Search

The author's attention is focussed mainly on full adjudication administrative dispute. Due to the importance of administrative court control of the facts and due to the existence of varying viewpoints regarding this issue, full adjudication administrative dispute in French administrative law is shown. This paper points out the significance of new facts in administrative dispute in particular if these undoubtedly show that they are different to the facts established in the administrative proceedings. In conclusion, the changeability of full adjudication administrative dispute is shown.

Besides general repercussions of an omission of enforcement of court decisions on the protection of the rights of the parties and on the functioning of the legal system, such an omission in the administrative dispute has additional implications, related primarily to the realization of the constitutional guarantee of judicial review of administrative decisions, the concept of separation of powers, construction of a democratic state, etc. After general considerations of the matter of enforcement of court decisions, the author analyzes the normative framework of the enforcement of judgments of the administrative courts, as well as the evolution of this framework, points out the open questions regarding mentioned regulation, as well as the means of legal protection in case of an omission of enforcement of the verdict.

The aim of this paper is to establish the factors influencing the quality of administrative court decisions. It is claimed that the quality of administrative court decisions does not only depend on the individual, but also on a range of external factors related to carrying out judicial tasks. This is why an attempt is made to explain the meaning of the concept 'quality of administrative court decisions'. Then, an attempt is made to establish the factors which influence their quality. It can be concluded that quality is representative of the process which the administrative judiciary, however independent it may be, can no longer avoid. It is difficult to assess quality administrative court decisions given that awarding a grade implies a range of conflicting factors which make every attempt at systematisation a sensitive matter.

Starting from the fundamental theoretical orientations of full jurisdiction administrative dispute in law in the Republic of Croatia, an attempt will be made to present important needs. These are bolder and more frequent use of the institution of full jurisdiction, and new solutions in legislature which would encourage more efficient achievement of the aims of administrative full jurisdiction dispute and contribute to more effective legal protection. The motive for this is: quicker dispute resolution. Legal practice must start with a liberal interpretation of the need for legal action, and through the legal claim, upon its own initiative, transform disputes on legality into full jurisdiction disputes. The same motive should also inspire court practice concerning exceeding court orders so that administrative disputes are resolved on the basis of the facts established in administrative proceedings. The court itself must also establish the facts. This task is of decisive importance and comes at a time when human rights are well recognised and protected and when the government by law has obligations towards many public interests that those seeking justice refer to or protest against, depending on the situation. The authority of the administrative court must be a guarantee to the party that his/her rights and duties were decided upon in the best way, Therefore it is emphasised that investing in administrative dispute of full jurisdiction be according to the institution of protection of citizen rights. That is, it is precisely in such disputes that judges traditionally have had the broadest powers. Not only can they quash but they amend, that is, amend the administrative judgement and even replace it with their own judgement. The administrative judge decides simultaneously according to the law and facts under the same conditions as the judicial judge when reaching judgements between private individuals.

The aim of this paper to examine the comparative practice of German and Austrian administrative judicial law and to then compare them with the positive Croatian regulations on administrative disputes, and also with the Administrative Disputes Bill which Parliament after the first reading accepted on July 3, 2009. Hence, an attempt is made to establish how much progress the Croatian administrative judicial law will make by passing this new Act. Due to the limiting sphere of this paper, only some issues related to this Bill will be analysed, that is, those related to the subject of administrative dispute. The basic issue here is of ensuring court protection from administrative actions and then the issue of the composition of the court which will deal with administrative disputes, and finally there is the issue of holding verbal hearings which has sparked much debate between Croatian and foreign legal experts. We hope that this paper will contribute to better understanding of these issues for the Croatian public and also to the possible improvement of some legal solutions.

The aim of this paper is to examine whether Croatia needs institutional reform of the administrative judicial system and which alternatives Croatia has at its disposal if it decides upon this reform. This paper is divided into fi ve parts. After the introductory part, in which the author generally problematises the importance of judicial supervision of the legality of the work of administration and administrative dispute resolution, the state of the institutional structure of administrative dispute resolution in Croatia today is analysed. Then, organisational models of administrative dispute resloution in certain European countries are considered and an attempt is made at trying to establish whether a unitary European model of institutional organisation of administrative judiciary exists. An analysis of possible reform alternatives follows in so far as Croatia decides on such reform. In the conclusion, the author summarises the analysis of the problem areas and models of its possible prevalence.

In this paper the author reports on the problem areas of administrative dispute resolution which in the Republic of Croatia is regulated by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. The aforementioned Act was passed in the former SFRJ in 1977 as a federal law published in the then ‘Stu benom listu SFRJ’, no 4/77. With the Adoption of Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (Narodne Novine, no 53/91) the legal text was adopted into the legal system of the Republic of Croatia and, with its minor amendments, is still in force today.

When it is known that the Republic of Croatia hopes to enter the European Union and that it is a member of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, then, it is perfectly logical that the procedural standards provided by article 6 of the aforementioned Convention must be included in the activity of the Administrative Court. Therefore the provisions of article 6, which are mentioned here and are related to the activity of the European Court of Human Rights, by reform of the Administrative Court of the Republic of Croatia, are necessary due to its joining the European Union.