IN THE NAME OF THE PUBLIC: REPRESENTATIVES OF COLLECTIVE AND WIDER INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC IN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS IN SERBIA

  • Jelena Jerinić
Keywords: administrative procedure, administrative dispute, party, public interest, collective interest, wider interest of the public, public concerned, civil society organizations, associations, standing

Abstract


Serbian Law on General Administrative Procedure (LGAP) opened a possibility for broadening the standing in administrative procedures and administrative disputes, by inclusion of subjects representing collective interests and interest of the wider public – primarily, citizen associations and similar organizations. However, by failing to regulate a series of concrete issues, the Law places the administration and the Administrative Court before a challenge, demanding from them an extensive interpretation of not only LGAP’s provisions, but other legislation already recognizing such organizations as aids in realization of the public interest. The author analyzes relevant legislation, as well as available administrative and court caselaw in search of these answers. The lack of explicit legal provisions could be balanced by a creative approach in practice, especially by the Administrative Court. Having in mind comparative solutions, the question arises whether it is necessary to regulate this category of potential parties separately or to link it more explicitly to the already existing notion of an interested party. Instead, completely new notions have been introduced - collective interests and the wider interests of the public - which are not or not consistently defined in Serbian law. The current, not so voluminous case law, shows that the administrative bodies need a more direct indication of the rules, i.e. a more explicit definitions of these terms. However, despite the restrictive legal framework, administrative bodies should be open to understanding the specific circumstances, i.e. the motivation that an organization has when it seeks standing. In the normative sphere, one of the solutions could be to envisage the analogous application of LGAP’s provisions on the interested party. Other solutions could be sought in explicitly mentioning them in the provisions on right to appeal. The current formulations of LGAP do not provide sufficient guidance to the administration and an extensive interpretation would be a great challenge for them. An active approach of the Administrative Court could show the way for the administration toward and effective application of these provisions of LGAP.

 

References

Literatura

Crossen, T., Niessen, V., 2007, NGO Standing in the European Court of Justice –Does the Aarhus Regulation Open the Door?, Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 3.

Cucić, V., 2018, Fino podešavanje Zakona o opštem upravnom postupku, Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, 2.

Čukić, I., Mogućnost participativnog upravljanja urbanim razvojem, u: Čukić, I. (ur.), 2017, Ka drugаčijem gradu, Beograd, Ministarstvo prostora.

Darpö, J., 2013, Effective Justice? Synthesis Report of the Study on the Implementation of Articles 9.3 and 9.4 of the Aarhus Convention in the Member States of the European Union, Brussels, European Commission.

Dimitrijević, P., 2014, Neka otvorena pitanja primene ZUP-a, Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu, 68.

Drenovak-Ivanović, M., 2015, The Development of the Right to Public Participation in Environmental Matters as a New Concept of Administrative Decision Making in Serbia, Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 44.

Eliantonio, M., 2011, Towards an Ever Dirtier Europe? The Restrictive Standing of Environmental NGOs Before the European Courts and the Aarhus Convention, Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy, 7, pp. 69-85.

European Court of Human Rights [ECHR], 2020, Background Paper for the Judicial Seminar 2020: The Convention as a Living Instrument at 70, (https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Seminar_background_paper_2020_ENG.pdf, 28. 11. 2020).

ECtHR, 2020, Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Right to a Fair Trial (Civil Limb), (https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_eng.pdf, 28.11.2020).

Jerinić, J., 2012, Sudska kontrola uprave, Beograd, Pravni fakultet Univerziteta Union, Službeni glasnik.

Karanikić Mirić, M., Mehanizmi zaštite zakonom garantovanih prava potrošača, u: Lilić, S. (prir.), 2013, Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije – knjiga 3, Beograd, Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.

Kiss, C. et al., 2014, Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in the South East European Region Particularly in Respect of Standing, Costs and Available Remedies, Environment and Security Initiative (ENVSEC).

