Posebnosti upravnog postupka za zaštitu kolektivnog interesa potrošača

Although this text did not deal with comparison of effects different mechanisms of enforcement of consumer protection, the author supports the position expressed in available literature on the advantages which a plurality of mechanisms can bring to a legal system, regardless of the specific legal, social, cultural and any other framework in which these mechanisms operate. After possibilities for collective redress of consumer interests before the courts, via a collective claim, were abolished, Serbian law turned to collective redress in an administrative procedure. The author analyses the features of the special administrative procedure, particularly bearing in mind the basic principles and structure of general administrative procedure, as provided by the Serbian Law on General Administrative Procedure (LGAP). In doing that, the author warns of dangers which “transplantation” of any procedure from one to another mechanism could bring – in this case, from a judicial to an administrative mechanism – as well as of uncritical use of experiences of other jurisdictions in designing policy measures in specific Serbian circumstances. In that sense, the text insists on the clear definition of ministries as competent bodies and their delineation from other bodies which can be classified with the wider category of public administration. Tasks put before ministries have to be in line with their nature and position within the Serbian legal system or otherwise the results these bodies normally achieve in other areas cannot be expected. The author concludes that the departures form rules of LGAP are sizable, especially in relation to the circle of parties to the procedure, as well as introduction of institutes unfamiliar to Serbian general administrative procedure. Particular attention is awarded to comparison of this procedure with the procedure of inspection oversight, which according to the Serbian Law on Consumer Protection is also carried out by public administration bodies, i.e. line ministries. This analysis also lead to some conclusions on the suitability and effectiveness of such collective redress, bearing in mind the role of the administration in enforcement of consumer protection and the definition and aims of collective redress, as understood within the European legal space. This is followed by several proposals for amendments to the existing law. Hence, although a useful and probably faster and a less expensive option, administrative enforcement should maintain in the Serbian legal sys-tem, but should not be viewed as a replacement for collective redress before the courts, as administrative procedure should not be perceived as a sort of “general practice” procedure. Similar arguments purport the proposal to involve other public bodies, primarily existing regulatory agencies in protection of consumer’s collective interest.