The Establishment of an Administrative Court: A Necessity for Resolving Administrative Disputes in the Republic of Kosovo

The article is devoted to the organization and functioning of administrative courts of general and special jurisdiction in the Federal Republic of Germany. Administrative justice in Germany is an independent branch of judicial power. It is represented by administrative courts of general and special jurisdiction and is separated from constitutional, general courts and courts of labor disputes. The system of administrative courts of general jurisdiction in Germany covers three levels: the administrative courts, the higher administrative courts of the states and the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig. The administrative court is the court of first instance for most administrative proceedings. The higher administrative courts of the federal states are the appellate and cassation instance of the administrative courts. Each federal state has a Supreme Administrative Court, the states of Berlin and Brandenburg share a Supreme Administrative Court, which, with the exception of Bavaria, Saxony- Anhalt and the city-states, are not located in the capital of the state to emphasize their independence from the administration in terms of location. Higher administrative courts are courts of first instance in cases of judicial review of laws and regulations, prohibition of associations by state bodies, and approval of implementation of certain infrastructure projects. The Federal Administrative Court, located in Leipzig, is the court of appeal and cassation on matters of law. The legislature also gave the Federal Administrative Court first-instance jurisdiction in public law disputes between the federal government and non-constitutional Länder, bans on mergers by the Federal Minister of the Interior or approvals for certain infrastructure projects. In these cases, the Federal Administrative Court has jurisdiction of both first and last instance. A feature of administrative justice in Germany is the presence of special courts of administrative justice – financial and social courts with appropriate organization and functioning. The issue of the status of judges of administrative courts, non-professional judges, representatives of public interest, judicial administration, competence and jurisdiction was considered.

The Austrian system of administrative justice is right now undergoing a vast reform process, with effects that are still difficult to assess. In these circumstances, the report on Austria describes briefly the reform as it was defined by the Government and tries to identify the consequences of ADR tools. Under the hitherto existing system in Austria, review of administrative decisions was normally assured by administrative appeals to higher ranked authorities. In the end, legal subjects had access to the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) or the supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). Compliance with the European Human Rights Convention (EHRC), however, has forced Austria to establish, during the last decades, more than 100 independent administrative tribunals. And since the 1980s of the last century, the supreme Administrative Court has permanently been congested with pending complaints, which to settle took, therefore, more often than not too long. The reform (effective on January 1st 2014) implements the so-called 9 + 2 model: one Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht), one Federal Fiscal Court (Bundesfinanzgericht), and nine Administrative Courts in the federal states (Landesverwaltungsgerichte) serve now as administrative courts of first instance, under (limited) review done by the supreme Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court. An explicit corollary of the reform is the abolishment of administrative appeals; legislation will, however, be still allowed to provide them for certain areas—e.g., for municipal building procedures. What is more, existing supervisory procedures of reconsideration by the issuing authority itself or by its superior authority could gain more relevance in the future.

The article concerns the administrative judiciary in Poland. Firstly, the Author discusses the legal bases (in particular, the constitutional bases) and the scope of competence of Polish administrative courts, that is to say the ‘voivodeship’ administrative courts (courts of first instance) and the Supreme Administrative Court (court of second instance). Administrative courts in Poland are, in general, the “courts of cassation”, which means they may only control the legality of administrative decisions and may not determine the state of facts, nor replace administrative decisions by their judgments. Administrative courts are vested with the competence to apply the Constitution and they actively cooperate with the Constitutional Tribunal (in particular, by addressing ‘questions of law’ to the Tribunal). Secondly, the Author presents the scope of competence of the Commercial and Financial Chambers of the Supreme Administrative Court and considers selected legal problems in the administrative courts’ jurisprudence in commercial and financial cases.

The Jordanian legislator adopted the principle of double judiciary and permitted the appeal against judgments issued by the Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court has the authority to control the law and fact. Whenever the judgment marred with one of the reasons for nullity stipulated in the law, the court has the power to annul or amend the judgment. When the Supreme Administrative Court considers the appeal, it takes the position of the Administrative Court. It adheres to the scope of the litigants and does not accept any new request that the litigants did not raise before the Court of First Instance. Also, it has the authority to stay the execution of the judgment appealed judgment as an exception.

