Naslov
Ten Years of General Administrative Procedure Act in Croatia

Autori
Staničić, Frane ; Britvić Vetma, Bosiljka

Vrsta, podvrsta i kategorija rada
Sažeci sa skupova, neobjavljeni rad, znanstveni

Izvornik
New Challenges for Administrative Procedure in Europe A Comparative Perspective / Duret, P ; Ligugnana, G. - Napulj : Edizioni Scientifiche Italiana, 2021, 13-34

ISBN
978-88-495-4634-7

Skup
Recent Developments in Administrative Procedural Law: a Comparative Perspective

Mjesto i datum
Verona, Italija, 27.11.2020. - 27.11.2020

Vrsta sudjelovanja
Pozvano predavanje

Vrsta recenzije
Nije recenziran

Ključne riječi
administrative procedure, reform, legislature

Sažetak
General Administrative Procedure Act (GAPA) came into force January 1, 2010. It replaced the General Administrative Procedure Act which was in force for more than seventy years (since 1956 with amendments). That Act was an excellent procedural law, but age and recent developments (ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights, accession process into the EU) made it necessary to draft a new GAPA in order to make changes in the relations of administration and citizens and to modernize the administrative procedure. The process of drafting GAPA was a lengthy one, with different approaches in different timeframes. Better to say, there were conflicts regarding the concept and the role of GAPA, what kind of GAPA for the administration. Finally, after more than three years of work, GAPA came to force and it is in force for a decade, without any changes (which is by itself extraordinary in Croatian circumstances). It is important to note that GAPA is a general procedural law and its use is mandatory in all administrative matters. Only special cases in which deviations from GAPA are permitted, but even in such cases, principles and core provisions of GAPA apply. Therefore, the importance of GAPA in Croatian legal system is paramount. The new GAPA introduced several key changes in comparison with the “”old”. Firstly, it expanded its application from only the “classical” administrative procedure to administrative contracts, actions of public bodies in the area of Administrative Law and to procedures of protection of rights of beneficiaries of public services. Secondly, it marked a much-needed modernization of administrative procedure (“one stop shop” feature, electronic communication, deformalizing some procedural steps etc.). Thirdly, it introduced, for the first time, the institute of administrative contract as a tool of administration. Fourthly, it introduced a new remedy which did not exist before – objection which has three forms – against administrative contracts, against actions of public bodies and actions of providers of public services. Finally, it marked a redesign of extraordinary legal remedies in a manner which should guarantee the oust of political influence in administrative procedure. However, in the past ten years several key problems in implementing GAPA were detected. A primary problem is a not resolved relation between GAPA and special laws which also prescribe administrative procedures, or part of them. Therefore, the GAPA is not performing fully its role as a general procedural law. Secondly, many institutes in GAPA did not take hold in practice and remain only a letter on paper, which was not the intention of the creators of GAPA, nor the legislator when it came into force. There are several issues regarding this problem: the use of objection, which can be a very useful tool for citizens, is not what one would expect when taking into account the legal norm(s) contained in GAPA. This problem is partly due to lack of information citizens have on GAPA (although its long use) and partly due to the unclear norm(s) of GAPA. There are several other issues which need resolving, for example the need to include the principle of legitimate expectations among the main principle of GAPA, the question of the “forgotten” principle of finality in administrative procedure which is now replaced by inadequate enforceability principle which causes practical problems. A special issue is the legal definition of administrative matter that is contained in GAPA, but should perhaps be excluded (as it was in the “old” GAPA) as it is purely theoretical and resembles all theoretical definitions of administrative act. It is clear that many of planned changes did not happen. There are different reasons for this. Firstly, because of relative poor wording of the law in some cases. Secondly, because of the fear that the administration will not be able to function with the new changes. Thirdly, because of poor knowledge in general population regarding the rights of citizens GAPA brought. Based on the aforementioned examinations of novelties GAPA introduced and its application in practice, the authors will give proposals for future amendments of the GAPA.

Izvorni jezik
Engleski

Znanstvena područja
Pravo

POVEZANOST RADA