Abstract
Serbian Law on General Administrative Procedure (LGAP) opened a possibility for broadening the standing in administrative procedures and administrative disputes, by inclusion of subjects representing collective interests and interest of the wider public - primarily, citizen associations and similar organizations. However, by failing to regulate a series of concrete issues, the Law places the administration and the Administrative Court before a challenge, demanding from them an extensive interpretation of not only LGAP's provisions, but other legislation already recognizing such organizations as AIDS in realization of the public interest. The author analyzes relevant legislation, as well as available administrative and court caselaw in search of these answers. The lack of explicit legal provisions could be balanced by a creative approach in practice, especially by the Administrative Court. Having in mind comparative solutions, the question arises whether it is necessary to regulate this category of potential parties separately or to link it more explicitly to the already existing notion of an interested party. Instead, completely new notions have been introduced - collective interests and the wider interests of the public - which are not or not consistently defined in Serbian law. The current, not so voluminous case law, shows that the administrative bodies need a more direct indication of the rules, i.e. a more explicit definitions of these terms. However, despite the restrictive legal framework, administrative bodies should be open to understanding the specific circumstances, i.e. the motivation that an organization has when it seeks standing. In the normative sphere, one of the solutions could be to envisage the analogous application of LGAP's provisions on the interested party. Other solutions could be sought in explicitly mentioning them in the provisions on right to appeal. The current formulations of LGAP do not provide sufficient guidance to the administration and an extensive interpretation would be a great challenge for them. An active approach of the Administrative Court could show the way for the administration toward and effective application of these provisions of LGAP.
Highlights
Važno je primetiti da je pojam zainteresovanog lica drugačije određen u ZUS-u i da iz takvog određenja sledi i nešto restriktivniji pristup Upravnog suda (i ranijih sudova koji su odlučivali u upravnom sporu) pitanju legitimacije za pokretanje upravnog spora, u situacijama u kojima upravni spor pokreće lice koje nije ranije učestovalo u upravnom postupku.[72]
The lack of explicit legal provisions could be balanced by a creative approach in practice, especially by the Administrative Court
Having in mind comparative solutions, the question arises whether it is necessary to regulate this category of potential parties separately or to link it more explicitly to the already existing notion of an interested party
Summary
U propisima evropskih i drugih zemalja, na čija se rešenja često ugledamo, najčešće se ne pravi razlika kakvu srećemo u ZUP-u – između zainteresovanog lica (kod koga mora postojati lični i neposredni interes) i zastupnika nekih drugih interesa, već se kategorija zainteresovanog lica proširuje tako da uključuje i entitete koji se bave zastupanjem opštih ili kolektivnih interesa. Francuski upravni sudovi, pored ekoloških organizacija, priznaju legitimaciju i organizacijama koje se bave zaštitom regionalnih jezika, ali i poreskim obveznicima koji osporavaju zakonitost bilo mere lokalnih vlasti koja ima finansijske konsekvence ili korisnicima javnih usluga koji pokreću preispitivanje načina na koji se one pružaju.[24] S druge strane, u slučaju građevinskih i sličnih dozvola, interes se priznaje samo užem krugu lica Koji uređuje postupak za priznanje svojstva stranke uopšte, a zatim i odredbe o pravu na žalbu (iz člana 151) i obaveštavanju o rešenju (iz člana 152), ali i sve druge odredbe ZUP-a koje se odnose na stranku u upravnom postupku Stav 1).[35] Drugim rečima, zainteresovano lice može podneti žalbu, čak i ako u prvostepenom postupku nije tražilo i steklo svojstvo stranke, dok za zastupnike interesa to ostaje upitno. Šta je u smislu ZUP-a kolektivni interes, a šta širi interes javnosti? Dalje se može postaviti i pitanje u kakvom odnosu su ove kategorije sa privatnim interesom, kao i sa javnim interesom? Ko mogu biti zastupnici interesa? Na koji način se dokazuje veza između interesa koji zastupnici štite i ishoda postupka, odnosno upravne stvari? Da li je za ulaganje pravnih sredstava u upravnom postupku i tužbe u upravnom sporu neophodno prethodno formalno priznanje svojstva stranke u postupku?
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.
