Modernizing Administrative Procedural Law in Slovenia as a Driving Force of Efficient and Good Administration

• Authors: Polonca Kovač
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The article presents the current organization and the past and potential development of administrative procedural law - particularly the General Administrative Procedure Act - in Slovenia from its independence in 1991 till 2011. The author critically evaluates the regulation of general and special administrative procedures in Slovenia in light of the insufficient overcoming of traditional patterns. Namely the regulation in place overprotects the rights of parties and rather neglects the efficiency of administrative procedures as a whole. The evaluations are supported by the development of the theory of governance, radical changes in society and the need for a shift in the understanding of state / authority in the system in Slovenia and other countries (e.g. Finland, Croatia or the USA). The Slovenian system is firstly analyzed using the historical method and later on, it is assessed in terms of the efficiency of administrative procedures as regulated and run in administrative and judicial practice by means of a SWOT analysis. Additionally, particular emphasis is put on the comparative analysis of the Slovenian system to internationally recognized principles in administrative matters, deriving from the experience of the ECHR, the EU Ombudsman code and EU member states, and theory. The main finding is that in comparison, the standardization of parties’ rights far exceeds basic rights of defense as framed in constitutional terms which in several ways diminishes the overall efficiency of administration. The author therefore proposes the basis for a multilevel model of governing administrative relations de lege ferenda, intended to regulate in more detail the procedural status of the parties on one side and simultaneously the pursuit of public interest on the other. Based on the latest scientific findings, the criteria for differentiation include: relevance of the subject, degree of conflictuality of interests, need for rationality and efficiency of administration, and the position of the authoritative body. The objective is to move administrative procedural law from the margins of modernization of the public administration as found in the development of the Slovenian system in the last two decades and to make it its driving force, instead.

Keywords

EN

administrative procedural law; General Administrative Procedure Act; principles; rights of the parties; public interest; efficiency; modernization; democracy; Slovenia

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy
• Year: 2011
• Volume: 4
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 39-66