Iraq has become the states of dual judicial system issuance of Law No. 106 of 1989, a second amendment to the law of the State Consultative Council No. (65) of 1979, as was the establishment of the Administrative Court in the capital, Baghdad, but minor glitches for the establishment of legal rules this the court jurisdictions decreases and bugs, remained single unique exercise jurisdiction in the resolution of administrative disputes between the administration and individuals as well as public discipline Council His span long to resolve administrative disputes between management and employees, and then the formations that the judiciary continued to suffer duplication and overlap between being a judicial body, and the fact that State Consultative Council affiliated to the Ministry of Justice, which is not part of the executive branch Ttjze, so we did not find sufficient independence of the judiciary in the face of the executive branch. It also does not eliminate the specialized Supreme Court in the eyes of the appeals addressed to the discriminatory provisions, but there was a general non-specialized board holds the resolution of these appeals. We have remedied the legislator to Iraq late this imbalance partly through the Fifth Amendment to the law of the State Consultative Council No. (17) for the year (2013) it was whereby the expansion of the formations of the State Consultative Council, and among which was the establishment of the Supreme Administrative Court, and the establishment of other courts administrative courts in the provinces other Iraq, as well as the establishment of tribunals to spend staff rather than discipline General Council. The problem of the research show the absence or scarcity of specialized in this regard, legal studies, and the recent formation of this court requires us to go into the midst of this topic to publicly remind the legislator some notes which require amendment of the law or canceled. The importance of this study lies in the need to study the formation of the Supreme Administrative Court in Iraqi law due to the recent formation, and for being the highest point of administrative justice in offline Iraqi law, perform functions serious and important on the one hand, as well as the need to compare the formation of this Court with its counterpart in the Egyptian law with a long history in this area, to indicate the most important notes in the formation and release Tawfiq Iraqi legislature whether or not to do so. The researcher objectives of this study appear in trying to analyze the formation of the Supreme Administrative Court in its own texts in the Council of State Act, all the way to provide assistance to the legislature and the judiciary and jurisprudence in the construction of the pillars of an independent administrative spend and build, as well as provide the Iraqi legal library research modest perhaps be useful the researchers and specialists in this regard. The scope of the research study will be the basis of Iraqi law compared with Egyptian law, the legal system being close to our legal system, all while not neglecting the study of the French administrative court, to take advantage of them in the promotion of the administrative structure of the Iraqi judiciary. And we will adopt in the study of this subject on the analytical and comparative approaches, because they are two approaches righteous and wanted to demonstrate the efficacy of the texts that came by the legislature in the State Consultative Council Law or not, and compared their counterparts in the Egyptian Council of State law. The study plan Fsnksmha - God willing - on two sections: the first for the formation of the Supreme Administrative Court in the Egyptian law, and will include two demands: First we will discuss the President of the Supreme Administrative Court in Egyptian law and its members. The second will examine the Supreme Administrative Court circles in Egyptian law. The second topic: it will be for the formation of the Supreme Administrative Court in Iraqi law, and will consist of two demands: First: We will discuss the President of the Supreme Administrative Court in Iraqi law. The second: We will look at the members of the Supreme Administrative Court in Iraqi law .

