НЕПРОБОЈНИ ЗИД ЋУТАЊА УПРАВЕ У СРБИЈИ
Abstract
The administrative silence, as an apparent manifestation of maladministration, becomes an ever increasing problem in Serbia. The number of lawsuits against administrative silence submitted to the Administrative Court increased more than 26 times in the last 10 years.Two potential reasons why the parties do not submit administrative appeals and lawsuits to the Administrative Court against administrative silence 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 refrain them from engaging lawyers.The legislator effectively supports administrative silence by, safe 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 lawsuit against administrative silence.
References
Administrative Disputes Act, Official Gazette RS, No. 111 (2009).
Cucić, V. (2019). The Procedure of Resolution of Administrative Disputes. In Vuk Cucić (ed.), Collection of Papers 150th Anniversary of the Administrative Dispute in the Republic of Serbia (pp. 135-175). Belgrade: Administrative Court of Serbia, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Law.
Cucić, V. (2020). Privilege of Administrative Silence in Serbia. In Dacian C. Dragos, Polonca Kovač, Hanna D. Tolsma (eds.), The Sound of Silence in European Administrative Law. (pp. 371-398). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
De Graaf, K. J., Hoogstra, N. G., Marseille, A. T. (2020). Remedies against Administrative Silence in the Netherlands. In Dacian C. Dragos, Polonca Kovač, Hanna D. Tolsma (eds.), The Sound of Silence in European Administrative Law. (pp. 179-212). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dimitrijević, P. (2019). Upravno pravo. Niš: Medivest.
General Administrative Procedure Act, Official Gazette RS, No. 18 (2016) and 95 (2018).
Inspection Supervision Act, Official Gazette RS, No. 36 (2015), 44 (2018) and 95 (2018).
Legal stand determined at the 71stsession of all judges of the Administrative Court on 4 April 2017, Retrieved 18 January 2022, from http://www.up.sud.rs/cirilica/view_setence/
Legal stand determined at the 93rdsession of all judges of the Administrative Court on 25 December 2019, Retrieved 18 January 2022, from http://www.up.sud.rs/cirilica/view_setence/
Milovanović, D. (2021). Ćutanje javne uprave. In Zbornik radova Kopaoničke škole prirodnog prava – Slobodan Perović. 63-75.
Nešković, R. Osnov odgovornosti države za naknadu štete. Glasnik Advokatske komore Vojvodine. 5. 241-245.
Tomić, Z. (2010). Komentar Zakona o upravnim sporovima, Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, Službeni glasnik.
Tomić, Z. (2017). Komentar Zakona o opštem upravnom postupku. Beograd: Službeni glasnik.
Civil Procedure Act, Official Gazette RS, No. 72 (2011), 49 (2013), 74 (2013), 55 (2014), 87 (2018) and 18 (2020).
Official Gazette FRY, No. 33 (1997) and 31 (2001) and Official Gazette RS, No. 30 (2010).
Dimitrijević, P. (2005). Odgovornost uprave za nečinjenje – sa posebnim osvrtom na “ćutanje” uprave. Istočno Sarajevo. Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Istočnom Sarajevu.