How to Appeal an SZPI Fine and Avoid Double Punishment Under Czech Law

26.5.2026 | ARROWS law firm

An appeal against a fine imposed by SZPI confronts entrepreneurs with a complex system of administrative penalties under Czech law. This article guides you through the steps after the fine is served, advises how to structure an effective appeal, and how to defend against double punishment for the same breach by relying on the ne bis in idem principle. It also explains when to turn to the courts and how to set up internal processes to minimise risk.

In the image, we see a lawyer addressing an appeal against a fine imposed by the Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority (SZPI).

Key takeaways
The position of SZPI and its powers vis-à-vis businesses
What to do immediately after receiving a fine from SZPI
Formal requirements and structure of an appeal
Double sanctions for the same breach and the ne bis in idem principle
Double sanctions in food supervision: typical scenarios
Judicial review of SZPI decisions and a business’s strategic choices
Final summary

Key takeaways

Fines imposed by the State Agricultural and Food Inspection Authority (SZPI) have been increasing in recent years and regularly reach tens to hundreds of millions of Czech crowns per year; in serious or repeated breaches, individual sanctions may amount to millions, and for legal entities and self-employed individuals up to tens of millions of Czech crowns.
For businesses, this is no longer merely an “inconvenience”, but an intervention that can affect cash flow, reputation, and the value of the entire company.

The standard appeal period against a decision imposing a fine is fifteen days from notification of the decision, unless a special law provides otherwise. Within this period, it is necessary not only to file the appeal formally, but also to thoughtfully formulate objections on the merits of the case, the amount of the sanction, procedural errors, and, where applicable, the issue of double punishment for the same conduct.

The ne bis in idem principle—the prohibition of double punishment for the same act—plays an increasingly important role in food supervision, especially where more than one authority is interested in the same set of obligations (typically SZPI, the State Veterinary Administration, the regional public health authority, or the Office for the Protection of Competition). However, it is not automatic that a second sanction is unlawful; the key question is whether it truly concerns the identical act in terms of time, place, and consequences.

A successful defence against a fine and any double sanction is a combination of legal arguments, detailed knowledge of food regulation under Czech law and directly applicable EU regulations, and well-secured evidence. The attorneys at ARROWS advokátní kancelář assist clients in practice not only with the appeal itself, but also with setting up preventive compliance processes so that similar situations do not recur and any future sanctions are as low as possible.

SZPI, fines, and why an appeal is now a strategic issue

The position of SZPI and its powers vis-à-vis businesses

The State Agricultural and Food Inspection Authority is a central administrative authority subordinate to the Ministry of Agriculture, which carries out state supervision primarily over the safety, quality, and labelling of food and tobacco products.

Its remit is broadly defined by Act No. 146/2002 Coll., on the State Agricultural and Food Inspection Authority, and related food legislation, and it also derives from directly applicable European Union regulations, including rules on official food controls. SZPI inspects food across the entire chain—from production and import, through storage and transport, to retail sale and mass catering.

In practice, this means that SZPI inspectors may enter the premises of food business operators, restaurants, wholesale warehouses, or online stores without prior notice, request documentation, take samples, and adopt on-the-spot measures to protect consumers, including closing an establishment.

Today, SZPI is one of the most active supervisory authorities affecting businesses: it carries out tens of thousands of inspections each year and has long identified breaches among a significant proportion of inspected entities.

This creates an environment in which the risk of a sanction by SZPI is real for any business in the food chain, and the question of a high-quality defence against a fine is therefore a purely business matter, not an academic one.

Since 2015, SZPI has also overseen advertising and meals in mass catering establishments, so its inspection scope affects food manufacturers and distributors as well as gastronomy and certain forms of marketing.

Combined with the development of online food sales—where SZPI also actively inspects online stores—the range of entities that may encounter its decision imposing a fine has expanded significantly. This concerns not only traditional food companies, but also e-shops, importers of food supplements, or innovative projects with a cross-border dimension, where issues of EU law and coordination among multiple supervisory authorities are also added.

The level and frequency of fines in recent years

SZPI statistics show a long-term trend of increasing intensity of supervision and the volume of sanctions imposed. In one of the recently monitored periods, the inspection authority carried out almost 49,000 inspections, including in retail, gastronomy, production, wholesale warehouses, and other locations, and found breaches of legal regulations in roughly every fourth inspection in some segments.

In the same period, several thousand fines were imposed by final decision in a total amount exceeding one hundred million Czech crowns, with a year-on-year increase in the order of tens of millions. In another recent year, SZPI concluded almost three thousand administrative proceedings with a total volume of imposed fines of around CZK 189 million, representing a significant increase compared to the previous period.

Available data show that the highest individual fines for legal entities and self-employed individuals can reach tens of millions of Czech crowns, especially in cases of systemic and repeated breaches, and for certain serious offences the law allows a fine of up to CZK 50 million.

Importantly, the rate of identified breaches remains relatively high despite the growing awareness and compliance activity of many companies. In the area of mass catering, SZPI’s recent data show errors in approximately more than a quarter of inspected establishments, with the most common issues relating to failure to meet hygiene requirements, the presence of pests, storage of expired food, or incorrect labelling. In retail, false information about the origin of food and inadequate storage conditions dominate.

From the practice of the attorneys at ARROWS advokátní kancelář, it follows that even establishments with a relatively solid HACCP system and internal guidelines often run into problems with staff discipline, insufficient training, or unmanaged supplier relationships, which in aggregate leads to sanctions that the business perceives as “unfair”, but from the inspection authority’s perspective are a logical outcome of a chain of minor failures.

