Olomouc administrative court rejects challenge to parking penalty over unproduced payment proof

The Administrative court serving Olomouc denied Lenka Doležalová’s request to set aside a decision upholding a CZK 1,500 parking penalty and return the matter to the Olomouc Regional Authority for reconsideration. The penalty remains in place, and no payment to Doležalová was ordered.

The dispute turned on three minutes: Doležalová said a screenshot showed completed payment at 10:15, before an inspection at 10:18 recorded no active payment. But the claimed screenshot was not presented for the court to examine.

The court distinguished between describing a payment document and producing one that could be checked. Without the screenshot, it could not verify the payment status, timestamp or connection to the vehicle and parking session. Repeated, consistent descriptions did not fill that gap.

The authority, meanwhile, had to identify evidence supporting its decision. Its final decision reproduced a specific inspection entry recording no active payment for the vehicle at 10:18. That was sufficient support on the limited record, although it did not conclusively establish the full payment history.

The judgment stressed that repeated presentations of the inspection extract were not independent records. It also recognised that the entry did not explain the checking method. Those limits mattered, but they did not establish that the observation was wrong.

Suggestions of a slow system or an inspector’s mistake remained possible explanations, not proven facts. Nor was there specific evidence of an unfair procedure independently undermining the decision. Returning the matter for reconsideration would not cure the missing evidence, and no further adjournment was available.

Doležalová’s representative argued that the claimed 10:15 document showed completed payment with the correct date, amount, place and time. The representative suggested that system delay or human error could explain the later inspection result and sought to overturn the penalty.

The authority relied on the 10:18 inspection entry but acknowledged that it recorded only what the inspector detected, not the complete payment history. It argued that the unproduced screenshot could not be assessed for completion status or matched to the relevant vehicle and session, and asked the court to deny relief.

The underlying dispute concerned payment for parking Doležalová’s car in Olomouc. Her initial account referred to an app screenshot showing payment processing at 10:14, four minutes before inspection. She accepted that this alone did not establish completion.

The judgment leaves an important factual limit intact: it did not find that Doležalová never attempted to pay. It decided that the evidence actually presented did not prove completed payment by 10:18 or otherwise justify setting aside the authority’s decision.