Spor polne jurisdikcije

Dekleva, Nežka (author), Pirnat, Rajko (mentor)

Institut upravnega spora, ki se je razvil in izoblikoval v francoski pravni doktrini in praksi, predstavlja zunanji sodni nadzor nad odločanjem in delovanjem uprave, ki ga med drugim odlikujeta dve pomembni kvaliteti – neodvisnost in nepristranskost. S tem se šibkejši stranki, to je tožniku v upravnem sporu, zagotavlja učinkovito varstvo pravic in temeljnih svoboščin na upravnopravnem področju. Tako institut upravnega spora pomeni pomembno prvino pravne države in vladavine prava. V posebnem sodnem postopku upravnega spora pristojno sodišče opravlja kontrolo zakonitosti nad odločitvami organov oblasti. Pri tem ima na razpolago različna zakonska pooblastila, med katerimi je tudi reformatorično pooblastilo, na podlagi katerega sodišče v upravnem sporu ne presoja le gole zakonitosti sporne odločitve uprave, temveč ima tudi možnost, da sporno upravno odločitev, za katero ugotovi, da je nezakonita, spremeni ter tako sámo odloči o pravici, obveznosti ali pravni koristi fizične ali pravne osebe oziroma druge osebe, ki je lahko stranka v postopku izdaje upravnega akta. V takem primeru sodišče odloči v sporu polne jurisdikcije. Uporaba reformatoričnega pooblastila v upravnem sporu predstavlja najintenzivnejše pooblastilo sodišča, saj pomeni spremembo upravne odločitve s strani sodne veje oblasti, omogoča pa tudi čimprejšnji in učinkovit (pravnomočen) zaključek odločanja o upravni zadevi. Ker sodišče v sporu polne jurisdikcije spremeni izpodbijano odločitev uprave in sámo odloči o pravici, obveznosti ali pravni koristi stranke na področju upravnega prava, to vselej na nek način pomeni tudi poseg v upravno funkcijo, s tem pa lahko tak način odločanja sodišča v upravnem sporu postavi pod vprašaj ustavno načelo delitve oblasti. Zato lahko sodišče zaradi spoštovanja načela deljene oblasti na tak način odloči samo v utemeljenih primerih – kadar so za tak način odločanja izpolnjeni vsi pogoji, kot jih opredeljuje normativna ureditev. S tem se na eni strani zagotavlja ustavno načelo delitve oblasti, na drugi strani pa vzpostavi učinkovit sistem zavor in ravnovesij med izvršilno-upravno in sodno vejo oblasti. Odločanje v upravnem sporu polne jurisdikcije predstavlja način uresničevanja kontrole zakonitosti odločitev uprave in strankam tudi na upravnem področju v polnem obsegu zagotavlja ustavno zajamčeno pravico do sodnega varstva iz 23. člena Ustave RS. Institut spora polne jurisdikcije v normativni ureditvi predstavlja tudi sankcijo za nedelovanje upravnih organov, saj omogoča izvršitev sodne odločitve, kadar upravni organ iz neutemeljenih razlogov ne spoštuje sodbe sodišča, pomeni pa tudi nadomestilo za neupravičen molk uprave. Ker pa tudi v takih primerih odločanje v sporu polne jurisdikcije ni vselej avtomatično utemeljeno, je treba uvesti še druge načine, ki bi omogočali učinkovito discipliniranje upravnih organov in zagotavljali dosledno izvrševanje sodnih odločitev na upravnopravnem področju. S tem bi se prispevalo k zagotavljanju aktivnega delovanja uprave in učinkovitega varstva pravnega položaja strank, okrepila pa bi se tudi avtoriteta sodnih odločitev. Vse bolj se poudarja, da mora biti (tudi) odločanje o upravnih zadevah učinkovito. Zato spor polne jurisdikcije, ki pomeni, da sodišče meritorno odloči o upravni zadevi, ne da bi zadevo vračalo nazaj v ponovno odločanje upravnemu organu, lahko pomembno prispeva k doseganju tega cilja. Tako je treba razmisliti o nadaljnjem pravnem razvoju oziroma nadgradnji spora polne jurisdikcije, ki bi pomenila prispevek k čimprejšnji razrešitvi spora med strankami, hkrati pa bi zagotavljala tudi ustrezno ravnovesje med posameznimi vejami oblasti, zlasti med sodno in izvršilno-upravno, ter njihovimi temeljnimi funkcijami. Iz tega razloga je treba na normativni ravni in tudi na podlagi ustrezne interpretacije v pravni praksi uvesti (nove) možnosti oziroma oblike odločanja v sporu polne jurisdikcije. Pri tem je treba oblikovati take rešitve, ki ne bodo pomenile dodatnega oziroma pretiranega obremenjevanja upravnega sodstva, ampak, ki bodo v prvi vrsti prispevale k zagotavljanju učinkovitega varstva pravic strank na eni strani, ter hitrega in ekonomičnega razreševanje sporov o upravnih zadevah na drugi strani, in s tem čimprejšnjega zaključka postopka odločanja o upravnih zadevah. Pri ureditvi upravnega spora, v okvir katerega spada tudi institut spora polne jurisdikcije, pa je treba, kot rečeno, vselej skrbeti za zagotavljanje ustreznega ravnotežja med sodno in izvršilno-upravno vejo oblasti. Na eni strani je treba skrbeti, da upravno sodstvo ne postane nadomestilo za odločanje o upravnih zadevah namesto uprave, na drugi strani pa tudi, da ne pomeni prekomernega poseganja v izvršilno-upravno funkcijo. Zato je pomembno, da se odločanje v upravnem sporu, ob upoštevanju narave odločanja in okoliščin konkretnega primera, vselej giblje znotraj meje, ki (še) pomeni sodno kontrolo nad odločitvami uprave, ne pa prevzemanja funkcije upravnega odločanja. Tudi upravnemu sodstvu je treba na eni strani omogočiti, na drugi strani pa prepustiti, da (lahko) v skladu z ustavnimi zahtevami in normativnim okvirom zagotavlja kakovostno odločanje o upravnih zadevah ter učinkovito pravno varstvo pravic in temeljnih svoboščin strank, s tem pa dodatno prispevati k spoštovanju sodnih odločitev in h krepitvi zaupanja v delo upravnega sodstva.

