Central government authorities and their subordinate organisations manage extensive real estate assets without centralised oversight. Responsibilities are divided among individual property managers, while data is recorded across several public information systems rather than being consolidated in a single source. As a result, the state cannot reliably determine in real time what property it owns, its condition, how it is being used, or the costs associated with its management. The key property register is the Central Property Register (CEM) operated by the Ministry of Finance of the Slovak Republic, which contains basic information on state-owned real estate.

“One in every five state-owned properties recorded in the central information system is not linked to the Land Register, and important information is missing for many buildings. This includes, for example, the dates when the property came under state administration and when it began or ceased to be used. Although the Central Property Register makes it possible to identify vacant premises, it does not include information on the technical condition of buildings. Without such data, it is impossible to assess whether these properties are genuinely suitable for use or to determine future investment needs for their renovation,” said Jaroslav Ivančo, Vice-President of the Supreme Audit Office, presenting the findings of the analysis.

Another significant issue is the lack of interoperability between public information systems. In addition to the CEM, the state also operates the Central Economic System (CES), the Register of State Property Offered for Transfer, and the Register of Building Energy Performance Certificates, but each covers only part of the overall property management process. Nearly 12% of public buildings recorded in the CES lack the identifier required to link them to the CEM, preventing the effective integration of existing systems and comprehensive analysis of state property records and management.

The analysis also revealed substantial differences in the utilisation of office space among individual property managers. For example, the Slovak Academy of Sciences reports that 63.7% of its office space recorded in the CEM is vacant, whereas the Ministry of Health reports virtually no unused office space. Overall, approximately 5.7% of office space managed by state property administrators is currently vacant. However, without information on the technical condition and energy efficiency of these buildings, this does not necessarily represent genuinely usable capacity.

The analysis carried out by the national external audit authority also points to systemic shortcomings in property management and governance. Property administration remains decentralised, individual managers apply different practices, and legal requirements are not interpreted consistently. This creates risks of inefficient use of public assets and duplicated investments. As a result, the state often responds only after problems have emerged instead of managing them proactively.

A good example of effective practice can be found in the Czech Republic, where property management is organised through a centralised model operated by the Office for Government Representation in Property Affairs and the central CRAB register. The system is designed to encourage the sharing of public office space and optimise budget expenditure. However, the experience of the Supreme Audit Office of the Czech Republic demonstrates that centralisation alone is not sufficient and must be supported by high-quality data and well-designed processes.

“Without reliable data, clearly defined responsibilities and effective information support, it is impossible to achieve the expected savings and efficiency,” Mr Ivančo said.

A negative example from Slovakia is the case of the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic, which sold its headquarters for EUR 4.6 million and moved into commercially leased premises. During the past two years alone, the Office has spent more on rent than it received from selling its former headquarters. As a consequence, the state permanently lost ownership of a building located near the centre of the capital, which could have been renovated and reused, reducing future expenditure on leased office space.

The Supreme Audit Office therefore recommends that the Government strengthen the central management of state property and implement the government-approved implementation plan for the strategy on managing government buildings. It also recommends that the Ministry of Finance, as the authority responsible for the property registers, ensure the completeness and accuracy of property data, improve interoperability between existing information systems, introduce mandatory use of the CES by all state property managers, and establish a central analytical platform to support strategic decision-making.

A positive development is that, while the audit analysis was being prepared, the Ministry of Finance initiated the development of a reporting module within the CES. According to the Supreme Audit Office, however, this represents only the first step. Without a comprehensive approach to property records and management, the state will not be able to ensure that its real estate assets are managed economically, efficiently and in the best interests of public finances.