In the judgment of April 8, 2026, the Supreme Administrative Court referred to the frequently raised allegation of discrimination in cases involving Police officers.
The court recalled that discrimination can only be considered when a given person is treated less favorably than others in a comparable situation – and without objective justification. Therefore, what is crucial is not the “worse” treatment itself, but the lack of rational basis for such a differentiation.
In the analyzed case, the Supreme Administrative Court found that the situation of a policeman cannot be compared to the situation of a civilian employee. Police service is of a special nature – it is associated with the obligation to be available, readiness to act in the public interest and is subject to different rules than a typical employment relationship.
For this reason, differences in the treatment of officers – even if they are unfavorable to them – do not automatically constitute discrimination. They may be justified by the specific nature of the service and the need to ensure the efficient operation of the formation responsible for public safety.
This judgment confirms that the line between discrimination and permissible differentiation of legal situations runs where objective justification ends. In the case of uniformed services, such justification is primarily the overriding public interest.