diplomsko delo
Karina Škerl (Author), Janez Čebulj (Mentor)

Abstract

Upravni spor polne jurisdikcije predstavlja obliko sodnega nadzora (kontrole) nad delom uprave, ki pri svojem delovanju izdaja upravne odločbe. Sodni nadzor poteka ločeno od samega upravnega postopka in je zaupan neodvisnim sodiščem. Zaradi zagotavljanja varstva zakonitosti je pomembna kontrola sodišč nad delom upravnih organov, saj so sodišča pri svojem delu vezana na ustavo in zakone. Upravni spor polne jurisdikcije je namenjen izključno presoji upravnih aktov, ki temeljijo na subjektivnem konceptu, ki izhaja iz same Ustave, in za katerega je značilno, da mora tožnik dokazati nezakonitost odločbe in prizadetost pravno varovanega interesa. Glede na pooblastila sodišča ločimo spor o zakonitosti dokončnega upravnega akta, pri katerem sodišče presoja le zakonitost upravnega akta in ne njegove smotrnosti oz. primernosti (naknadno je potrebna meritorna odločitev o zadevi), za razliko od upravnega spora polne jurisdikcije, kjer je pristojnost sodišča širša in sodišče odloča o zakonitosti upravnega akta, ki ga v primeru nezakonitosti tudi odpravi in pri tem še meritorno odloči o upravni zadevi. Kot zadnja možnost učinkovitega varstva pravic posameznika se odraža v nadomestitvi upravne odločbe, saj ima odločba o upravnem sporu polne jurisdikcije neposredni učinek na pravno razmerje in predstavlja izvršilni naslov. Pri upravnem sporu polne jurisdikcije morajo biti izpolnjeni zakonsko določeni pogoji o jasno določenem dejanskem stanju in vsebini tožbenega zahtevka, ki določa okvir, znotraj katerega odloča sodišče, ter zakonsko določene pogoje glede narave stvari. Problem se pojavi, ko upravno sodišče pri svojem odločanju posega v delovanje uprave, s tem ko prevzema upravno funkcijo, saj sodišče ni najprimernejši organ za presojanje javnega interesa, ki je opredeljen v zakonodaji. Zato je pomembno, da nadzorstvena funkcija sodišča ne konkurira upravni funkciji.

Keywords

upravni spor;upravni postopek;sodišča;sodne odločbe;človekove pravice;Slovenija;diplomske naloge;bolonjski program;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization: EVRO-PF - European Faculty of Law, Nova Gorica
Publisher: [K. Škerl]
UDC: 351.95:342.7(043.2)
COBISS: 2053165238 Link will open in a new window
Views: 4
Downloads: 1
Average score: 0 (0 votes)
Metadata: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Other data

Secondary language: English
Secondary abstract: An administrative dispute under unlimited jurisdiction is a type of judicial review (control) of the work of the administration issuing administrative decisions. The judicial review runs separately from the administrative procedure and it is entrusted to independent courts. To ensure the protection of legality, courts' judicial review of the work of administrative bodies is crucial. In doing so, they are bound by the constitution and relevant legislation. An administrative dispute under unlimited jurisdiction is only intended to examine administrative acts that are based on a subjective concept originating in the constitution and where the plaintiff must typically prove the illegality of the decision and violation of the legally protected interest. As far as the court's powers are concerned, there is a distinction between the lawfulness of the final administrative act, where the court only examines its legality rather than its effectiveness or adequacy (subsequent decision on the merits is necessary), and an administrative dispute under unlimited jurisdiction, where the court's jurisdiction is wider and where it decides on the legality of the administrative act. Should it find it illegal, the court abrogates it and makes a decision on the administrative matter on its merits. The last option ensuring effective protection of individuals' rights is in substituting the administrative decision on the administrative dispute under full jurisdiction because it has a direct effect on the legal relationship and functions as the instrument permitting enforcement. Several conditions required by law must be met in an administrative dispute under unlimited jurisdiction, namely regarding a clearly identified factual situation and the contents of the claim, which provide a framework for the court's decision and the legal conditions about the nature of the matter. One of the issues that may arise is when decisions of an administrative court affect the functioning of the administration by assuming the administrative function. Note that the court is not the most adequate body to decide on the public interest provided for in the applicable legislation. To this end, it is vital that the court's power of scrutiny does not compete with the administrative function.
Type (COBISS): Bachelor thesis/paper
Thesis comment: Evropska pravna fak.
Source comment: Dipl. delo 1. stopnje bolonjskega študija; univerzitetni študijski program Pravo I;
Pages: VII, 69 str.
ID: 10951748