Dates

published

2011-12-01

online

2013-05-16

Contributors

author

Polonca Kovač

References

• Androjna, Vilko and Erik Kerševan. 2006. Upravno procesno pravo [Administrative Processual Law]. Ljubljana: GV Založba.
• Breznik, Janez, Mira Dobravec Jalen, Marjanca Faganel, Erik Kerševan, Gorazd Kobler, Kristina Ožbolt, Jasna Pogačar, Zdenka Štucin and Boštjan Zalar. 2008. Zakon o upravnem sporu (ZUS-1) s komentarjem [Administrative Dispute Act with comments]. Ljubljana: GV Založba.
• Cananea, Giacinto Della. 2003. “Beyond the State: The Europeanization and Globalization of Procedural Administrative Law.” European Public Law 9 (4), 563-578.
• Considine, Mark, and Kamran Ali Afzal. 2011. “Legitimacy.” In Mark Bevir (ed.). The SAGE Handbook of Governance. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: Sage, 369-385.
• Craig, Paul. 2005. “Administrative Law in the Anglo-American Tradition.” In B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre. Handbook of Public Administration. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage, 270-275.
• European Ombudsman. 2005. “European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.” Available at http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/code/pdf/sl/code2005_sl.pdf (last accessed 3 May 2011).
• Ferk, Janko. 2007. Pravo je “Proces”: O Kafk ovi pravni filozofiji [The Law is “Process”: On Kafk a’s legal philosophy]. Ljubljana: GV Založba.
• Godec, Rupko (ed.), Lovro Šturm, Gorazd Trpin, Rajko Pirnat and Mitja Horvat. 1993. Upravni zbornik [Administrative Proceedings]. Ljubljana: Institute of Public Administration at the Faculty of Law of Ljubljana.
• Harlow, Carol and Richard Rawlings. 1997. Law and Administration. London, Edinburgh, Dublin: Butterworths.
• Hopkins, W. John. 2007. “International Governance and the Limits of Administrative Justice: The European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.” NewZealand University Law Review 22 (4), 710-727.
• Jerovšek, Tone. 2000. “Nadomeščanje upravnega akta s sporazumnim urejanjem razmerij” [Replacing Administrative Act with Contractual Relationships]. Paper presented at the VI. Days of Slovene Public Administration, September, in Portorož, Slovenia.
• Jerovšek, Tone. 1999. Zakon o splošnem upravnem postopku (ZUP) z uvodnimi pojasnili [General Administrative Procedure Act (GAPA) with introductory remarks]. Ljubljana: Uradni list RS.
• Jerovšek, Tone and Polonca Kovač. 2010. Upravni postopek in upravni spor [Administrative Procedure and Administrative Dispute]. Ljubljana: Faculty of Administration.
• Jerovšek, Tone and Polonca Kovač. 2007. Posebni upravni postopki [Special Administrative Procedures]. Ljubljana: Faculty of Administration.
• Kerševan, Erik. 2003. “Uporaba postopka pri odločanju o javnopravnih zadevah s strani nosilcev upravnih funkcij” [Application of Procedure in Deciding on Public Law Matters by Holders of Administrative Functions]. Javna uprava 39 (4), 489-502.
• Koprić, Ivan. 2005. “Administrative Procedures on the Territory of Former Yugoslavia.” Paper presented at the Regional Workshop on Public Administration Reform and EU Integration, in Budva, Montenegro. Available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/20/36366473.pdf (last accessed 20 April 2011).
• Koprić, Ivan, Vedran Đulabić et al. (eds). 2009. Modernizacija općeg upravnogpostupka i javne uprave u Hrvastkoj [Modernization of General Administrative Procedure and Public Administration in Croatia]. Zagreb: Institut za javno upravu in Društveno veleučilište u Zagrebu.
• Kovač, Polonca. 2010a. “Effectiveness of Legal Remedies in Administrative Proceedings (the Case of Slovenia).” Paper presented at the 32nd EGPA Annual Conference, September, in Toulouse, France. Available at http://egpa2010.com/documents/PSG10/Kovac.pdf (last accessed 4 May 2011).
• Kovač, Polonca. 2010b. “Smernice razvoja regulacije upravnih postopkov” [Development Trends in Regulation of Administrative Procedures]. Paper presented at the XVII. Days of Slovene Public Administration, September, in Portorož, Slovenia.
• Kovač, Polonca. 2006. “The Impact of International Principles, Standards and Praxis on (Slovene) Administrative Procedure.” Riv. ital. dirit. pubblico comunitario(Testo stamp.) 16 (5), 919-945.
• Kovač, Polonca, Matjaž Remic and Tina Sever. 2010. Upravno-procesne dileme prirabi ZUP [Administrative Procedure Dilemmas in the Application of GAPA]. Ljubljana: Uradni list RS.
• McCubbins, Mathew D., Roger G. Noll and Barry R. Weingast. 2007. “Administrative Procedures as Instrument of Political Control.” In Cary Coglianese and Robert A. Kagan (eds). Regulation and Regulatory Processes. Hampshire, Burlington: Ashgate, 3-20.
• Pavčnik, Marjan. 2007. Teorija prava: Prispevek k razumevanju prava [Theory of Law: Contribution to Understanding the Law]. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba.
• Pitschas, Reiner and Harald Walther. 2008. Mediation im Verwaltungsverfahren undVerwaltungsprozess. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Brussels, New York, Oxford, Wien: Peter Lang.
• Rusch, Wolfgang. 2009. “Administrative Procedures in EU Member States.” Paper presented at the Conference on Public Administration Reform and European Integration, 26-27 March, in Budva, Montenegro. Available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/34/42754772.pdf (last accessed 15 April 2011)
• Schwarze, Jürgen. 2004. “Judicial Review of European Administrative Procedure.” Law and Contemporary Problems 68, 84-105.
• Schwarze, Jürgen. 1992. European Administrative Law. London: Sweet and Maxwell.
• Schuppert, Gunnar Folke. 2011. “Partnerships.” In Mark Bevir (ed.). The SAGEHandbook of Governance. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: Sage, 286-299.
• Schuppert, Gunnar Folke. 2000. Verwaltungswissenschaft (Verwaltung, Verwaltungsrecht,Verwaltungslehre). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft .
• Statskontoret. 2005. “Principles of Good Administration in the Member States of the European Union.” Available at http://www.statskontoret.se/upload/Publikationer/2005/200504.pdf (last accessed 15 April 2011).
• Šturm, Lovro. 1997. Zbirka primerov iz ustavnega upravnega prava I: Vezanost upravena zakon [Compendium of Cases from Constitutional Administrative Law I]. Ljubljana: Uradni list RS.
• Toš, Niko. 2009. “Vrednote v prehodu” [Values in Transition]. In IV. Slovensko javnomnenje 2004-2009 [IV. Slovenian Public Opinion 2004-2009]. Ljubljana: Faculty of Social Sciences, 11-46.
• Trpin, Gorazd. 2006. “Postopek občevanja med državljani in organi javnih oblasti: novi koncept splošnega upravnega postopka” [Communication between Citizens and Public Authorities: New Concept of General Administrative Procedure]. Javna uprava 42 (2 / 3), 257-272.
• Ziller, Jacques. 2005. “The Continental System of Administrative Legality.” In B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre (eds). Handbook of Public Administration. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage, 260-268

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10110-011-0004-6