Draft Law on Administrative Disputes
I. General Provisions
In order to provide court protection of the rights of the citizen, companies, institutions, other organizations and communities, of the Republic (being a social and political community), of the units of the local self-government, and, in order to ensure proper implementation of the regulations, - the Courts for Administrative Disputes shall bring decisions upon the lawfulness of the rules and regulations exercised by the government units, companies, institutions and other organizations and communities when performing public authorization and making decisions about the rights and responsibilities in specific administrative matters.
A person or a legal entity shall have the right to institute legal action on administrative dispute, if being of an opinion that some rights or direct personal legal interest has been violated.
A government unit, an organization, a working unit of the company, a settlement etc., or a group of people, although not being legal persons, can institute legal action on administrative dispute, if they can have rights and responsibilities which were a subject of the settlement throughout the administrative procedure.
When a local self-government unit or an organization unit has brought a decision at the first instance upon specific administrative matter; and a government unit has brought a decision following an appeal against such an act, - an administrative dispute against the second instance act can be instituted by the local self-government unit or by the organization that brought the decision at first instance, if the second instance act violates the right of a local self-government, or its managing right.
If an administrative act violates a law for the benefit of a person or an enterprise, institution or of another organization or community, - an administrative dispute can be instituted by the authorized Public Prosecutor or by another authorized unit. Therefore, when determining such a situation, all government units, enterprises, institutions, other organizations and communities shall be obligated to notify the Public Prosecutor, or another legally authorized unit.
An administrative dispute can be instituted by the Public Attorney if the law has been violated by an administrative act to a disadvantage of the Republic, i.e., to the constitutional bases represented by the law.
The administrative disputes in the Republic of Macedonia shall be settled by the Appellate Courts, as courts of original jurisdiction, and, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia, as court at the first and at the second instance when bringing decisions upon appeals from the appellate courts or upon appeals approved by decisions of their administrative councils.
Courts organized in councils consisting of three judges shall bring decisions in administrative disputes, unless stipulated by a legal remedy that the court in larger number shall bring decisions against decisions brought at the first instance in the administrative dispute.
Note: If a decision is brought that an appeal to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia shall not be allowed against decisions of the Appellate Court, the Supreme Court of Republic of Macedonia can act as an authorized court to decide upon special legal remedy of the appellate court decisions, for instance, upon a request to revise the decision.
The verdict of the courts upon administrative disputes shall be compulsory.
The term unit in this law shall refer to a government unit, as well as enterprises, institutions and other organizations and communities bringing decisions upon administrative matters throughout the performance of their public authorization.
Alternative: The term unit in this law shall refer to government units, local self-government units (when being delegated the right to bring decisions upon administrative matters of state authority within the framework of the area of their genuine authority), enterprises, funds, institutions, organizations and communities, public organizations, citizen associations and other organizations and communities when performing their public authorization they bring decisions upon administrative matters.
II. Administrative Disputes
An administrative dispute can be initiated only against an administrative act.
An administrative act, according to this law, shall refer to an act a government unit, an enterprise, an institution and another organization or community, in implementing their public authorizations, bring decisions upon specific rights or obligations of particular person or organization regarding certain administrative matter.
An administrative dispute can be initiated against an administrative act passed at the second instance.
The administrative dispute can be instituted against first instance administrative act against which no appeal can be lodged throughout an administrative procedure.
New paragraph 3
An administrative dispute can be initiated against first instance administrative act if the party decides not to use the right for appeal but directly initiates an administrative dispute in accordance with Article 219 of the Law on General Administrative Procedure.
An administrative dispute can be also initiated when the authorized unit, upon a request of or upon an appeal lodged by the party, has not passed an appropriate administrative act based on the conditions of this law.
An administrative dispute cannot be initiated :
1) against rules and regulations enacted upon matters in which court protection has been provided apart from the administrative dispute;
2) against rules and regulations enacted upon matters against which, according to the precise legal provision, an administrative dispute cannot be initiated;
3) against matters the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia or the President of the Republic, directly brings decisions based upon the constitutional authorizations..
An administrative dispute can be initiated against matters from paragraph 1 item 2 of this Article, if the unit goes beyond the limits of its authority when passing the administrative act.