Typical offences that lead to fines

From the perspective of the legal framework, SZPI typically imposes fines for breaches of obligations under Act No. 110/1997 Coll., on Food and Tobacco Products, Act No. 146/2002 Coll., on the State Agricultural and Food Inspection Authority, and related regulations, including EU regulations governing food safety, quality, labelling, and advertising.

Among the most common factual situations are placing food harmful to health on the market, failure to comply with microbiological requirements, the presence of foreign substances, misleading labelling, food adulteration, placing food on the market after the use-by date, or failure to comply with traceability obligations. In the gastronomy segment, this often involves failure to comply with temperature regimes, inadequate storage, insufficient hygiene of the premises and equipment, or improperly maintained HACCP documentation.

The importance of sanctioning so-called dual quality of food has also increased significantly; this practice is expressly prohibited under Czech law by an amendment to Act No. 110/1997 Coll., on Food and Tobacco Products. The amendment introduced a ban on placing on the market food that appears identical to products in another EU Member State if it has substantially different composition or characteristics without adequate and clear notice to consumers.

A breach of this ban may be punished by a fine of up to CZK 50 million, with inspections and the imposition of sanctions carried out by SZPI. For large manufacturers and distributors, food labelling and marketing are therefore not only a matter of reputation, but also a potentially significant regulatory risk.

From an entrepreneur’s perspective, it is essential to understand that a fine imposed by SZPI is not “merely” a sanction for a single incident, but often reflects an overall assessment of the quality and safety management system at the given operation. When imposing a fine, the administrative authority typically assesses the nature and seriousness of the breach, the degree of risk to consumers’ health, the scope of the impact on the market, the duration, any repetition, and also the operator’s cooperation during the inspection.

In practice, it can therefore play a major role whether the entrepreneur takes remedial measures in time, how they communicate with the inspection authority, and whether they can demonstrate that the failure was exceptional rather than systemic.

What to do immediately after receiving a fine from SZPI

Identifying the type of decision and applicable deadlines

The first practical step after receiving a decision imposing a fine is to confirm what type of decision it is and what deadlines follow from it. Under Act No. 250/2016 Coll., on Liability for Misdemeanours and Proceedings Concerning Them, and Act No. 500/2004 Coll., the Administrative Procedure Code, it is generally possible to distinguish between decisions issued in standard administrative proceedings and expedited forms, such as an order or an on-the-spot order.

A standard decision in administrative proceedings is notified by delivery into the addressee’s own hands, or electronically, and includes instructions on the possibility to file an appeal. The time limit for filing an appeal against a first-instance administrative authority’s decision is usually fifteen days from the date of notification, unless a special law provides otherwise.

From a practical perspective, it is also important to distinguish between order proceedings and summary (block) proceedings. In block proceedings, a fine may be imposed on the spot if the misdemeanour is reliably established and a warning is insufficient; no appeal is available against such a fine and the decision becomes final immediately. Similarly, an on-the-spot order under Act No. 250/2016 Coll., on Liability for Misdemeanours and Proceedings Concerning Them, allows a fine to be imposed under a simplified regime; however, here too, acceptance and payment significantly narrow the scope for a standard defence.

The entrepreneur must therefore carefully consider, already at the first contact with the inspector, whether accepting an “on-the-spot” fine is truly advantageous, or whether it is preferable to insist on standard administrative proceedings, where there will be more room for a defence, including raising the argument of the prohibition of double punishment.

A specific issue is the running of limitation periods for liability for a misdemeanour. Act No. 250/2016 Coll., on Liability for Misdemeanours and Proceedings Concerning Them, generally provides that liability for a misdemeanour ceases upon expiry of the limitation period, with the length and commencement differing depending on the nature of the misdemeanour and any special regulations.

In the area of food law, certain special acts may provide rules that tie the commencement of the limitation period to the moment when the supervisory authority becomes aware of the breach, while also setting a maximum objective period of several years from the commission of the act. In practice, this means that an entrepreneur may also raise a limitation defence in an appeal if SZPI initiated proceedings or decided only after a significant time lapse; however, assessing this defence is often legally complex and requires a detailed analysis of the timeline of the conduct, the inspection, and the proceedings.

Immediate internal response and document handling

After receiving the decision imposing a fine, it is necessary to quickly organise an internal investigation and gather all relevant materials. From a legal perspective, what matters is what is contained in the inspection report, which is the key evidentiary document in administrative proceedings, and how the factual circumstances are described in the operative part and the reasoning of the decision. The entrepreneur should ensure that all versions of documents, photographs, laboratory analyses, internal records, or email communications are securely stored and that they are not inadvertently altered or lost. Otherwise, at the court stage it may be difficult to prove that the actual situation differed from how the inspection authority described it.

At the same time, it is advisable to carry out an internal analysis of the process that led to the failure. In manufacturing companies, this typically involves reviewing the HACCP system, documentation for input raw materials, temperature records, cleaning and sanitation, and the batch release system.

In gastronomy, attention is additionally focused on employees’ practices in the kitchen and at service, shift arrangements, training, and actual compliance with internal guidelines. Attorneys at ARROWS advokátní kancelář at this stage often cooperate with the client’s internal technology or quality teams, or with external hygiene and food-industry experts, in order to formulate factually precise objections to SZPI’s conclusions and at the same time propose remedial measures that may be a significant argument for reducing the sanction.

