Abstract
In 2006, the Republic of Macedonia changed the model for judicial control of specific administrative actions. The government replaced the Anglo-Saxon Model with the European-Continental Model. However, the functioning of this model fails to efficiently protect the rights, legal interests and citizen’s freedoms in the Republic of Macedonia.
Highlights
There are two basic models that provide for the judicial control over administrative acts: European-continental and Anglo-Saxon
The former is characterized by the creation of special jurisdiction for control of administrative acts; the latter provides for control of administrative acts within the existing general jurisdiction of the judiciary
The Law on Administrative Disputes, in addition to the jurisdiction prescribed by Article 2, provides in Article 1 for the competence of the Supreme Court to decide disputes on the legality of acts of administration bodies, the Government and other state authorities, municipalities and the City of Skopje, organizations established by law, and legal entities and other persons in exercising public authorities, when they make decisions on the rights and obligations of citizens in specific administrative cases as well as in disputes caused by the acts of those authorities brought in misdemeanour proceedings
Summary
There are two basic models that provide for the judicial control over administrative acts: European-continental and Anglo-Saxon. The Law on Administrative Disputes, in addition to the jurisdiction prescribed by Article 2, provides in Article 1 for the competence of the Supreme Court to decide disputes on the legality of acts of administration bodies, the Government and other state authorities, municipalities and the City of Skopje, organizations established by law, and legal entities and other persons in exercising public authorities, when they make decisions on the rights and obligations of citizens in specific administrative cases as well as in disputes caused by the acts of those authorities brought in misdemeanour proceedings. Almost a year after the adoption of the new legal solutions on administrative disputes in 2006, the Supreme Court received only legal instruments for the purpose of initiating judicial control of specific administrative acts It did not decide any cases in this legal area as it had been waiting for the establishment of the new Administrative Court. Within the remaining four Departments one Chamber functioned respectively (Chamber I, III, IV and V) (Supreme Court Annual Reports 2009, p. 6)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
