Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is increasingly gaining ground in more and more areas of the legal system due to its speed, economy, flexibility and confidentiality. In administrative dispute, due to a number of obstacles and specificities of the procedure, the wider take-up of ADR has not (yet) taken place. In practice, ADR is more often used in discretionary decision-making, which is the exception rather than the rule in administrative dispute. Especially because of its benefits and advantages, ADR could in many cases replace administrative adjudication. But (too) frequent substitution of decisions would undermine the principle of separation of powers. Alternative dispute resolution must respect the equal protection of the rights of the individual, which is made more difficult by the principle of confidentiality, one of the fundamental principles of ADR. The substantive legal bases for administrative dispute resolution are generally governed by mandatory rules which do not allow for free disposal of the claim, which further complicates the introduction of alternative concepts. At the same time, the field of administrative law is strongly intertwined with tradition, which significantly hinders mind shifts and the introduction of innovations.
Taking into account the fact that the ZUS-1 is in the process of being amended, it is appropriate to consider a bolder and more flexible approach by the Slovenian legislator. The amendment of the law could encourage the introduction of court-annexed mediation at the Administrative Court, as it leads the parties to the proceedings to a resolution of the relationship and not only of the individual dispute, while at the same time there is a higher probability of voluntary implementation of the agreement and thus a higher reputation of the judicial system. A de lege ferenda proposal is also an agreement on the facts which is applicable only at the individual decision-making stage. Such an agreement contains the parties' submissions on the relevant facts and thus fills in the ground for decision, and the court is then bound by the facts so established in its application of the substantive law.
|