It is also important to determine whether and how SZPI recorded the operator’s cooperation during the inspection and whether objections were filed against the inspection report. If the entrepreneur did not file objections to the report, the inspection authority will usually emphasise in the reasoning of the decision that the factual findings were not challenged, and courts take this into account when reviewing the decision.

This does not mean that a defence is impossible; however, it is necessary to work with a higher level of procedural risk and to explain thoroughly why objections were not raised in time (for example, due to incorrect instructions, a language barrier, or a misunderstanding of the legal consequences).

Engaging legal counsel and communicating with SZPI

From a practical perspective, it is advisable to engage an experienced legal representative as early as possible, ideally before half of the appeal period has elapsed, so that a high-quality appeal can be prepared in time. Act No. 500/2004 Coll., the Administrative Procedure Code, allows representation on the basis of a power of attorney, and the case law of the administrative courts has repeatedly addressed the consequences of the fact that only a legal representative acts on behalf of the inspected person.

In practice, this means it is advisable to be clear about who will communicate with SZPI and who will be authorised to take steps, including filing an appeal, objections, or requests to inspect the file. Errors in form or in procedural representation may lead to an appeal being rejected as late or inadmissible, even in situations where the substantive arguments would be very strong.

Communication with the Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority (SZPI) should be factual, courteous, and consistent. All material facts should ideally be communicated in writing, or at least subsequently confirmed in writing, so that the content of the communication can be proven in any potential court proceedings. Businesses sometimes underestimate the importance of requesting access to the file – even though it is precisely from the file that you can determine what materials SZPI actually relied on, how laboratory analyses were performed, whether methodological procedures were followed, and whether the documentation contains inconsistencies that can be used in an appeal.

In such situations, the attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, often also prepare technical questions for the inspection authority in order to clarify uncertainties before filing an appeal and thereby prevent potential misunderstandings or unnecessary court disputes.

Appeal against a fine: procedure, arguments, and burden of proof

Legal framework for an appeal in administrative proceedings with SZPI

An appeal against a fine imposed by SZPI is procedurally governed by Act No. 500/2004 Coll., the Administrative Procedure Code, and Act No. 250/2016 Coll., on liability for misdemeanours and proceedings concerning them, unless specific food legislation provides otherwise. The Administrative Procedure Code provides that an appeal against a first-instance decision of an administrative authority may be filed within fifteen days from the date it is notified, and the appeal is filed with the authority that issued the decision.

The Act on liability for misdemeanours and proceedings concerning them further specifies who is entitled to file an appeal, in particular the accused of the misdemeanour, the injured party in relation to compensation for damage, or the owner of the item if a decision was made on its forfeiture. In the area of food law, the first instance is typically decided by the locally competent SZPI inspectorate, and the appeal is then decided by the Central Inspectorate as the second-instance authority.

The appellate authority reviews the lawfulness and correctness of the contested decision within the scope of the objections stated in the appeal, unless it is a case where it is obliged to take defects into account ex officio. This means that the business should expressly formulate in the appeal all key objections – both to the conclusion that an obligation was breached and to the amount of the fine imposed, and, where relevant, also that there has been a breach of the prohibition of double punishment for the same act.

Act No. 250/2016 Coll., on liability for misdemeanours and proceedings concerning them, also sets out certain rules for imposing administrative penalties, including the principle that liability is assessed under the law effective at the time the misdemeanour was committed, while a later regulation that is more favourable to the offender must be applied even if it has meanwhile ceased to be effective.
In practice, this principle can be used especially for offences where the fine range or the type of sanction has changed in recent years, for example in connection with amendments to misdemeanour law.

The administrative authority is obliged to address this issue ex officio; nevertheless, it makes sense to expressly draw attention to it in the appeal, especially if the legal regulation originally applied would be less favourable for the business.

Formal requirements and structure of the appeal

The appeal must meet the general requirements for submissions under Act No. 500/2004 Coll., the Administrative Procedure Code, i.e., identification of the appellant, designation of the contested decision, the extent to which the decision is being challenged, and the statement of the grounds of appeal. Case law of the administrative courts shows that the appellate authority is bound precisely by the scope and grounds of the appeal, unless it concerns manifest nullity or other defects that must be taken into account ex officio; therefore, general or vague objections such as “I disagree with the decision” usually do not lead to a full review.

In business practice, it has proven effective to structure the appeal into several logical parts: procedural objections (for example, inadequate instructions, exclusion of a representative, breach of the right to comment on the underlying documents), objections to the assessment of evidence and factual findings, objections to the legal classification, and finally objections to the type and amount of the sanction.

If the business alleges a breach of the ne bis in idem principle, it is appropriate to include this argument in a separate section describing precisely what prior decision exists, when it became final, what act it concerns, and in what respect it is identical to the act now being sanctioned by SZPI.

The appellate authority assesses the ne bis in idem principle always in relation to the specific factual circumstances – i.e., time, place, conduct, and consequence – not merely on the basis of the verbal description of the elements of the offence.

In practice, for example, it may occur that a business was sanctioned for the same food distribution chain first by another supervisory authority (such as the Office for the Protection of Competition or another regulator) and subsequently by SZPI, and it is necessary to examine carefully whether it is one act with different legal consequences or multiple acts separated in time or space.

Assessment of evidence and the factual situation

The basis of the defence in an appeal is often a dispute with how SZPI established and assessed the facts. In its inspection activities, the authority takes food samples from product batches, which are then analysed in laboratories for microbiological and chemical parameters, quality, and correctness of labelling. The results are recorded in sample-taking reports and laboratory reports, which form a substantial part of the administrative file.

