General administrative procedure is regulated by the General Administrative Procedure Act. Every administrative procedure has two necessary participants, i.e. a client and an administrative authority. The administrative procedure may be initiated by an authority ex officio or a client, who can be a natural or a legal person. We differentiate between general and specific administrative procedures. The subsidiary implementation of the General Administrative Procedure Act is applied to specific administrative procedures, which means that individual issues not regulated by the law may be regulated differently. We compared the Slovenian general administrative procedure to the Croatian one, identifying similarities and differences.
The evidentiary procedure in Slovenia and in the Republic of Croatia do not differ. The systems of both countries comprise five means of evidence, used in practice and functioning in the same way. The Slovenian administrative procedure is regulated by nine fundamental principles, while citizens of the Republic of Croatia have and follow ten fundamental principles.
The aim of this paper is to consider and study what means of evidence are used in both countries as well as the differences and similarities in their arrangements. In terms of the set framework of research, aim and goal, the paper examines two hypotheses. The first relates to a theoretical dimension, where differences between the Slovenian and Croatian laws are presented in theory, while the second relates to an empirical study in the administrative case-law, where we analysed which means of evidence in the administrative procedure initiate the most administrative disputes. The paper will have a positive impact on officials who deal with means of evidence and all who desire to further study this field. In this way, they will be more aware of the correct use of means of evidence when it comes to providing evidence in administrative matters.
|
