Absence of an oral hearing in administrative disputes

ǂa ǂcomparative analysis of Slovenia and Croatia

Abstract

Purpose: The right to an oral hearing is an essential element of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This is particularly emphasised in administrative procedures where the parties are in a hierarchical relationship. The absence of an oral hearing can significantly limit a party’s right to a fair trial. Therefore, this paper aims to explore the positive law and state of play in the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia regarding the right to an oral hearing. The purpose of this paper is to analyse relevant legislation and case law with the goal of proposing future legislation that better aligns with effective legal protection. Design/Methodology/Approach: Desk research was conducted to analyse current legal solutions and case law using sociological research methods. These involved analysing domestic and international legal texts and reviewing the rules governing national administrative procedures in the countries included in the research, as well as against decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. In addition, the research used a combination of primary and secondary data sources. Findings: Administrative courts should prioritise procedural justice and equality of arms, even when there is no clear need for oral hearings, especially if one of the parties requests to appear before the court. To minimise damaging discretion, both parties should consent to relinquishing the right to an oral hearing, which should be mandatory by default. Academic contribution to the field: The primary contribution of this paper lies in its de lege ferenda suggestions regarding the right to an oral hearing, which could potentially enhance the protection of human rights in relation to a fair trial in both administrative disputes and administrative procedures. Originality/Value: This research is original as it presents a comparative analysis of administrative procedure and disputes in selected Member States. To the best of the author’s knowledge, no such comparative study has been conducted before. The findings of this research could have significant value as they highlight the need for improving procedural justice and equality of arms in ensuring a fair trial in administrative disputes.

Keywords

administrative dispute;administrative law;European Court of Human Rights;fair trial;oral hearing;

Data

Language:	English
Year of publishing:	2023
Typology:	1.01 - Original Scientific Article
Organization:	UL FU - Faculty of Administration
UDC:	3.077.3:342.7:061.1EU(497.4:497.5)
COBISS:	178327299
ISSN:	2591-2240
Views:	7
Downloads:	0
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	Slovenian
Secondary abstract:	Namen: Pravica do ustne obravnave je pomembna sestavina 6. člena Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic. To še posebej velja v upravnih postopkih, v katerih so stranke v hierarhičnem razmerju. Odsotnost ustne obravnave lahko bistveno omeji pravico stranke do poštenega sojenja. Namen tega prispevka je preučiti pozitivno pravo in stanje na področju pravice do ustne obravnave v Republiki Sloveniji in Republiki Hrvaški. Prispevek analizira zadevne predpise in sodno prakso ter podaja predloge za prihodnjo zakonodajo, ki naj bo bolje usklajena z učinkovitim pravnim varstvom. Zasnova/metodologija/pristop: Izvedena je bila teoretična raziskava, ki je analizirala trenutne pravne rešitve in sodno prakso z uporabo socioloških raziskovalnih metod. Te so vključevale analizo domačih in mednarodnih pravnih besedil ter pregled pravil, ki urejajo nacionalne upravne postopke v državah, vključenih v raziskavo, v primerjavi z odločitvami Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice. Uporabljena je bila kombinacija primarnih in sekundarnih virov podatkov. Ugotovitve: Upravna sodišča bi morala dati prednost procesni pravičnosti in enakopravnosti strank v postopku, tudi če ni očitne potrebe po ustni obravnavi, zlasti če ena od strank zahteva, da nastopi pred sodiščem. V izogib zlorabi diskrecijske pravice bi morali obe stranki pristati na odpoved pravici do ustne obravnave, kar bi moralo tudi sicer biti del uveljavljenega postopka. Prispevek k znanosti: Prispevek podaja predloge za ureditev pravice do ustne obravnave, s katerimi bi okrepili varstvo človekovih pravic v zvezi s poštenim sojenjem tako v upravnih sporih kot v upravnih postopkih. Izvirnost/vrednost: Izvirnost raziskave je v primerjalni analizi upravnih postopkov in sporov v izbranih državah članicah. Po avtorjevem najboljšem vedenju takšna primerjalna študija še ni bila izvedena. Ugotovitve te raziskave bi lahko imele pomembno vrednost, saj poudarjajo potrebo po izboljšanju procesne pravičnosti in enakopravnosti strank pri zagotavljanju poštenega sojenja v upravnih sporih.
Secondary keywords:	upravni spor;upravno pravo;Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice;pošteno sojenje;ustna obravnava;
Pages:	str. 141-164, 170
Volume:	ǂVol. ǂ21
Issue:	ǂno. ǂ2
Chronology:	nov. 2023
DOI:	10.17573/cepar.2023.2.07
ID:	21923964