Judicial control of the administration is a form of legal control by which the final assessment of the legality of the performance of administrative activity is entrusted to a special independent and autonomous state body. Historically, administrative control (especially judicial control) arises at a certain stage of the development of society and the state, at the moment when society's awareness of human and civil rights begins to shape social relations and the organization of government in modern European states. In this sense, on the soil of Europe, the French Revolution represents a turning point towards legal institutionalization and the establishment of what today we call modern administration and its different attitude towards individuals. The performance of administrative activities is subject to legal norms, and coercion as the basic method of administration is being re-examined, partly because of the development of human and political rights of citizens, partly because of the expansion of its tasks and tasks, i.e. changed roles of administration in society (public services). By subjecting the administration to legal regulation, the prerequisites for controlling the administration based on legal standards (regulations) are realized, and the establishment of a special state body (council, court, tribunal, commission, etc.) is becoming a trend that appears in an increasing number of countries. In the 19th century, Serbia was one of the first states in Europe to establish the State Council - a body with various responsibilities and the forerunner of the domestic administrative judiciary. The exercise of judicial control of the administration (administrative dispute) is a topic that causes significant attention of domestic legal thought, especially today in the context of the announced new reform of the administrative judiciary - administrative dispute and the introduction of two-tier system. The announced change, however, is not the only attempt to reform the administrative judiciary, but it was also done by adopting new administrative procedural regulations and establishing the Administrative Court as a court of special jurisdiction that examines the legality of administrative acts in a special procedure. A little more than ten years of operation of this court was enough to point out certain weaknesses of the current organization of judicial control of the administration, and to start a discussion about new changes related to the reorganization of the judiciary and the procedure before it (administrative court procedure). The subject of this work is the development of judicial control of administration at the level of Europe, but also in R. Serbia, i.e. its development, current organization and the need for reform of the administrative judiciary.

The Administrative Court has competence to settlement the administrative disputes. In the regulations of general election stated that election offence administrative disputes, election dispute process, adminsistrative disputes of election should be proceeded in Administrative Court, High Court of Administrative Court and Supreme Court. The existing regulations of Administrative Court do not regulates the procedural process to proceed general election administrative disputes, and the competence of Adminisitrative Court are limited. This becomes a legal gap in law enforcement and legal certainty. The issue is how the competence of administrative court to setllement the administrative dispute of general election based on the regulations.The method is juridical normative by statute approach, conceptual approach. Statute approach and conceptual approach by compared the relevant regulations.The result shows that the Administrative Court has competence to settlement the administrative dispute of general election. To give law certainty and law enforcement, the Supreme Court had legitimized some regulations to proceed the disputes settlement. The novelty is there should be a new regulation of Administrative Court consider the development and modernization.

<p>The commented judgement concerns the taxation of acquisition of immovable property by inheritance division. In the applicant’s opinion dissolution of co-ownership is not an acquisition of assets if it is within the share which the former co-owners had in the common property and was carried out without any repayments or surcharges. If the acquisition of one-half of the property occurred upon the death of the testator, but through the subsequent abolition of co-ownership, the applicant acquired nothing more than what he already owned, the abolition of co-ownership does not constitute an acquisition and has no tax consequences. According to the tax authority, this position is incorrect. The applicant acquired half of the share in the property by way of inheritance and division of inheritance and a half share in the property by way of abolition of co-ownership. The administrative courts have held that the tax authority’s position is incorrect. In administrative cases, it may be necessary to use external systemic interpretation and reference by the administrative authorities to the relevant provisions of civil law. In the Supreme Administrative Court’s opinion, point of the dispute in this case is based on the conclusion what date should have been taken as the date of acquisition of the property (interest in the property). Resolution of this issue required a detailed analysis of the provisions of the Civil Code. Although, not all relevant issues have been considered by the Voivodeship Administrative Court, the decision of the court of first instance is in fact lawful. The gloss is approving and declares that the position taken in the judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court is correct.</p>

The establishment of Administrative Courts in Albania is an important step done in the justice system. Administrative Courts decisions have a direct influence in creating an appropriate climate between public administration and private entities and solving with efficiency the disputes between them. In practical terms, the law “On Administrative Courts” which is being implemented presents some problems regarding the competences. Due to the lack of transitional provisions in the law, that should define the competent court for the cases previously recorded, there are some disagreements regarding the files which were being analyzing in the Court of First Instance. The unifying decision of United Colleges of Supreme Court1 tried to supplement this lack, deciding to transfer all the files registered from the Court of First Instance to Administrative Courts. The aim of this study is to analyze the legal situation created after Administrative Courts establishment and their function. Is the Supreme Court decision in conform to the Albanian Constitution? The study is focused in the legal arguments of how to improve Administrative Courts function in order to guarantee effective protection of the rights and legitimate interests through a regular judicial process. DOI: 10.5901/ajis.2014.v3n3p215

