The impenetrable wall of administrative silence in Serbia

V. Cucić
{"title":"The impenetrable wall of administrative silence in Serbia","authors":"V. Cucić","doi":"10.5937/zrpfn1-36401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The administrative silence, as an apparent manifestation of maladministration, has become an ever-increasing problem in Serbia. The number of administrative silence lawsuits submitted to the Administrative Court has increased more than 26 times in the last 10 years. Two potential reasons why the parties do not submit administrative appeals and administrative silence lawsuits to the Administrative Court even more often could be the lack of necessary legal knowledge (most of the parties are lay persons) or their distrust in the available legal protection mechanisms. Unfortunately, the legislator and the judiciary have undertaken measures that further aggravate the situation. This paper discusses two forms of legislative and judicial support to administrative silence, which discourage parties from using legal remedies against administrative silence and engaging lawyers. The legislator effectively supports administrative silence by, save for one exception, preventing parties from claiming damages for the damage they sustained due to the failure of competent administrative authorities to decide in their cases in a timely manner. The Administrative Court supports the administrative silence by a legal stand prescribing that a party is not entitled to reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of lawyer's services, provided that the first-instance administrative authority replaced its act challenged by an administrative appeal before the Administrative Court decided on the administrative silence lawsuit.","PeriodicalId":192224,"journal":{"name":"Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta Nis","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta Nis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfn1-36401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The administrative silence, as an apparent manifestation of maladministration, has become an ever-increasing problem in Serbia. The number of administrative silence lawsuits submitted to the Administrative Court has increased more than 26 times in the last 10 years. Two potential reasons why the parties do not submit administrative appeals and administrative silence lawsuits to the Administrative Court even more often could be the lack of necessary legal knowledge (most of the parties are lay persons) or their distrust in the available legal protection mechanisms. Unfortunately, the legislator and the judiciary have undertaken measures that further aggravate the situation. This paper discusses two forms of legislative and judicial support to administrative silence, which discourage parties from using legal remedies against administrative silence and engaging lawyers. The legislator effectively supports administrative silence by, save for one exception, preventing parties from claiming damages for the damage they sustained due to the failure of competent administrative authorities to decide in their cases in a timely manner. The Administrative Court supports the administrative silence by a legal stand prescribing that a party is not entitled to reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of lawyer's services, provided that the first-instance administrative authority replaced its act challenged by an administrative appeal before the Administrative Court decided on the administrative silence lawsuit.
塞尔维亚行政沉默的牢不可破之墙
行政上的沉默作为行政不善的明显表现,已成为塞尔维亚日益严重的问题。最近10年间,向行政法院提出的行政沉默诉讼增加了26倍以上。当事人不经常向行政法院提出行政申诉和行政沉默诉讼的两个潜在原因可能是缺乏必要的法律知识(大多数当事人是非专业人士)或不信任现有的法律保护机制。不幸的是,立法者和司法部门采取的措施使局势进一步恶化。本文探讨了立法和司法两种形式对行政沉默的支持,阻碍了当事人对行政沉默采取法律救济和聘请律师。除了一个例外,立法者有效地支持了行政沉默,阻止了当事人因行政主管机关未能及时对其案件作出裁决而遭受的损害要求赔偿。行政法院通过一项法律立场支持行政沉默,规定当事人无权获得诉讼费用的补偿,包括律师服务费用,条件是一审行政机关在行政法院就行政沉默诉讼作出裁决之前,将其受到行政上诉质疑的行为予以取代。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信