If a business relatively passively accepted the conclusions of the report and did not raise objections to it, later challenging the factual findings may be procedurally more difficult, but not impossible. In the appeal, it makes sense to focus on specific inconsistencies: for example, a discrepancy between the declared and actual batch, incorrect attribution of responsibility to the operator, failure to follow the sampling methodology, ambiguity of laboratory results, or incorrect assessment of exceedance of limits.

In more complex cases—especially disputes concerning food safety, the presence of foreign substances, or novel foods—it is often necessary to work with expert opinions from court-appointed experts or specialists who can explain, for example, the impact of the technological process, the stability of a substance, or possible sources of contamination.

In such situations, the attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, often coordinate the preparation of an expert report so that it is understandable for the appellate authority and, later, the court, and so that it focuses on legally relevant issues rather than matters that are merely technically interesting.

Proportionality of the fine and the principle of individualization of punishment

Even where a business essentially acknowledges that a certain breach occurred, it is often very effective to focus the appeal on the proportionality of the imposed fine. Act No. 250/2016 Coll., on liability for misdemeanors and proceedings on them, is based on the premise that a fine is an administrative punishment that should have both repressive and preventive effects, but at the same time must be individualized with regard to the nature and seriousness of the offense, the circumstances of its commission, the degree of fault, the duration, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the offender’s financial situation.

Specialist literature and methodologies on Czech misdemeanors law emphasize that mechanical comparisons of fine amounts across different cases have only limited informative value, because the factual circumstances may differ significantly. When arguing about the amount of the fine, it is appropriate to emphasize, for example, that it was a one-off lapse, that no real health impact was identified, that the business immediately adopted remedial measures, that it fully cooperated with the inspection authority, and that it has not had a similar breach to date. It is also appropriate to point out that it has objectively limited economic means, so a fine in the given amount is ruinous for it.

However, the offender’s financial situation alone does not automatically lead to a lower fine; rather, it should lead to its individualization so that it is perceived as tangible, not ruinous, as also follows from expert opinions and methodological guidance on the proportionality of fines. The administrative authority is obliged to address these arguments expressly in the reasoning for its assessment of the amount of the sanction; otherwise, the decision may subsequently be annulled by a court for insufficient reasoning.

When imposing sanctions for multiple offenses, the absorption principle or the rules on the so-called aggregate penalty are of particular importance. Act No. 250/2016 Coll., on liability for misdemeanors and proceedings on them, allows that, when multiple offenses are heard jointly, the imposed fine may be higher, with the upper limit of the range potentially increased in accordance with the rules set by the Act. In an appeal, it is then appropriate to examine whether the administrative authority correctly assessed that these are multiple separate acts, or whether some of them in fact constitute a single continuing course of conduct for which one sanction should be imposed. It is precisely in this context that the issue of the prohibition of double punishment for the same act may arise, which we will address in the next section.

Appeals and double sanctions in practice

Possible issues	How ARROWS helps (office@arws.cz)
Incomplete or late appeal: the business fails to submit objections against the SZPI decision in time or with sufficient specificity, which results in the fine being upheld in full.	Preparing and structuring the appeal: the attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, quickly analyze the file, identify key objections, prepare a high-quality appeal, and monitor deadlines and formal requirements.
Insufficiently documented factual defense: the company lacks supporting documents to challenge the inspection findings or laboratory analyses.	Working with evidence and experts: we will put in place an evidence strategy, recommend suitable court-appointed experts or specialist opinions, and help set up an internal archiving and documentation system.
Double sanction for the same act: the business faces parallel enforcement by SZPI and another authority for the same circumstances, or repeated SZPI sanctions for a single course of events.	Invoking the ne bis in idem principle: we will analyze the identity of the facts, prepare legal arguments on the prohibition of double punishment, and represent the client in proceedings before authorities and courts.
A ruinously high fine: the imposed sanction does not correspond to the seriousness of the breach and threatens the economic stability of the company or group.	Negotiating and reducing sanctions: we will propose a strategy to moderate the fine, highlight mitigating circumstances, and implement preventive measures that may lead to a lower sanction.
Risk of reputational damage and impact on transactions: a published fine complicates negotiations with investors, banks, or in M&A transactions.	Comprehensive crisis management: we will align the legal strategy in proceedings before SZPI and the courts with the client’s media and transactional reality and help minimize reputational and commercial damage.

Double sanctions for the same breach and the ne bis in idem principle

Basic legal framework of the ne bis in idem principle

The ne bis in idem principle—translated as “not twice for the same thing”—is a fundamental right enshrined both in the Czech constitutional order (in particular Article 40(5) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) and in European Union law (in particular Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), as well as in European human-rights instruments (in particular Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms).

In short, it is a prohibition on the same individual or legal entity being sanctioned more than once for the same act in criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings. In Czech administrative punishment, this principle is reflected both in the prohibition on conducting parallel or subsequent proceedings in the same matter and in the prohibition of so-called double counting—i.e., using the same circumstance both as an element of the offense and as an aggravating circumstance when imposing a sanction.

Authorities applying EU law follow the interpretation of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has formulated the conditions for applying the ne bis in idem principle primarily in competition law and in the area of sanctions of a criminal nature.

The Court of Justice has concluded that the application of this principle under EU law is conditional on several requirements being met: identity of the offender, identity of the protected legal interest, and identity of the act, with more recent case law placing particular emphasis on factual identity—i.e., whether the sanctioning proceedings concern the same set of specific circumstances in time, place, and conduct. This concept is also close to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which in the Zolotukhin judgment explained that what is decisive is the unity of the factual circumstances, not the legal classification.

