The justifiability of the institution of the hearing in administrative proceedings may raise some doubts. The paper explores how this element of proceedings operates from the angle of speedy proceedings, the principle of objective truth as well as purposes which the administrative proceedings as such serve. The author puts forward a thesis that the hearing is not a necessary element of administrative proceedings; moreover, it could be excluded therefrom without affecting the proceedings in a negative manner. In fact, this could even contribute to the fulfilment of the principle of speedy proceedings, as well as depoliticize some proceedings or at least reduce the media interest in them. The paper presents a review of relevant case-law regarding hearings in administrative proceedings. Also, arguments for and against maintaining the hearing have been analyzed. The arguments against it include the need for speedy proceedings, limited credibility of witness evidence or general limited justifiability of holding hearings. In turn, arguments for the institution in question encompass especially the opportunity to collect evidence at the same time and at the same place, as well as the possibility to conduct confrontation. The discussion part of the paper includes de lege ferenda conclusions concerning the possibility to eliminate the hearing from administrative proceedings. This reflects the fundamental thesis of the paper as well as the doubts arising from case-law and practice of decision-making bodies as to whether keeping the institution of the hearing is justifiable.