Search

Polazeći od osnovnih teorijskih opredjeljenja upravnog spora pune jurisdikcije u pravu Republike Hrvatske, pokušat ćemo ukazati na značaj potrebe : smjelijeg i češćeg korištenja ustanove pune jurisdikcije, i novih rješenja u zakonodavstvu, koja bi potaknula efikasnije ostvarivanje ciljeva upravnog spora pune jurisdikcije i pridonijela efikasnijoj pravnoj zaštiti. Motiv za to : brže rješavanje sporova, sudska praksa mora započeti s liberalnijim tumačenjem potrebe tužbe, te preko tužbenog petita, po vlastitoj inicijativi, pretvarati sporove o zakonitosti u sporove pune jurisdikcije. Jednak bi motiv trebao inspirirati sudsku praksu i pri prekoračenju zabrane, da se upravni sporovi rješavaju na podlozi činjenica utvrđenih u upravnom postupku. Sud treba i sam utvrđivati činjenično stanje. Ova zadaća je od odlučujuće važnosti u vrijeme kad se ljudska prava jako priznaju i štite i kad je državna vlast po zakonu zadužena za višestruke javne interese, na koje se, ovisno o slučaju, pozivaju oni koji traže pravdu ili koji im se suprostavljaju. Autoritet upravnog suda mora biti jamstvo stranci da se o njezinim pravima i dužnostima odlučivalo na najkvalitetniji način, stoga ističemo kako je ulaženje u upravni spor pune jurisdikcije u skladu s institutom zaštite prava građana. Naime, upravo u takvim sporovima suci tradicionalno imaju najšire ovlasti. Ne samo da mogu poništiti, već i izmijeniti, odnosno preurediti upravnu odluku, pa čak je i zamijeniti vlastitom odlukom. Upravni sudac odlučuje istovremeno po pravu i činjenicama, po istim uvjetima kao i pravosudni sudac kada donosi presude u sporovima između privatnih osoba., 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.