In practice, ne bis in idem is typically assessed in the following scenarios: whether it is possible to proceed concurrently under EU and national law for the same cartel or other anti-competitive conduct, or whether parallel criminal and administrative sanctions may be imposed for the same conduct. The question also arises as to whether multiple administrative authorities may independently sanction the same business for the same factual circumstances.

In the context of food supervision, the question may therefore arise whether the Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority (SZPI) may impose a fine for misleading food labelling if the entrepreneur has already been sanctioned by another authority for an unfair commercial practice, or whether SZPI may impose repeated penalties for the identical batch of a product in different proceedings. The answer depends on a detailed assessment of the unity of the facts and on how the protected legal interests of the individual regulations are defined.

Competition case law and its impact on other areas

In the Czech context, the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court in competition matters is also significant, as it has addressed the accumulation of sanctions under EU and national competition law. In one of the key judgments, the court concluded that if the Office for the Protection of Competition applies, to factually the same conduct, both the national rules and the EU prohibition of abuse of a dominant position in parallel, this constitutes a breach of the ne bis in idem principle and it is not possible to impose a sanction for a cumulative breach of materially the same prohibition.

The court emphasised that, in this case, the object of protection under both the EU and national rules is competition, and that a single-act concurrence is excluded in such a situation. In its methodological guidance on the ne bis in idem principle, the Office for the Protection of Competition summarised that at least two conditions must be met for its application: the existence of a prior final decision on the merits and identity of the act. An “act” is understood as a set of specific circumstances inseparably linked in time and place and in relation to the same perpetrator.

At the same time, it noted that the legal classification or the difference in the protected legal interest are not, in themselves, decisive for finding identical unlawful conduct, and that the principle does not apply if the acts are not identical but only similar. In subsequent EU case law, for example in Nordzucker, the Court of Justice accepted that an undertaking may be sanctioned by competition authorities of two states if each proceeding addresses different territorial or temporal effects of the same cartel, provided there is sufficient coordination and proportionality of the aggregate sanctions.

This competition case law is important beyond competition law, including in the area of food supervision, because it shows that the limits of the ne bis in idem principle in the EU context are not absolute. It is possible for certain conduct to be subject to a certain degree of “multi-level” enforcement if the sanctions relate to different segments of the same conduct (for example, a different territory or a different period) or if the rules under which parallel enforcement under different sectoral regulations may occur are clearly defined and coordinated.

For entrepreneurs, this means that the mere existence of a prior sanction by another authority does not automatically mean that the second proceeding is unlawful; however, it is always necessary to examine whether impermissible duplication is occurring in the specific factual circumstances.

Ne bis in idem in misdemeanour law and the prohibition of double counting

In Czech misdemeanour law, alongside the general principle prohibiting double punishment, a specific prohibition of so-called double counting also applies. In its case law, the Supreme Administrative Court has repeatedly emphasised that a circumstance which is a statutory element of the offence cannot be taken into account again as an aggravating circumstance when determining the amount of the sanction.

In other words, an administrative authority cannot, for example, double a fine on the grounds that the conduct breached precisely the obligation that is already included in the definition of the offence, or that it interfered with the same interest protected by that definition. This principle prevents sanctions from being disproportionately increased on the basis of circumstances that are already “counted” in the very qualification of the offence.

Act No. 250/2016 Coll., on liability for misdemeanours and proceedings concerning them, also addresses the relationship between administrative and criminal proceedings, for example by providing that certain misdemeanours are not dealt with if the same act has been decided in criminal proceedings. At the same time, it allows misdemeanour proceedings to be re-opened in certain cases after the conclusion of criminal proceedings if there was no conviction or acquittal on the merits, but, for example, a conditional discontinuance or approval of a settlement. Here too, the assessment of the identity of the act is key, not merely the legal classification; if the misdemeanour and the criminal offence were based on identical factual circumstances, the second proceeding would be contrary to the ne bis in idem principle.

In relation to SZPI fines, it is also important to assess whether the specific sanction is criminal in nature within the meaning of European standards, and therefore whether the protection under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union fully applies to it. Given that fines may reach very high amounts, have a deterrent and punitive character, and are imposed following formal proceedings with procedural safeguards, it is very likely that they would be considered criminal in nature within the meaning of the case law of the ECtHR and the Court of Justice of the EU.

This strengthens the scope for entrepreneurs’ arguments if they face double punishment for the same factual circumstances—whether it is a combination of different administrative authorities or repeated SZPI proceedings in a matter that has already been finally concluded.

Double sanctions in food supervision: typical scenarios

In practice, entrepreneurs may encounter several typical scenarios in food supervision where the question of double punishment arises. The first is a situation where more than one supervisory authority sanctions the same product or advertising—for example, SZPI for a breach of food regulations and, at the same time, another authority (e.g., the Czech Trade Inspection Authority or the Office for the Protection of Competition) for an unfair commercial practice or a breach of competition law.

The second scenario is that SZPI conducts two separate proceedings concerning the same batch of a product or the same operational setup, for example first for non-compliant quality and subsequently for misleading labelling, and imposes two fines even though the interference with the protected interest is, in fact, unitary. The third scenario is a combination of an SZPI fine with other measures, such as publication of the decision or the imposition of protective measures, where the entrepreneur may believe that this amounts to double punishment for the same conduct.

