Public administration is often implemented through the issuing of public acts of a unilateral and binding character. Within public administration, however, legal instruments by which those for whom the administrative acts are binding can defend themselves against any illegality or irregularity of the mentioned administrative acts, are also (must be) provided. The existence and proper effectiveness of these legal instruments can be regarded as a necessary part (sine qua non) of the democratic rule of law. The paper is concerned with the so-called dispositional legal instruments of protection against the administrative acts which are not yet in legal force and their effectiveness. Article's major finding consists in fact, that the effectiveness of dispositional instruments of protection could be limited by absence of devolutive effect, or guarantee of independence in organizational arrangement between first and second instance administrative bodies.Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XII, štev. 2−3, 2014Dispositional Instruments of Protection against Administrative Acts (not in Legal Force) and their Effectiveness
This paper is devoted to the issue of judicial protection in case of (or against) administrative silence (inactivity) and its effectiveness on the case study of the Czech Republic. The aim of judicial protection against administrative silence is to help solving or terminating administrative silence quickly, otherwise, an imaginary vicious circle is created. The purpose of the paper is to verify whether judicial protection is indeed effective by surveying the related legislation and court practice (especially the length of proceedings) dealing with the so-called inactivity. The methods of analysis applied are normative analysis, literature review, statistical analysis of decision-making activities of courts and deduction. Our findings establish that due to the excessive length of court proceedings and incomprehensible legal regulation it is difficult to view the judicial protection against administrative silence as being a speedy and effective instrument of remediation of inactivity on the part of administrative authorities. The results can serve as a ground to compare the situation with other similar countries and to exchange best practices.
The remonstrance is traditional standard (ordinary) remedial measure which can be (only) applied after the first instance decision has been issued by central administrative body. The article is heading to verify the hypothesis whether the remonstrance does reflect the principle of two instances in entirety. As the finding of the research it can be pointed out that the remonstrance represents relative exclusion of the principle of two instances, which is applied only in a modified form, as the remonstrance is not decided by any higher, independent administrative authority, but by the identical central administrative body, namely by its head, not by its remonstrance committee, which issues „only“ recommendations/advices. We concluded that possible solutions are either transformation remonstrance committees into administrative bodies/tribunals, or rules providing the central administrative bodies do not make first instance decisions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.