Legere, E., 2005, Locus standi and the Public Interest: A Hotchpotch of Legal Principles, Judicial Review, 2.

Lilić, S., Kontroverze u vezi sa novom radnom verzijom Nacrta Zakona o opštem upravnom postupku Srbije (u kontekstu evropskih integracija), u: Lilić S. (ur.), 2013, Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u upravnom sistemu Srbije, Beograd, Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.

Marinković, T., 2012, Wrestling with Political Extremism – Closure of Associations in the Case-Law of the Serbian Constitutional Court, European Review of Public Law, 4.

Maruna, M., Čolić, R., Milovanović Rodić, D., A New Regulatory Framework as both an Incentive and Constraint to Urban Governance in Serbia, u: Bolay, J.-C., et al. (ur.), 2018, A Support to Urban Development Process, École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) Cooperation and development center (CODEV), Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia (IAUS).

Milosavljević, B., 2019, Upravno pravo, Beograd, Pravni fakultet Univerziteta Union, Službeni glasnik.

Morrow, K., The ECHR, Environment-Based Human Rights Claims and the Search for Standards, in: Turner, S. et al. (eds.), 2019, Environmental Rights: The Development of Standards, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Pavlović, V., 2004, Civilno društvo i demokratija, Beograd, Građanske inicijative, Fakultet političkih nauka, Čigoja.

Pečarić, M., 2012, Public Interest and the Question of Locus Standi, Annals FLB – Belgrade Law Review, 3.

Radonjić, A., Stjelja, I., 2018, Ekološka tužba, Beograd, Beogradski centar za ljudska prava.

Rose-Ackerman, S., Lindseth, P., 2010, Comparative Administrative Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

Sax, J.L., 1973, Standing to Sue: A Critical Review of the Mineral King Decision. Natural Resources Journal, 13.

Seerden, R. J., 2007, Administrative Law of the European Union, Its Member States and the United States: Comparative Analysis, Antwerpen, Oxford, Intersentia.

Tomić, Z., 2017, Komentar Zakona o opštem upravnom postupku, Beograd, Službeni glasnik.

Tomić, Z., Bačić, V., 2016, Komentar Zakona o opštem upravnom postupku – deseto izdanje, Beograd, Službeni glasnik.

Tomić, Z., Milovanović, D., Cucić, V., 2017, Praktikum za primenu Zakona o opštem upravnom postupku, Beograd, Ministarstvo državne uprave i lokalne samouprave, 2017.

Vujadinović, D., 2009, Civilno društvo i političke institucije – Srbija u vrtlogu promena, Beograd, Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.

Propisi

Zaključak o usvajanju Smernica za uključivanje organizacija civilnog društva u radne grupe za izradu predloga dokumenata javnih politika i nacrta, odnosno predloga propisa, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 8/20.

Zaključak Vlade o utvrđivanju Smernica za uključivanje organizacija civilnog društva u proces donošenja propisa, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 90/14.

Zakon o inspekcijskom nadzoru, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 36/15, 44/18 (dr. zakon), 95/18.

Zakon o integrisanom sprečavanju i kontroli zagađivanja životne sredine, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 135/04, 25/15.

Zakon o nacionalnim savetima nacionalnih manjina, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 72/09, 20/14 (US), 55/14, 47/18.

Zakon o opštem upravnom postupku, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 18/16, 95/18 (autentično tumačenje).

Zakon o planiranju i izgradnji, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 72/09, 81/09 (ispravka), 64/10 (US), 24/11, 121/12, 42/13 (US), 50/13 (US), 98/13 (US), 132/14, 145/14, 83/18, 31/19, 37/19 (dr. zakon), 9/20.

Zakon o parničnom postupku, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 72/11, 49/13 (US), 74/13 (US), 55/14, 87/18, 18/20.

Zakon o potvrđivanju Konvencije o dostupnosti informacija, učešću javnosti u donošenju odluka i pravu na pravnu zaštitu u pitanjima životne sredine, Sl. glasnik RS – Međunarodni ugovori, br. 38/09.