Alternative: The Government of the Republic of Macedonia should be added to the text in paragraph 1 item 3).
An administrative act can be refuted:
1) if the implementation of a law, or, a regulation based upon the law or another legally passed regulation or a general act has not been made at all, or, it has not been based correctly;
2) if the act has been passed by an unauthorized unit;
3) if throughout the procedure preceding the act the activities have not been performed according to the rules, and particularly that the actual situation has not been implemented correctly, or, regarding the actual situation based upon determined facts, completely inadequate resolution has been lodged.
When the authorized unit brought decisions upon free assessment based upon and within the framework of the authorization delegated related to the legal regulations and in accordance with the purpose of the delegated authority.
Refunding and claim compensation can be demanded for the plaintiff when implementing the disputed act.
The plaintiff in the administrative dispute can be a person, a legal entity, an organization, a group of persons, a settlement etc., being of an opinion that a right or direct personal interest based upon law, has been violated by the administrative act.
The plaintiff in the administrative dispute can also be a union, when it is of the opinion that the administrative act violates a right or directly connected legal interest of the whole working community or of its part.
When the right or an interest of a person being a member of a public organization has been violated by an administrative act, and the organization based upon its regulations is with an aim to protect the rights and interest of its members; the organization shall, in accordance with its regulations and on the behalf of the member, lodge a complaint and initiate an administrative dispute against such administrative act.
The organization from paragraph 1 of this Article can enter the initiated administrative dispute on side of the party and undertake all actions and use all legal remedies at any stage of the procedure, bearing the right of an indirect intervenor, - unless against the statements and procedures of the party itself.
The defendant in the administrative dispute shall be the unit whose act is disputed.
The third person (interested person) directly adversely affected by the revocation of the disputed administrative act shall be treated as a party.
The complaint shall not, generally, prevent the implementation of the administrative act against which it has been lodged.
Following a request of the plaintiff, the unit authorized for the implementation of the act shall be obligated to postpone the implementation of the disputed decision, if: the act is passed by an organization unauthorized for implementing final court decisions; its implementation will do harm to the plaintiff with irrecoverable consequences, whereas the postponing shall not be against public interest, nor do irrecoverable damage to the opposite party. A document supporting the lodged complaint must be enclosed to the request for postponing the implementation. After each request, the authorized unit can bring a decision not later than three days from the day the request is received.
The unit from paragraph 2 of this Article can use other reasons for postponing the implementation of the disputed act until the final court decision, if it is of public interest.
III. Authorization and Legal Remedies
The Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia shall decide upon complaints against administrative acts of the republic administrative units and organizations which perform their public authorization within the territory of the Republic of Macedonia.
The appellate courts, following their genuine and local authorization, shall bring decisions upon the complaints against the administrative acts of all other units stipulated in Article 5 of this law.
An appeal can be lodged against a decision brought in an administrative dispute only when stipulated in the law in particular cases.
A party can submit a request against the effective decision of the appellate court to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia, on special revision of the court decision. This request can be submitted based upon the violation of the substantive law or the violation of the regulations of the procedure which could have influenced the settlement of the case.
The request for special revision from paragraph 2 of this Article can be submitted for cases on which the appeal is legally allowed.
The authorized Public Prosecutor in the Republic of Macedonia can submit a request to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia against an effective decision of the appellate court in order to protect the lawfulness, if such a decision has violated a law, another regulation or a general act.
The authorized Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Macedonia can submit a request on protecting the lawfulness against a decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia, if the decision has violated a republic law, another regulation or a general act.
The Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia, at its regular session, shall bring a decision of the Council of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia upon the request on protecting the lawfulness.
The Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia shall bring decisions upon the conflict of the authorizations between the appellate courts.
1. Procedure upon complaint
An administrative dispute shall be initiated upon a complaint.
A complaint shall be submitted within 30 days from the day the administrative act has been submitted.
The time period from paragraph 1 of this Article shall be also valid for the unit authorized to submit a complaint, if an administrative act has been submitted to it.