In the first scenario, the key question for assessing the ne bis in idem principle is whether the different authorities are sanctioning truly the same act, or whether each proceeding targets a different aspect of the conduct and protects a different legal interest. For example, a sanction for breaching the prohibition of dual quality of food, imposed by SZPI, specifically protects consumers against misleading marketing of foods of different quality on different markets. By contrast, the Office for the Protection of Competition may sanction cartel agreements or abuse of dominance that distort competition.

If the factual circumstances are different—for example, a bilateral distribution agreement versus the specific composition of a product—it is not possible to speak of the same act, and therefore not of a breach of ne bis in idem. Conversely, if two different proceedings addressed the same advertisement or the same product packaging presented to consumers in the same way, it can be argued that this is one act with parallel legal effects.

In the second scenario, where SZPI conducts two proceedings concerning the same batch or operation, it is necessary to carefully analyse the temporal and substantive unity of the act. If it is one continuous conduct (for example, long-term incorrect labelling of all products in a given range), the administrative authority may proceed with joint consideration of the misdemeanours and impose a single fine, while the law allows the upper limit of the fine range to be increased in the case of joint consideration.

Splitting a matter into multiple proceedings with multiple fines for the same set of circumstances may be contrary to the ne bis in idem principle as well as the principle of proportionality of the sanction. In an appeal, it is therefore important to argue the unity of the facts, prior decisions, and the prohibition of double attribution, especially if, in the second proceeding, the Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority (SZPI) treats as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the same obligations were breached for which a sanction has already been imposed earlier.

In the third scenario, i.e., a combination of a fine with other measures (for example, publication of the decision or temporary closure of the establishment), it is necessary to distinguish between punitive and preventive/protective instruments. Act No. 250/2016 Coll., on liability for misdemeanours and proceedings concerning them, allows, in addition to a fine, the imposition of other administrative penalties such as a ban on activity, forfeiture of an item, or publication of the decision, where a special act so provides, as well as protective measures alongside them.

However, the ne bis in idem principle does not prevent multiple types of sanctions from being imposed cumulatively for a single offence, provided there is a legal basis for such cumulation and proportionality is respected. A different situation would arise if an administrative authority, in new proceedings, attempted to impose a fine again for conduct that has already been finally adjudicated and for which both a fine and, for example, publication of the decision were imposed—this would be contrary to the prohibition of a second penalty for the same conduct.

Judicial review of SZPI decisions and the entrepreneur’s strategic decisions

When and how to file an administrative action against an SZPI decision

If the appellate authority—typically the central inspectorate of SZPI—dismisses the appeal and upholds the decision imposing a fine, the entrepreneur has the option to seek protection in administrative judicial proceedings. The procedural framework is set by Act No. 150/2002 Coll., the Code of Administrative Justice, which governs actions against decisions of administrative authorities and the jurisdiction of Regional Courts and the Supreme Administrative Court.

The basic time limit for filing an action is generally two months from the date of service of the decision of the appellate authority, unless a special act provides otherwise, and the action is filed with the Regional Court having jurisdiction according to the seat of the defendant administrative authority. In the action, the claimant must assert that their rights were infringed as a result of the contested decision, which in most SZPI fine cases will not be difficult to demonstrate.

In its review, the court proceeds from the factual and legal situation that existed at the time the administrative authority issued its decision, not at the time the court decides. This means that subsequent remedial measures or newly discovered facts may be of limited relevance if they were not raised already in the administrative proceedings, although they may play a role, for example, in considerations regarding mitigation of the sanction. The court reviews the legality and reviewability of the decision and may annul it due to procedural defects, insufficient reasoning, incorrect assessment of evidence, or incorrect legal assessment of the matter. In some cases, the court may also assess the proportionality of the amount of the fine, especially if the administrative authority failed to individualise the sanction and respond adequately to the offender’s arguments.

The strategic decision whether to file an action depends on several factors: the amount of the fine, reputational impact, chances of success, and the impact on ongoing transactions (for example, a sale of the business or financing). It is also important to consider whether there is potential for a fundamental shift in case law that could affect other cases as well.

In practice, the attorneys at ARROWS advokátní kancelář often consider with clients not only the “purely legal” chance of having the decision annulled, but also the costs and benefits of the dispute in a broader business context, including the possible prolongation of uncertainty. They also take into account the obligation to reflect the disputed sanction in accounting records or in due diligence documentation when negotiating with investors.

The evidentiary situation and the role of expert opinions in court proceedings

Although the court proceeds from the factual situation at the time the administrative authority decided, it may supplement the evidence, especially if it has doubts about the completeness or objectivity of the materials on which SZPI relied. In the area of Czech food law, this often means examining laboratory reports, measurement methodologies, the operator’s internal records, and, where appropriate, expert opinions in the fields of hygiene, chemistry, or food science.

Courts are not obliged to automatically accept SZPI’s conclusions as beyond dispute, and in many cases they review whether the analyses were carried out in accordance with regulations, whether samples were contaminated, or whether alternative causes of the identified defects were overlooked. Courts pay particular attention to the reasoning for the amount of the fine, including whether the administrative authority sufficiently explained how it took into account the seriousness of the breach, the degree of risk, any repetition, and the offender’s financial circumstances.

If the reasoning is general, formal, or contains contradictions, the court may annul the decision and remit the matter to SZPI for further proceedings so that it can supplement the evidence or its considerations. At this stage, it is advantageous for the entrepreneur if they already raised specific objections and submitted evidence in the administrative proceedings; court proceedings are not primarily intended to replace passivity at the previous stage, and arguments raised late may be viewed more critically.

