including all software updates. It does not replace the Act’s separate notification deadlines or specify a threshold for renewed approval or validation.[5] Draft decree analysis →
sections 49a(6)(g), (i–k), 49b, 49d, 49f(3), 136 of Act No. 106/2018 [7]
06Data as evidence: a stronger foundation, unresolved access and retention issues
This is the strongest addition to the evidentiary framework. Machine-readable provision to the ministry does not mean public access. The specific provision on data access identifies the ministry. The Police Force’s powers must also be assessed under other legislation. The special retention clause does not expressly address civil litigation or extension of the 30-day telemetry period. ROAT therefore recommends clarifying preservation of evidence needed by injured parties and proportionality of data scope. The explanatory report’s claim of GDPR compliance does not replace that assessment.
sections 49f(1–9) of Act No. 106/2018 [7]
07Penalties support enforcement but do not settle all civil liability
Licence-holder breaches, the operator’s personal duties and carrier obligations must be distinguished. Outsourcing an activity does not itself change the statutory duty holder. Mandatory insurance under section 49a(6)(f) and administrative fines likewise do not determine allocation of compensation between the operator, manufacturer and others. The enforcement provisions should therefore not be presented as fully resolving accident liability.
section 138 of Act No. 8/2009; sections 148(10) and 150 of Act No. 106/2018 [7]