At the beginning of its development, public service’s object of regulation was the social issue, which was very present. In this period, public service included mutual aid of poor people, providing their food and placement. But later, social protection was set at the level of health care. For this reason it was even considered that the genuine public service is the service of public health care. Because of this it experienced a conceptual rebirth, meaning the creation of a larger number of public services that have fulfilled population’s needs as well. The state and collectivity have defined the objective and social interests, but in all cases, the services were done by social collectivities. Many other functions, not only social, were transformed like this in public rights that were realized through public services. Despite this the continuity in action is also required, meaning that the general interest should always be protected with public services activities. Administrative judiciary presents some type of control upon administration, respectively upon the administrative act, in first place the particular and individual administrative act. This kind of control is realized in the field of administrative activity through which it’s most important form of function is developed. The first experiences with administrative judiciary show us that it was installed organizationally in three ways, regarding to its carriers: • Administrative judiciary through administration bodies. • Administrative judiciary through regular courts. • Administrative judiciary through special administrative courts. These three ways of administrative judiciary installation installed three systems to solve administrative conflicts. Administrative judiciary through his administration bodies, in principle, wasn’t seen as a good choice, because by exercising this kind of control, she, in fact, would become a ‘judge in its own case’ and, consequently, her independence and objectivity would be questioned. Therefore, the best ways of administrative judiciary organizational installation are regular courts and special administrative courts. Administrative judiciary is spread all over European Union countries. According to the condition of 2007, in 16 countries of European Union, from 27 members in total, as in Germany, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Luxemburg, Holland, Poland, Czech, Sweden, Romania and Bulgaria, administrative courts operate as specialized courts. What about the condition in other countries of European Union? In the other 11 countries of European Union, as in Cyprus, Estonia, Denmark, Ireland, Litany, Hungary, Malt, Spain, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Great Britain, specialized branches operate for the administrative right, within high (supreme) regular courts. Talking about judicial proceeding’s scale, we encounter two organization models: • Two-tiered model, • Three-tiered model. The two-tiered model is encountered in 11 states, while the three-tiered model in 15 states. From the large number of administrative judiciary’s priorities, we will mention only some of them. Primarily and above all, I would emphasize administrative judiciary’s priority in the ‘democratization of judicial system’. Another priority of administrative judiciary is its functional separation from the system of courts of the general competence. A detached priority of administrative judiciary is increasing citizen’s and public opinion’s belief in the legal work of the administration. And last, the protection of citizens from ‘administration’s arbitrariness’ is another priority of administrative judiciary. Among the important functions of administrative judiciary, two are essential: the preventive function and the repressive function. Administrative courts protect preventively individual’s rights. Of course that we can talk about other favors of administrative judiciary as well. Without listing them based on their importance, these favors of administrative judiciary should be seen as more opportunities to: • Specialize. • Resolve conflicts. • The creative role of administrative judiciary in the development of administrative right. From the way they have structured the bodies that ‘judge administrative disagreements’, countries in the region seem to be closer to the anglo-saxon system, because they haven’t accepted the existence of administrative courts. The conflicts are reviewed next to the courts of the random system. However, if the object, mode of trial or the followed procedure during administrative conflict would be taken as criteria to determine the system, then we could say that the legislation of countries in the region is closer to the way of judging the cases from administrative courts. All this tells us that administrative judiciary in Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia etc. will not find it difficult to adopt the system of administrative conflict’s trial through administrative courts. Administrative judiciary through administrative courts has another very special priority. We’re talking about the competences of administrative courts. Speaking the truth, administrative courts have full competences, not only in law’s enforcement, but in authenticating facts as well. Administrative court’s practice is different. In some of the countries with developed administrative judiciary, court’s control is focused in knowing if the issued decision was fair. In some other countries, administrative court’s control is focused in the material right and its finding.
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Oct 1, 2017
Andrey Margolin + 1
Open Access