A complaint shall be directly submitted to the court, or sent by mail. The complaint can be also stated in minutes at the authorized court or any other regular court. The day for submitting the complaint by registered mail, or, the day for stating the complaint in minutes, shall be considered as the day of its submission to the court.
If the complaint has not been submitted to the court but to another unit, and it reaches the court after the time period determined for submitting the complaint, it shall be considered as submitted on time, if the late submission is due to a lack of information or an obvious failure of the plaintiff.
The persons being in the military forces of the Republic of Macedonia on compulsory regular army, shall consider the day when the complaint has been lodged to the military unit, to the military institution, or to the headquarters, - as the day when submitted to the court.
The provision from paragraph 3 of this Article shall refer to other persons in the armed forces of the Republic of Macedonia, being officers at military units, military institutions and headquarters in places where regular post offices do not exist.
If the second instance unit has not brought a decision within 60 days or less according to a special regulation, upon a complaint of the party lodged against the first instance decision, and, still does not do that within the following seven days after the request has been repeated, - the party can initiate an administrative procedure as if the complaint had been rejected.
The party can follow the way determined in paragraph 1 of this Article even when the first instance unit has not brought a decision upon its request and an appeal against it is not allowed to be lodged.
If the first instance unit, against which an appeal is possible within 60 days or less determined by a special regulation, has not brought any decision upon the request, the party shall have the right to notify the second instance unit on its request. The party can initiate an administrative dispute against a decision of the second instance unit regarding the conditions from paragraph 1 of this Article, even when the unit has not brought a decision.
The complaint must state: the name and surname, the profession and the address; or, the name and the location of the plaintiff, the administrative act the complaint refers to, summary of the subject of the complaint, as well as the reason and to what extent the revoke of the administrative act is suggested. The original act or its copy must be attached to the complaint.
If the complaint comprises a demand to return the case or an indemnity, a particular request must be stated referring to the case, or, to the value of the caused damage.
A copy of the complaint and of the attachments shall be submitted to the unit the complaint has been lodged against and to any interested party, if there is such.
The plaintiff can abandon the complaint until the decision is made, so that the court terminates the procedure with the decision.
If the complaint is incomplete or unclear, the president of the council shall advise the plaintiff, if needed, and through the regular court, to settle the failures in the complaint within given period of time. In addition, the president shall also suggest what and how to proceed, pointing out the consequences that can result if not following the request of the court.
If the plaintiff does not settle the failures of the complaint within given period of time, and they are such that interrupt the work of the court, the court shall bring a decision to refute the complaint as incorrect, unless it finds out that the disputed administrative act is void.
The court shall refute the complaint by bringing a decision, if it finds that:
1) the complaint has not been submitted on time (Article 23) or it has been submitted before time (Article 25);
2) the act disputed by the complaint is not an administrative act;
3) it is obvious that with the administrative act disputed with the complaint, the right of the plaintiff or direct personal interest based upon law is not violated (Article 12).
4) an appeal can be lodged against the administrative act disputed with the complaint, but it has not been stated at all, or, it has not been stated on time (Article 7);
5) such an issue is in question, against which, regarding a specific provision of the law, an administrative dispute cannot be initiated;
6) there has already been an effective decision brought in an administrative dispute referring to the same issue;
The court shall refute the complaint at every stage of the procedure, based upon reasons from paragraph 1 of this Article.
Alternative: Item 4 paragraph 1 to be taken out. Namely, if the resolution is adopted, a complaint can be initiated against first instance decision as well when the party decided to accelerate the procedure. (As an alternative, this decision is also planned in the Law on administrative procedures (Article 219), therefore, being logically included in the Law on administrative disputes, if such a possibility is adopted.
If the court does not refute the complaint based upon paragraph 3 of Article 28 or Article 39, whereas, it concludes that the disputed administrative act has certain substantial failures that interrupt the evaluation of the lawfulness of the act, - the court can revoke the act by a verdict and without submitting the complaint for response.
If, during the court procedure, the unit adopts another act that will change or annul the administrative act against which the administrative dispute has been initiated; as well as when in the case from Article 25 of this Law additionally passes an administrative act, the unit shall simulatenously, apart from the plaintiff, inform the court to which the dispute has been initiated. In that case, the court shall advise the plaintiff, to give a statement within 15 days whether he/she is satisfied with the additionally adopted rules and regulations, or, he/she will keep the complaint as it is and to what extent, i.e., whether he/she shall include the additionally adopted rules and regulation in the complaint.