Zakon o proceni uticaja na životnu sredinu, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 135/04, 36/09.

Zakon o radu, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 24/05, 61/05, 54/09, 32/13, 75/14, 13/17 (US), 113/17, 95/18 (autentično tumačenje).

Zakon o slobodnom pristupu informacijama od javnog značaja, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 120/04, 54/07, 104/09, 36/10.

Zakon o strateškoj proceni uticaja na životnu sredinu, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 135/04, 88/10.

Zakon o udruženjima, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 51/09, 99/11 (dr. zakon), 99/11 (dr. zakon), 44/18 (dr. zakon).

Zakon o upravnim sporovima, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 111/09.

Zakon o vodama, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 30/10, 93/12, 101/16, 95/18, 95/18 (dr. zakon).

Zakon o zaštiti potrošača, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 62/14, 6/16 (dr. zakon), 44/18 (dr. zakon).

Zakon o zaštiti životne sredine, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 135/04, 36/09, 36/09 (dr. zakon), 72/09 (dr. zakon), 43/11 (US), 14/16, 76/18, 95/18 (dr. zakon).

Sudska praksa

ECtHR, Osman v. the United Kingdom, no. 23452/94, Decision of 28 October 1998.

ECtHR, L’Erablière A.S.B.L. v. Belgium, no. 49230/07, Judgement of 24 February 2009.

Odluka Okružnog suda u Kragujevcu, U 410/84 od 4. januara 1985. godine.

Odluka Ustavnog suda broj VIIU-482/2011 od 14. 11. 2012. godine.

Odluka Ustavnog suda broj IUz-51/2012 od 23. maja 2013. godine.

Odluka Ustavnog suda broj Už-5720/2016 od 1. oktobra 2020. godine.

Pravni stav Upravnog suda utvrđen na 93. sednici svih sudija, 25. 12. 2019. godine.

Pravno shvatanje sednice Odeljenja za upravne sporove SVS, br. 18/62 od 20. 12. 1962. godine.

Presuda Okružnog suda u Novom Sadu, U. 219/2002 od 31. 10. 2003. godine.

Presuda Vrhovnog suda Srbije, U. 1590/2004 od 3. 2. 2005. godine.

Presuda Upravnog suda 1 U. 8961/10 (2009) od 12. 5. 2010. godine.

Presuda Upravnog suda, 1 U 609/19 od 9. 9. 2019. godine.

R v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p. National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1981] UKHL 2 (09 April 1981).

Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972).

Ostali izvori

Obaveštenje Sekretarijata za upravnu inspekciju grada Beograda XI-04-038-91/18 od 27. 4. 2018. godine.

Obaveštenje Sekretarijata za urbanizam i građevinske poslove grada Beograda, IX-18 broj 351-20/2018 od 4. 5. 2018. godine.

Rešenje Ministarstva građevinarstva, saobraćaja i infrastrukture broj 920-363-35-234/2019-10 od 25. 2. 2020. godine.

Rešenje Pokrajinskog sekretarijata za energetiku, građevinarstvo i saobraćaj, broj 143-351-197/2020-01 od 20. 5. 2020. godine.

Rešenje Pokrajinskog sekretarijata za energetiku, građevinarstvo i saobraćaj, broj 143-351-147/2019 od 24. 5. 2019. godine.

Rešenje Sekretarijata za urbanizam i građevinske poslove grada Beograda, IX-20 Broj: 351-468/2017 od 5. 4. 2018. godine.

Rešenje Upravnog suda od 19. 4. 2020. godine, (https://www.reri.org.rs/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/RERI_Rešenje-Upravnog-Suda_19.04.2019..pdf).

Zaključak Sekretarijata za inspekcijske poslove grada Beograda – Sektora za zaštitu životne sredine i vodni inspekcijski nadzor X-9 broj: 325.5-24/2018 od 11. 7. 2018. godine.

Published
2020/12/28
Section
Original Scientific Paper