• Language: Slovenian
• Keywords: upravni spor polne jurisdikcije, nedelovanje uprave, meje poseganja sodne veje oblasti v upravno funkcijo, oblike odločanja v sporu polne jurisdikcije
• Work type: Doctoral dissertation
• Organization: PF - Faculty of Law
• Year: 2021
• PID: 20.500.12556/RUL-124514
• COBISS.SI-ID: 53272579
• Publication date in RUL: 28.01.2021

Secondary language

• Language: English
• Title: Administrative dispute of full jurisdiction

Abstract

The administrative dispute, which developed in french legal doctrine and practice, represents an external judicial review of administrative acts and has two important qualities – independence and impartiality. This provides the plaintiff with an effective protection of his rights and fundamental freedoms in an administrative dispute. Thus, the administrative dispute is an important element of the rule of law. In a special judicial procedure of an administrative dispute, the competent court exercises control over the legality of administrative decisions. In doing so, the court has various statutory powers at its disposal, including a reformatory power on the basis of which the court in an administrative dispute not only assesses the mere legality of the disputed administrative decision but also has the competence to change it and thus to decide on the right, obligation or legal interest of an individual. This is called the administrative dispute of full jurisdiction. In such case the court thus decides on the matter in an administrative dispute. The use of reformatory power in an administrative dispute represents the most intensive power of the court as it means a change in the administrative decision by the judiciary, but also enables an effective (final) completion of the decision-making process in an administrative matter without delay. The courtʹs power for deciding in a dispute of full jurisdiction has an adverse effect on executive (administrative) branch and consequently on the constitutional principle of the separation of powers. Therefore, the court may decide in a dispute of full jurisdiction only in duly justified cases, when the conditions for such decision are met. On the one hand, this guarantees the constitutional principle of the separation of powers and, on the other hand, establishes an effective system of checks and balances between the executive (administrative) and judicial branch. Administrative dispute of full jurisdiction constitutes a type of reviewing of the legality of the decisions taken by the administration and guarantees the right to judicial protection under the Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia in the field of administrative law. Administrative dispute of full jurisdiction also represents a sanction when the administration does not comply with the judgment or does not issue an administrative act (failure by the authority to respond). However, even in such cases, an administrative dispute of full jurisdiction is not always (automatically) justified, so other possible measures for effective disciplining of administrative authorities and enforcing of judgments should be introduced. This would contribute to ensuring the active functioning of the administration and protection of the legal positions of the parties, and would also strengthen the authority of court decisions. It is increasingly emphasized that resolving of administrative matters should be more effective and an administrative dispute of full jurisdiction can make a significant contribution to achieving this aim. Consideration should be given to further legal development of an administrative dispute of full jurisdiction, which would contribute to resolving the dispute between the parties as soon as possible while ensuring an appropriate balance between different branches of power, especially between judicial and executive (administrative) one, and their basic functions. In view of that, (new) different types of court's decisions in an administrative dispute of full jurisdiction should be introduced into legislation and legal practice. However, these new solutions should not entail excessive burdens on the administrative justice, but, above all, guarantee effective protection of the individuals’ rights and economic resolution of administrative matters. The regulation of an administrative dispute, including an administrative dispute of full jurisdiction, has to ensure an appropriate balance between the judicial and the executive (administrative) branch of power. Administrative justice should not become a substitute for deciding on administrative matters instead of the administration and it should not interfere excessively in the executive (administrative) function. In the context of deciding in an administrative dispute it is therefore important that the limits which (still) outline the judicial control over the administrative decisions are taken into account, with regard to the facts and circumstances of the concrete case. Administrative courts should not assume the administrative decision-making function. The administrative judiciary should also be enabled to ensure quality judgments in administrative matters and effective legal protection of rights and fundamental freedoms of the parties, in accordance with the constitutional requirements and the normative framework. This will increase respect for judicial decisions and strengthen confidence in the administrative judiciary.

• Keywords: administrative dispute of full jurisdiction, non-functioning of the administration, boundaries of interference in the administrative function by the judiciary, types of court’s decisions in an administrative dispute of full jurisdiction