If the plaintiff states that he/she is satisfied with the additional rules and regulations, or, he/she does not give a statement within the time period from paragraph 1 of this Article, the court shall bring a decision to terminate the procedure.
If the plaintiff states that he/she is not satisfied with the new rules and regulations, the court shall continue the procedure.
If the court does not refute the decision immediately according to paragraph 2 Article 28 or according to Article 29 of this law, nor it revokes the act according to Article 30 of this law, the court shall submit one copy of the complaint with its attachments to the plaintiff and each of the interested persons, if any, to be responded.
The response shall be given within the time period determined by the court for each of the particular cases. This time period cannot be less than eight or longer than 30 days.
The defendant shall be obligated to send to the court all the documents referring to the case, within the given period. If the defendant does not send the documents referring to the case after the second request, or, it states that it cannot send the documents, - the court is allowed to settle the matter without the documents.
The court shall bring decisions upon administrative disputes at closed sessions.
The court can hold hearings due to the complexity of the disputed matter or when the court finds it necessary for better clarification of the situation.
The party can suggest hearings, out of the same reasons.
If the authorized council decides to hold the hearing, the president of the council shall determine the day for the hearing, inviting the parties and the interested persons, if any.
The council shall decide upon important reasons for postponing the hearing.
The president of the council shall administer the hearing.
Minutes shall be taken, including only substantial facts and circumstances according to the text of the decision. The minutes shall be signed by the president and the court reporter.
The absence of a party at the hearing shall not delay the work of the court. The requests shall not be considered abandoned due to the absence of the parties, but the submitted documents shall be read.
If the plaintiff and the defendant do not appear at the hearing, and the hearing is not postponed, the court shall settle the dispute without the presence of the parties.
The member of the council, being the informer, shall be the first to speak at the hearing. The informer shall present the situation and the substance of the dispute, without giving his/her opinion. Afterwards, the plaintiff shall have the right to speak in order to explain the complaint, followed by the representative of the defendant and of the interested parties, for presenting their attitudes.
The court shall, generally, settle the dispute based upon facts determined in the administrative procedure.
If the court concludes that the dispute cannot be settled based upon facts determined in the administrative procedure, regarding the contradiction of the acts being incompletely determined at some substantial points; or, if the court concludes that the regulations of the administrative procedure have not been taken into consideration although of possible impact on settling the issue, - the court shall revoke the disputed administrative act by pronouncing a verdict. In such cases, the authorized unit shall be obligated to act according to the verdict and pass new administrative act.
If revoking the disputed administrative act according to paragraph 2 of this Article and repeated procedure by the authorized unit causes irrecoverable damage for the plaintiff; if, based upon public hearings or other evidence in the documents of the case it is obvious that the actual situation is different than the determined one in the administrative procedure; or, if the administrative act has been already revoked once in the same dispute, whereas the authorized unit has not acted completely according to the verdict, - the court can also determine the actual situation and upon this pronounce the verdict, i.e., bring a decision.
The court shall determine the actual situation at the hearing, or through one of the members of the council, or through another regular court or unit, in cases as from paragraph 3 of this Article. The party shall be also advised to be at the hearing.
The lawfulness of the disputed administrative act shall be investigated by the court within the framework of the request in the complaint not referring to the reasons for lodging the complaint.
The court, following its official duty, shall have in mind the invalidity of the administrative act.
The court shall pronounce the verdict, i.e., bring a decision by the voting majority.
Special minutes shall be taken on the consultation and voting, to be signed by each of the members of the council and the court reporter.
The consultation and voting shall be made without the presence of the parties.
The court shall settle the dispute by a verdict.
The complaint shall be approved or refuted as ungrounded by pronouncing the verdict. If the complaint is approved, the court shall revoke the disputed administrative act.
When the court finds out that the disputed administrative act should be revoked, it can settle the administrative issue by pronouncing a verdict, if the type of the work and the data on the procedure give sound grounds. Such a verdict shall completely replace the disputed act.