The attorneys at ARROWS advokátní kancelář therefore often recommend that clients work with expert materials already in the administrative proceedings, especially in the appeal—whether internal technical analyses or expert reports—and that they ensure these are properly included in the file. In court proceedings, they then build the argumentation on these materials, or supplement them with additional evidence if the court finds it necessary for assessing the case. This strategy increases the chance that the court will find the SZPI decision unreviewable or substantively incorrect and that the fine will be reduced or annulled.

The courts’ view of ne bis in idem and repeated sanctions

In recent years, the administrative courts have repeatedly addressed the question of whether a particular combination of sanctions breaches the ne bis in idem principle or the prohibition of double counting. In competition matters, the Supreme Administrative Court has expressly concluded that EU and national prohibitions of competition distortion cannot be applied to the same conduct in a way that would lead to cumulative sanctions, and similar principles can, to a certain extent, be applied in other areas of administrative punishment as well.

In general, the courts approach the ne bis in idem principle as a constitutionally protected right, while at the same time accepting that, under certain conditions, it may be restricted if this is necessary and proportionate in the public interest, in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In practice, within food supervision, a court may examine, for example, whether two decisions of the Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority (SZPI) against the same business operator genuinely concern different acts, or whether this constitutes an impermissible repetition of a sanction for the same conduct.

If the court finds that the factual description in the decisions is identical in material respects—for example, it concerns the same batch, the same period, and the same breach of obligations—it may annul the second decision for breach of the ne bis in idem principle. The court also reviews whether the administrative authority exceeded the limits of the prohibition of double counting by using a particular circumstance both as an element of the offence and as an aggravating circumstance when determining the amount of the fine.

However, a defence based on ne bis in idem is not a simple “procedural card” that would automatically lead to success. It requires a detailed comparison of the factual circumstances, precise citation of legislation and case law, and often also comparison with decisions in other areas, for example in competition cases.

The attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, draw here on experience not only in food law, but also in finance, competition law, and regulation of other sectors, because the principles of ne bis in idem and the prohibition of double counting overlap across administrative punishment. For business operators, this means that if there is even a suspicion of double sanctioning for the same act, it is worth investing in a precise legal analysis, which can ultimately significantly reduce their overall sanctions exposure.

Prevention: how to set up compliance to minimise fines and double sanctions

The business operator’s risk profile from SZPI’s perspective

SZPI’s inspection activity is based on risk analysis, which takes into account, among other things, the type of food, the risk level of the commodity, the inspected entity’s inspection history, the volume of its production, and its significance for the consumer basket. In practice, this means that business operators with higher turnover, a broad portfolio, or a history of previous shortcomings are exposed to more frequent and more detailed inspections.

At the same time, repeated shortcomings by the same operator lead to an exponential increase in sanctions—not only due to the upper limits of the penalty ranges, but also due to the assessment of aggravating circumstances and the perception of the quality management system as insufficient. From a prevention perspective, it is therefore useful to understand how SZPI views individual segments. In gastronomy, the most common issues are linked to operational hygiene, pests, expired food, and incorrect labelling of dishes, reflecting the day-to-day operational reality of restaurants and canteens.

In retail, the dominant issues are correct labelling, origin of goods, and storage conditions, while in manufacturing and large warehouses the focus shifts to the HACCP system, traceability, laboratory parameters, and internal control mechanisms. A separate chapter is the import of food, food supplements, and tobacco products, where not only Czech but also EU regulation and notification or approval regimes play a role.

Business operators who want to minimise the risk of fines and potential double sanctions should consider their company through the eyes of the inspectorate. This means identifying critical points in the chain where there is a higher risk of non-compliance, setting internal processes to reduce room for human error, and ensuring systematic documentation that will serve as evidence in the event of an inspection. The attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, within compliance projects often combine legal analysis of regulations with a practical operational perspective so that the solution is not merely “on paper” but truly works in day-to-day practice.

Internal policies, training, and due diligence

Effective prevention in food law rests on several pillars: clearly set internal policies, regular employee training, and ongoing monitoring of compliance. Policies should clearly regulate procedures for receiving raw materials, storage, preparation and serving of meals, product labelling, record-keeping, and communication in the event of incidents—for example, the discovery of a product harmful to health or an intervention by a supervisory authority.

At the same time, they must be aligned with legal requirements, including HACCP requirements and other food safety management systems. Employee training should be practical, focused on specific risk situations, and repeated regularly, especially when staff changes or technology changes. Experience shows that many SZPI sanctions are caused not by a poorly designed system, but by its actual non-compliance due to insufficient training, pressure for speed of service, or inadequate management oversight.

Special attention should also be paid to due diligence in acquisitions of gastronomy operations, manufacturing plants, or large warehouses. Act No. 250/2016 Coll., on liability for misdemeanours and proceedings concerning them, provides that a legal entity’s liability for a misdemeanour transfers to its legal successor, and if a legal entity has multiple successors, they are jointly and severally liable for the misdemeanour. This means that a buyer may “inherit” historical misdemeanours and potential liability for them, including ongoing proceedings or the risk of future sanctions.

As part of legal and tax due diligence, an analysis of the history of sanctions imposed by SZPI, the State Veterinary Administration (SVS), and other supervisory authorities should therefore not be omitted, as well as a review of the target company’s internal processes and policies. The attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, in M&A transactions map and quantify such risks and help reflect them in share purchase agreements, warranties, escrow mechanisms, or pricing.

International elements and the role of the ARROWS International network

For many clients, an international element plays a significant role—whether it is the import of food from other EU Member States or from third countries, the export of Czech food to foreign markets, or membership in international groups that coordinate recipes and product branding across regions. In such cases, SZPI may assess, for example, dual quality of food or unfair commercial practices in the context of EU law, and at the same time the business operator may be exposed to inspections and sanctions in other countries as well.

