Analysis of the points of conflict between the current systemic and sectoral arrangements for the judicial protection of the rights and legal interests of individuals and organisations against decisions and actions of State bodies, local authorities ...

TITLE: Analysis of the points of conflict between the current systemic and sectoral arrangements for the judicial protection of the rights and legal interests of individuals and organisations against decisions and actions of State bodies, local authorities and bearers of public authority, and the organisation of the administrative judiciary, to ensure effective judicial protection and decision-making without undue delay

PROJECT CODE: V5-2504

PROJECT MANAGER: prof. dr. Bruna Žuber

COLLEAGUES: as. Tilen Majnik, as. Špela Lovšin, as. Alen Kerkoč, as. Matevž Bedič

PROJECT PARTNERS:

590 - University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Public Administration

PROJECT TEAM COMPOSITION:

583 - University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Law:

39612 - dr. Bruna Žuber
59943 - Tilen Majnik
58385 - Špela Lovšin
59912 - Alen Kerkoč
58117 - Matevž Bedič

590 - University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Public Administration:

23676 - dr. Polonca Kovač
31026 - dr. Tina Sever

KEY INFORMATION ABOUT FINANCING:

price category of research hours: A

project value: 10.000 €

co-financers: 50 % ARIS, 50 % MDDSZ

The proposed research project entitled "Analysis of the neuralgic points of the current systemic and sectoral regulations of judicial protection of the rights and legal interests of individuals and organizations against decisions and actions of state bodies, local community bodies and public authorities, and the organization of administrative justice in the light of ensuring effective judicial protection and decision-making without unnecessary delay" focuses on current anomalies in administrative disputes as regulated by the systemic Administrative Disputes Act (ZUS-1) and sectoral legislation. 

The project is divided into five main content sections, with a common thread of the realization of the right to effective judicial protection in administrative disputes. The first content section provides a general definition and analysis of the critical points of the current procedural regulation of administrative disputes. In doing so, the research group will focus in particular on problems identified in practice. These are primarily the lengthening of proceedings and the large caseload of the Administrative Court; the need for greater specialization of administrative judges, a consequence of the complexity and diversity of administrative matters; the simultaneous shortage of judges and professional staff; and the lack of comprehensive regulations on priority treatment. Below is an overview of the areas in which individual sectoral laws stipulate that the Administrative Court shall decide on administrative disputes as a matter of priority or urgency, or that decisions shall be made "without delay" or "immediately." The current sectoral regulation often appears to be unsystematic and uncritical. The legislator defines certain matters (e.g., proceedings under the Insurance Act, the Banking Act, the International Protection Act) as requiring urgent or immediate judicial intervention.

In contrast, others – which are such by their very nature (e.g., certain social matters decided by the Administrative Court, matters relating to the enforcement of criminal sanctions)- do not have priority judicial review. The project thus aims to analyze and define systemic criteria for when priority decision-making is appropriate and how the court should proceed in administrative disputes to ensure an effective triage system. The third part of the proposed research project focuses on administrative procedures in which, for various reasons (e.g., the need for political oversight), no appeal is provided, but rather a direct administrative dispute. This arrangement is problematic, as the findings of the administrative procedure are transferred to the court proceedings, which can delay the administrative dispute resolution process and require a high level of socialization among judges who decide these matters. Proceedings in which two-stage administrative decision-making is not provided for will be assessed from the perspective of conventional and constitutional guarantees, in particular the right to a legal remedy and (effective) judicial protection. The fourth section will discuss the proposed reform of the administrative judiciary, with an emphasis on the current organization and potential upgrades, with a view to ensuring the highest quality of adjudication and, at the same time, more effective protection of individual rights. The last, fifth section of the research project will present comparative legal solutions that could also be useful in the Republic of Slovenia. The regulations and judicial practice in selected European countries relevant to the Slovenian area will be analysed. The selection of countries takes into account the legal tradition of Central Europe (e.g., Croatia, Austria, Germany), the original doctrine of administrative disputes (France), and the comparative modernity of certain institutions in administrative disputes (e.g., in Estonia).

The proposed research project aims to develop initial guidelines and solutions to eliminate the above-mentioned critical points in administrative disputes and to ensure the most effective judicial protection against decisions of the administrative-executive branch of government.

The objectives pursued by the proposed project are multifaceted and intertwined.

The specific objectives of the research are:
- to identify the main points of contention in the current procedural regulation of administrative disputes from the perspective of adequate legal protection of rights under both ZUS-1 and sub-sectoral legislation;
- to review the areas in which individual sectoral laws already stipulate that the administrative court has priority in deciding administrative disputes, to formulate initial proposals on the areas in which such a regulation is necessary and those in which it is not;
- to define the criteria for triage in administrative disputes;
- review areas where no regular legal remedy is provided for within the administrative procedure and present the impact of such provisions on proceedings before the administrative court;
- assess the current organisation of the administrative judiciary and provide initial proposals for consideration regarding the upgrading of the organisation;
- Prepare a comparative legal review of the organisation of administrative justice in five countries; we will analyse countries that are relevant to the Republic of Slovenia, its full membership in the European Union, and the Central European legal tradition (e.g., Croatia, Germany, Austria, France). We will also take into account arrangements that are more modern in comparative law terms (e.g., Estonia).

First work package:
Content: Identification of the main critical points of the current administrative dispute resolution system from the perspective of effective protection of rights under ZUS-1 and sectoral legislation
Duration: 2 months
Second work package:
Content: Review and critical analysis of cases in which priority or urgent decision-making is envisaged in administrative disputes
Duration: 2 months
Third work package:
Content: Review of areas in which no regular legal remedy is provided for within the administrative procedure and assessment of the impact of such provisions on proceedings before the administrative court
Duration: 2 months
Fourth work package:
Content: Review and assessment (advantages and disadvantages) of the current organization of the administrative judiciary and proposals for possible improvements to ensure greater efficiency of decision-making on the one hand and higher quality decision-making from the perspective of protecting individual rights on the other.
Duration: 3 months
Fifth work package:
Content: Comparative legal analysis of comparable regulations
Duration: 3 months