The Slovenian perspective of a main hearing in an administrative dispute

  • Bruna Žuber University of Ljubljana
Keywords: main hearing, administrative dispute, human right, administrative court, right to a fair trial, European Court of Human Rights

Abstract

Purpose. This article deals with the current legislation and practice of the Republic of Slovenia concerning main hearing in an administrative dispute. Besides, the article is devoted to legal analysis of Slovenian case law and to examination of demands, established by the European Court of Human Rights regarding the right to a fair trial, particularly the right to a main hearing.

Methods. To conduct the research successfully, the author used the following methods of scientific knowledge: logical (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction), historical, systemic and formally dogmatic.

Results. An integral part of the right to a fair trial is formed by the public nature of a trial, which is, in case of administrative dispute, realised on the basis of a concluded main hearing. Its aim is to ensure a democratic trial, exercise public control over a trial, as well as exercise the right of parties to the dispute and other participants in the procedure to be heard in court. This piece discusses the meaning and the role of the main hearing in an administrative dispute. It examines both legal and general social reasons which speak in favour of the execution of the main hearing. The most important decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and of domestic courts regarding the rights to the main hearing are analysed. The statistical data of the Slovenian Administrative Court on conducting main hearings as an indicator of ensuring the right to a fair trial in the Republic of Slovenia is researched. The author has reached a conclusion that the main hearing in an administrative dispute is of crucial importance with respect to exercising the right to adversarial procedure and right to fair procedure.

Conclusions. Despite the numerous advantages of decision-making in an administrative dispute after a completed main hearing, it needs to be taken into account that the obligation of decision-making after a main hearing is not absolute. Consideration of omitting a main hearing ought to be inspired by the criteria adopted by the European Court of Human Rights, as they provide for a high level of protection of a main hearing as human right.

References

1. Breznik, J., Kerševan, E. (eds.) (2008). Zakon o upravnem sporu s komentarjem [Administrative Dispute Act with Commentary]. Ljubljana: GV založba [in Slovene].
2. Dekleva, N. (2017). Pomen glavne obravnave pri odločanju v upravnem sporu polne
jurisdikcije [The importance of the main hearing in the administrative dispute of full jurisdiction]. Javna uprava, no. 54, pp. 15–32 [in Slovene].

3. Harris, D. et al. (2014). Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press [in English].

4. Helmreich, M. (2013). Absence of an Oral Hearing before the Independent Administrative Panel. Vienna Online Journal on International Constitutional Law, vol. 7, pp. 541–546 [in English].

5. Kerševan, E. (2002) Upravni spor: koncept upravnosodnega nadzora nad upravo [Administrative dispute: the concept of judicial control over administration]. Ljubljana: Inštitut za primerjalno pravo pri Pravni fakulteti [in Slovene].

6. Kerševan, E., Androjna, V. (2017). Upravno procesno pravo: upravni postopek in upravni spor [Administrative procedural law: administrative dispute and administrative procedure]. Ljubljana: IUS Software; GV založba [in Slovene].

7. Pirnat, R., Kerševan, E. (2005). Nekaj misli o zvečanju učinkovitosti upravnega spora [Some thoughts about increasing the efficiency of administrative dispute]. Podjetje in delo, no. 31, pp. 1039–1050 [in Slovene].

8. Rosas, A. (2014). Oral Hearings before the European Court of Justice. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, vol. 21, pp. 596–610 [in English].

9. Samuels, A. (2005). A Right to an Oral Hearing in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings? The Cambridge Law Journal, vol. 64, pp. 523–527 [in English].

10. Schabas, W. (2015). The European Convention on Human Rights: a commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press [in English].

11. Žuber, B. (ed.) (2018). Pomen prakse in zahtev ESČP za izvedbo glavne obravnave v upravnem sporu: študija projekta [Meaning of practice and demands of the European Court of Human Rights for conducting main hearing in an administrative dispute]. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani [in Slovene].

12. Državni zbor Republike Slovenije (1991). Ustava Republike Slovenije (URS) [Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia]. Retrieved from: http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=USTA1 [in Slovene].

13. Državni zbor Republike Slovenije (2006). Zakon o upravnem sporu (ZUS-1) [Administrative Dispute Act]. Retrieved from: http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4732 [in Slovene].

14. Državni zbor Republike Slovenije (2015). Zakon o zavarovalništvu (ZZavar-1) [Insurance Act]. Retrieved from: http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO6183 [in Slovene].

15. Državni zbor Republike Slovenije (2008). Zakon o revidiranju (ZRev-2) [Auditing Act]. Retrieved from: http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO5273 [in Slovene].
Published
2019-06-10
How to Cite
Žuber, B. (2019). The Slovenian perspective of a main hearing in an administrative dispute. Administrative Law and Process, (1(24), 59-69. https://doi.org/10.17721/2227-796X.2019.1.06
Section
Foreign administrative law and procedure