Historically, State Administrative Court (PTUN) has existed since 1986, with the enactment of Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court which currently has been amended by Law Number 9 of 2004 concerning Amendment to Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court and amended again by Law Number 51 of 2009 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court. The role of the Administrative Court according to the explanation of the law, the PTUN functions as a control or supervisory agency thus legal actions from government officials do not deviate, in addition to protecting the rights of citizens from the actions of officials who abuse their authority or act arbitrarily. Currently, the object of dispute and can be sued at the State Administrative Court is only a State Administration decision reduced by the exceptions stipulated in Article 2 and Article 49 of the PTUN Law. The provisions of Article 3 of the Administrative Court Law No. 5 of 1986 on negative fictitious could potentially no longer be enforced since the enactment of Article 53 of the AP Law which stipulates positive fictitious. Since the promulgation of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration (hereinafter referred to as AP Law) on 17 October 2014, there has been a change in the legal criteria from the government written stipulation (beschikkingen) which was initially restrictive and can be sued to the PTUN, yet it has recently become extensive (which was originally mere beschkking, currently it almost covers all variations of besluiten). With the enactment of the AP Law, there will be an expansion of absolute competence and objects of state administration disputes, as stipulated in Article 87 of the AP Law which includes: first, Government Administration Decrees, as stipulated in Article 1 point 7 of the AP Law; second, Government Administration Actions Based on Article 1 point 8 of the AP Law. Furthermore, with the enactment of the Supreme Court Regulation Number 2 of 2019 concerning Guidelines for Government Action Dispute Resolution and the Authority to Adjudicate Unlawful Conducts by Government Agencies and/or Officials (onrechtmatige overheidsdaad / OOD), the judicial power shall transfer from the General Court to the State Administrative Court. This crucial matter continues to be the groundwork and reason for conducting the current research entitled the expansion of the state administration dispute object after the enactment of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration and the supreme court regulation (Perma) Number 2 of 2019 concerning Guidelines for Government Action Dispute Resolution and Authority to Adjudicate Unlawful Conducts by the Government Agencies and/or Officials (onrechtmatige overheidsdaad / OOD). Conducted through normative juridical research method, this research-based paper examined the interviews through judges at PTUN Jakarta and Bandung and the main data source within this qualitative analysis serves as the secondary data or literature data.

Judicial review of the legality of administrative acts is one of the most important elements of the rule of law. The institute of administrative justice began to develop in the 19th century: in 1872 The French Council of State was given a function of judicial review, the Administrative Court in Vienna (Austria-Hungary) was established in 1867, in Baden (Germany) in 1863, etc. After the First World War, administrative courts were established in several European countries. The law on the Supreme Administrative Court and its Jurisdiction in Czechoslovakia was adopted in 1918. The Law for the Supreme Administrative Court in Poland was issued in 1922. Administrative courts were also functioning in other countries (Latvia, Estonia). In Lithuania administrative courts were established for the first time in 1999, although up to fifteen draft laws on the Administrative Court were prepared in the interwar Lithuania. This article was written on the occasion of the centenary of the Polish administrative courts. Thus, the purpose of the article is to familiarize the readers with Lithuanian administrative courts, starting with the development of the institute of administrative justice from 1918 and ending with the perspectives of judicial review formed in that time. Therefore, the authors of the article set the following objectives: to remind of the origins of administrative justice in Lithuania from 1918 to 1940; to reveal the course of the establishment of administrative courts after the Restoration of the Independence of the Republic of Lithuania in 1990, briefly discussing who and on the basis of which legal acts controlled the legality of administrative acts during the Soviet era; to provide the insights of institutional evelopment as well as competence development of the administrative courts; to present contemporary administrative process, giving some insights about the status quo; to present the features of and the most relevant reforms of administrative process. Abbreviations used in the article are as follows: CSARL – Central State Archive of the Republic ofLithuania, MDWLLAS – Manuscript Department of the Wróblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences.

