Molk organa in sodno varstvo s primerjalnopravno analizo

magistrsko delo

Barbara Balažic (Author), Aleš Kobal (Mentor)

Abstract

Molk organa kot poseben upravnoprocesni institut nastopi, kadar v predpisanem roku ne pride do izdaje oziroma vročitve upravnega akta, s katerim bi pristojni organ moral odločiti o pravici, obveznosti ali pravni koristi posameznika ali pravne osebe. Upravna neodzivnost je pravno vprašanje, povezano z načelom dobrega upravljanja, varstva pravic strank in načelom zakonitosti, ki ščiti pred samovoljo in arbitrarnostjo upravnih organov. Posamezni nacionalni upravni sistemi molk organa različno urejajo in zakonodajalec kršitev predpisanih rokov za odločanje ne opredeli kot nezakonito dejanje. Najbolj razširjen pravni učinek molka organa je fikcija negativne odločitve, ki omogoči uveljavitev pravnih sredstev, kajti šteje se, da je bil zahtevek stranke zavrnjen. Vse bolj pa se z namenom večje učinkovitost upravnega odločanja, kot izjema od klasičnega molka organa, uveljavlja fikcija pozitivne odločitve, ki jo spodbuja tudi pravo Evropske unije. Sodni nadzor nad zakonitostjo delovanja uprave se izvaja preko kontrole dokončnih upravnih aktov, ki predstavljajo predpostavko za sprožitev upravnega spora. Ker v primeru molka organa formalnega upravnega akta ni, se s tem onemogoča sodni nadzor in sprožitev upravnega spora stranki. Zato neizdan upravni akt v primeru molka organa nadomesti fikcija negativne odločitve in gre za t. i. predhodni upravni spor. Sodišče ima v primeru tožbe s katero se zahteva izdaja oziroma vročitev upravnega akta na voljo več možnosti. Lahko naloži izdajo upravnega akta pristojnemu organu, vročitev odločbe ali ob izpolnjenih zakonskih pogojih samo odloči v zadevi. Toda nadomeščanje upravnih aktov s sodnimi odločbami ni pravilo, temveč se uporabi v primeru, kadar je zaradi pravnih in dejanskih okoliščin odločitev sodišča potrebna. V skladu s 6. in 13. členom Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah imajo posamezniki pravico do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva na nacionalni ravni in do dostopa do sodišča ter poštenega postopka v razumnem roku tudi v upravnih zadevah. Upravno sodstvo z nadzorstveno funkcijo nad delom uprave predstavlja pomembno instanco varstva človekovih pravic, saj se z možnostjo upravnega spora v primeru molka organa uresničuje načelo pravne države. Po sprejetem subjektivnem konceptu upravnega spora, ki temelji na varstvu pravic, posameznik z zatrjevanjem kršitve s posledicami prispeva k varstvu objektivne zakonitosti pravnega reda. Upravna sodišča ne presojajo zgolj zakonitosti dokončnih upravnih aktov in dejanj uprave, temveč s svojimi odločitvami usmerjajo delovanje upravnih organov.

Keywords

uprava;sodni nadzor;upravno sodišče;upravni akt;fikcija negativne odločitve;upravni spor;pravo Evropske unije;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2019
Typology:	2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:	UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher:	B. Balažic]
UDC:	347.441.142.32(043.3)
COBISS:	5827883
Views:	1032
Downloads:	152
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary title:	Administrative silence and judicial protection with comparative legal analysis
Secondary abstract:	The administrative silence, as a specific administrative procedural institute, occurs when an administrative act - by which a competent body shall render its decision on a certain right, obligation or legal entitlement of an individual or a legal person - is not issued or served in the prescribed time limit. Administrative non-response is a question of law related to the principle of good governance, protection of party rights and principle of legality that protects against arbitrariness of administrative authorities. National administrative systems regulate the administrative silence differently and normally national legislator does not define such a violation of prescribed time limits for decision-making as an unlawful act. Fiction of negative decision, which enables the enforcement of legal remedies, is the most widespread legal effect of administrative silence, as it shall be deemed that the party’s request has been denied. However, to increase the effectiveness of administrative decision-making, the fiction of positive decision is coming to the fore as an exception to a conventional administrative silence - which is also advanced by the European Union Law. Judicial review over legality of administrative operation is conducted through the control of final administrative acts that constitute a prerequisite for initiation of the administrative dispute. Since no formal administrative act is issued in the case of administrative silence, a judicial review and initiation of an administrative dispute are not possible. Therefore, in the event of administrative silence the non-issued administrative act is replaced by a legal fiction of negative decision - the so-called prior administrative dispute. In the event of a lawsuit seeking the issuance or notification of an administrative act, the court has several options. It may impose the issuance of an administrative act to the competent authority, notification of the decision or, subject to legal conditions, it can decide on the matter by itself. However, the substitution of administrative acts by court decisions is not a rule; it occurs when due to legal and factual circumstances a court decision is necessary. In accordance with Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, individuals have the right to effective legal remedy on national level and access to a court and a fair trial within a reasonable time also in administrative matters. Administrative judiciary, with its supervisory function over the work of the administration, represents an important instance of human rights protection, since in the event of administrative silence, the possibility of an administrative dispute implements the rule of law. According to the adopted subjective concept of an administrative dispute predicated on the protection of rights, an individual, by claiming a violation, with consequences contributes to the protection of objective legality of a legal order. Administrative courts do not only assess the legality of a final administrative act or act of the administration, but through their decisions they direct operation of administrative authorities.
Secondary keywords:	administration;judicial review;administrative court;administrative act;fiction of negative decision;administrative dispute;European Union Law;
Type (COBISS):	Master's thesis/paper
Thesis comment:	Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Pages:	83 str.
ID:	11204376