Admissibility of request for extraordinary review of the administrative court decision in the circumstances of regular administrative court protection

The successive impact of administrative law and administrative justice, their multiple correlations and mutual intertwining, is best reflected in the legal protection provided within the framework of administrative judicial procedure. Thus, the provision of extraordinary administrative court protection (as one and the only devolutive type of extraordinary legal remedy in administrative procedure) is preconditioned by exhausting the appeal as a regular legal remedy in administrative procedure. Starting from the thesis on the integral nature of administrative law and administrative court protection, the author discusses how the existence of a regular legal remedy, or the position of judicial practice on the (non)existence of appeal in the regular administrative judicial procedure, affects the party's opportunity to protect itself by filing a request for an extraordinary review of the administrative court decision, envisaged in Article 49 of the Administrative Disputes Act (ADA) as an extraordinary legal remedy. The Administrative Disputes Act (ADA) envisages three types of situations in which the injured party may file a request for an extraordinary review of the judicial decision rendered by the Administrative Court. One of them refers to "the subject matter which excludes the possibility of filing an appeal in the course of administrative procedure". Given that the current General Administrative Procedure Act (GAPA) envisages the possibility of filing an appeal and an objection as regular legal protection instruments, there is a question of the legal relevance of objection in terms of the admissibility of using the request for an extraordinary review of the Administrative Court decision. Can the objection be considered a regular legal remedy in administrative proceedings? If the answer is positive, the request under the ADA will be rejected, which further implies that the injured party will be deprived of legal protection. If the reply is negative, it would provide for a wider application of this request in practice. In practical terms, the position on this issue has a far broader scope and significance. Depending on the way of approaching the presented issues, taking one or the other position has a substantially different impact on the forthcoming reform of the administrative court protection system, particularly in terms of introducing the second-instance (appellate) administrative judiciary.