The Political Law of Act Number 30 of 2014 on Government Administration regulates do administrative effort must be taken before sues to administrative court. According to Article 76 paragraph 3 the Administrative Court has the authority to examine and adjudicate state administrative disputes after being taken by the Administrative Efforts. But on the other Act Number 05 of 1986 on Administrative Court concerning Article 48 jo. Article 51 Paragraph (3) also authorizes the High Administrative Court as the first degree court to examine and adjudicate on administrative decision that have been resolved through Administrative Efforts. This article try to analyze First, the pattern of administrative dispute resolution in the Administrative Court after ratification of Act Number 30 of 2014 on Government Administration. Second, the position and authority of the High AdministrativeCourt as the first degree court after ratification of Act Number 30 of 2014 on Government Administration?

The document analyses the development of appeals in administrative disputes in the Republic of Croatia since the adoption of the Law on Administrative Disputes in 2010 onwards. The development of the mentioned institute took place in several stages (Law from 2010, Amendments to the law in 2012, and changes from 2014), where each subsequent phase was a response to the weaknesses and shortcomings of the previous phase and had the task of removing those weaknesses. The key problems in the appeal system under the Law on Administrative Disputes from 2010, which manifested itself very quickly in practice, are related to the excessive limitation of the appeal. The limit of the right to appeal aimed at more efficient (faster) administrative disputes, it seriously called into question the right to a legal remedy against a first-instance court decision guaranteed by the European Convention and the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia. The 2012 amendments did not remove the weaknesses of the 2010 Law. But the system of administrative judicial protection was significantly improved by the Amendments of 2014. The essence of those changes comes down to the liberalization of the „complain filter“; i.e., enabling the use of the right to appeal in relation to the largest possible volume of decisions of first-instance courts. This ensured a higher level of protection of the subjective rights of the parties, and the High Administrative Court was enabled to control first-instance administrative courts – by the way of appeal, unifying administrative judicial practice.

Introduction. This article discloses problematic issues related to the terms of appeal of court decisions after drafting a full court decision in cases that are urgent in administrative proceedings. The review process determines the state of stability of the legal system and the fairness of court decisions. The article reveals the factors that influence the efficiency and duration of appeal administrative proceedings, the improvement of such a procedure, and the factors that can influence the speed and increase the efficiency of consideration of administrative cases, which, in turn, also has a decisive influence on the level of trust of citizens in the administrative process. Appellate administrative proceedings are the stage of judicial review of cases in Ukraine, at which the decision of the administrative court of first instance is reviewed. Summary of the main results of the study. According to the analyzed domestic sources that regulate the legal application of the provisions of administrative proceedings in Ukraine, including taking into account the fruits of the doctrinal developments of scientists, which reveal the aspects of appellate administrative proceedings in this court, several significant factors can be singled out, which have a decisive influence on the efficiency of appeal administrative proceedings. These include the vagueness of the procedure for calculating the time limit for an appeal, the problem of inadequate legal and regulatory support for procedural requirements in preparation for consideration of an administrative case in an appellate court. Also, the court of the first instance may not take into account the negative instructions of the appellate administrative court when sending the case for further consideration by the appellate court. Another problem in administrative proceedings is the improper observance of established statutory deadlines for consideration of appeals, which may lead to the impossibility of implementing the principle of discretion by the administrative appeals court. Conclusion. This article proposes to solve problematic issues and fill gaps in national legislation in order to determine the procedure for calculating time limits in the case of administrative appeals of court decisions of first instance courts in cases that are urgent.

A decade ago, Serbia has carried out the reform of judicial control of public administration - by establishing the new Administrative Court. The expected results, however, have not been achieved and the problems that caused the reform have not been resolved. Therefore, a decade later, a new reform is in sight. The planned changes include establishing more administrative courts and introducing a two-instance administrative dispute. The aim of this paper is to discuss these changes, but in a slightly different way. Instead of their uncritical acceptance and justification by European legal standards, they are analysed having in mind the legal nature of the administrative dispute. Successful administrative dispute reform cannot be achieved if European legal standards are blindly accepted and copied literally from classical court proceedings. Only the legal nature of the administrative dispute and the features that make it special and different from the usual court disputes can lead us to a successful implementation of the changes.