Coordinating defence and prevention across multiple jurisdictions is key to avoiding unintended accumulation of penalties or unnecessary inconsistencies in legal arguments. Thanks to the ARROWS International network, ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, is able to handle cases with an international element in close cooperation with partner firms in other countries. This makes it possible to align the defence strategy against sanctions, the relevant ne bis in idem legal arguments, and the setup of compliance processes so that they comply not only with Czech law, but also with the requirements of the client’s key foreign markets.

Combined with a high professional indemnity insurance limit (up to CZK 400,000,000), ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can assume responsibility for comprehensive legal solutions, including disputes, appeals, and compliance projects that significantly reduce the risk of future sanctions and double punishment.

Final summary

Appeals against a fine imposed by SZPI and defence against double sanctions for the same breach are no longer a marginal legal issue today, but a common part of business reality in the food supply chain. SZPI has broad powers, carries out tens of thousands of inspections each year, and imposes fines amounting to hundreds of millions of Czech crowns, while repeated breaches lead to significantly higher sanctions and can fundamentally affect a company’s finances and reputation.

It is therefore crucial to respond correctly already at the moment the entrepreneur is served with the decision imposing a fine: distinguish the type of decision, monitor deadlines, gather evidence, analyse the facts, and prepare a high-quality appeal in time. However, the legal reality is often more complex than it appears at first glance. It is not enough to generally object to an “unfair” amount of the fine; it is necessary to work with proportionality and individualisation of the penalty, the offender’s financial circumstances, the nature and seriousness of the breach, as well as principles such as the prohibition of double counting and the ne bis in idem principle.

The issue of double punishment for the same breach becomes particularly important in situations where more than one authority is interested in the same set of obligations, or where SZPI conducts multiple proceedings regarding the same batch or operational setup. A properly formulated ne bis in idem objection can in such cases lead to the annulment or a significant reduction of the second sanction. For entrepreneurs, management, and investors, it is therefore more advantageous to address SZPI fines and related issues in a timely and systematic manner rather than improvising at the last minute.

The attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, have experience in defending against SZPI fines, in court disputes, and in setting up compliance processes in the area of food law, and can therefore offer clients a combination of legal know-how and a practical business perspective. If you do not want to risk unnecessarily high sanctions, delays, reputational damage, or double punishment for the same breach, you can safely contact ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, at office@arws.cz and together we can set a strategy that will protect both your business and your legal position.

FAQ section

1. How quickly do I have to respond after receiving a fine from SZPI?
From the notification of the decision, a standard fifteen-day period runs for filing an appeal, unless a special law provides otherwise, and courts assess compliance with this deadline very strictly. In practice, this means you should contact the attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, immediately after receiving the decision, for example at office@arws.cz, so that a strategy and appeal can be prepared in time.

2. Do I have a chance of success if I admit that a breach occurred?
Yes, even if you acknowledge that a certain breach of regulations occurred, it is often possible to achieve a reduction of the fine or an adjustment of the type of sanction, especially where mitigating circumstances and financial circumstances are properly emphasised. The attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, will help you frame the arguments so that the administrative authority must duly justify the individualisation of the penalty, and if necessary they will also file a motion for judicial moderation on your behalf, if you contact us at office@arws.cz.

3. How do I know that there is a double sanction for the same act?
It is necessary to compare the factual description, time, place, conduct, and consequence in both decisions and verify whether it is not the same act that has already been finally decided, even though the legal classification may differ. In such a situation, it makes sense to have a specialised legal opinion prepared on the ne bis in idem principle, with which the attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can assist after you contact office@arws.cz.

4. When does it make sense to take a dispute with SZPI to court?
A court action generally makes sense for higher fines, for cases with significant reputational or precedential impact, or where the administrative authority has clearly erred in the assessment of evidence or in the legal assessment, including ignoring the ne bis in idem principle. The decision whether to file a lawsuit should be made only after a comprehensive analysis of risks and prospects, which the attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can prepare for you – just get in touch at office@arws.cz.

5. What role do prevention and compliance play in defending against SZPI fines?
Well-designed internal policies, employee training, and HACCP documentation not only reduce the likelihood of breaches, but in the event of an inspection and proceedings they serve as evidence that the company is systematically striving to comply with regulations. This can lead to lower fines and a better negotiating position – the attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can help you set up such a compliance system if you contact them at office@arws.cz.

6. Can an SZPI fine affect M&A transactions or financing?
Yes, higher fines and ongoing disputes with SZPI are usually reflected in legal and financial due diligence, may worsen the seller’s negotiating position, and increase the caution of banks or investors. If you are planning a transaction or financing and you have a history of, or currently have, disputes with SZPI, it is advisable to address this in a coordinated manner – the attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can help you with this if you contact office@arws.cz.

Notice: The information contained in this article is of a general informational nature only and is intended for basic orientation in the matter based on the legal state as of 2026. Although we take maximum care to ensure accuracy, legal regulations and their interpretation evolve over time. We are ARROWS advokátní kancelář, an entity registered with the Czech Bar Association (our supervisory authority), and for maximum client security we are insured for professional liability with a limit of CZK 400,000,000. To verify the current wording of regulations and their application to your specific situation, it is necessary to contact ARROWS advokátní kancelář directly (office@arws.cz). We accept no liability for any damages arising from the independent use of information from this article without prior individual legal consultation.

Read also: