The bachelor thesis examines the principle of material truth as one of the fundamental principles of the General Administrative Procedure Act. The focus was on the question of how effectively this principle is implemented in practice, despite its clear legal basis. The aim of the thesis was to explore how the principle is legally defined, how it functions in relation to other principles of the General Administrative Procedure Act (ZUP), and where its limitations are evident in practice.
The thesis uses descriptive, normative, comparative, and empirical methods. Legal sources, academic literature, and the case law of the Supreme Court and the Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia were analyzed. Examples from the Administrative Advisory Service were also included.
It has been noted that the principle of material truth may be in tension with other principles and practical constraints, such as time constraints of the administrative bodies, passivity of the parties, and lack of evidentiary procedures. Nevertheless, the administrative authority must ensure that the proceedings as a whole are conducted lawfully and in accordance with all relevant principles, even if this requires overcoming apparent conflicts between these principles. Courts generally emphasize the importance of a complete determination of the facts, but allow exceptions where expressly permitted by law.
The research findings are useful for legislators and administrative authorities, as they contribute to a better understanding of the principle of material truth and the possibilities for its more effective implementation. The thesis highlights the need for greater consistency in judicial practice and further analysis of the reasons for non-implementation of this principle. The results contribute to greater legal certainty and trust in the functioning of public administration.
|