The court shall also decide upon the request of the plaintiff on revising the case or on compensation of the damage by pronouncing the verdict upon revoking the disputed administrative act, if the data on the procedure give sound grounds. Otherwise, the court shall advise the plaintiff to realize the right at a trial.
When a complaint is lodged based upon Article 26 of this law, and the court finds it justified, it shall approve the complaint by pronouncing a verdict and determine the direction the authorized unit shall bring a decision about.
If a hearing has been held, the court shall pronounce the verdict or the decision immediately afterwards, citing the most important reasons.
In complex cases, the court can abandon verbal announcement of the verdict or the decision, together with the most important reasons.
In complex cases, the court can abandon verbal announcement of the verdict or the decision, and, within eight days pronounce a verdict or the decision.
If, after the completed hearing, a verdict or a decision is not possible to be pronounced, due to the reason that such a fact, which does not need previous new hearing, should be previously determined, - the court shall pronounce the verdict or the decision within eight days after the fact is determined.
The verdict or the decision shall comprise the name of the court, name and surname of the president of the council, of the members of the council and the court reporter, names of the parties and their representatives, short presentation of the dispute and the day the verdict or the decision is pronounced and announced, the ruling, the explanation and note on complaint, if a complaint is allowed.
The original verdict or the decision shall be signed by the president of the council and by the court reporter.
The verdict or the decision shall be presented to the parties in certified copies.
2. Procedure upon legal remedies
The request for early revision of the court decision (Article 19), as well as the request for protecting the lawfulness (Article 20) shall be submitted to the court authorized for bringing a decision upon the request, according to the Article 24 of this law.
The request from Article 19 of this law on early revision of the court decision shall be submitted to the authorized court within 30 days from the day the decision is submitted, against which the party makes a request.
The request on protecting the lawfulness shall be submitted within three months from the day the parties have been submitted a decision referring to the request.
The request from Articles 19 and 20 of this law shall comprise the court decision a revision is suggested for, or, against which a request for protecting the regularity has been submitted, as well as the reasons and the extent of the revision.
If the request from paragraph 1 of this Article is incomplete and unclear, the authorized court shall proceed according to the provisions from Article 28 of this law.
An unproved or delayed request, or, the request from Articles 19 and 20 of this law submitted by an unauthorized person, shall be rejected by the authorized court following up a decision.
If the authorized court does not reject the request from paragraph 1 of this Article, but submit the request to the opposite party, the party can respond to the request within the period of time defined by the authorized court.
The court, against whose decision the request from paragraph 1 of this Article has been submitted, and the defendant, shall be obligated to provide the authorized court with all needed documents, following its request, without any delay.
The authorized court shall bring decision upon the request from Articles 19 and 20 of this law, on a closed session, following a determined principle; whereas the refuted decision shall be revised only to the limits of the request.
The authorized court shall reject or accept the request from Articles 19 and 20 of this law by a verdict.
The authorized court can repeal or redefine the court decision against which a request has been made, by the verdict accepting the request from paragraph 1 of this law.
If the authorized court repeals the court decision, the case will be sent back to the court whose decision has been repealed. That court shall be obligated to perform all procedural activities and solve the issue pointed out by the court that brought the decision referring to the request.
The appeal shall be lodged within 15 days after the decision is delivered to the plaintiff, and submitted to the court whose decision has been refuted by the appeal.
The irregular or delayed appeal, or, an appeal lodged by an unauthorized person shall be rejected by a decision of the court against which an appeal has been lodged. A specific appeal shall be allowed against such decision.
If the court receiving the appeal has omitted to perform according to paragraph 2 of this Article, the appeal shall be rejected by a decision of the court the appeal refers to.
As for the rest of the activities, in the procedure following the appeal, the provisions from Articles 44 up to 49 of this law shall be implemented accordingly.
3) Procedure review
The procedure finalized by a verdict or by a decision, shall be reviewed, following a request of the party:
1) if the party realizes new facts, gets or has been given a possibility to use new evidence based upon which the dispute would have been positively settled for the party, if the facts or evidence had been presented or used throughout previous court procedure;
2) if the court decision has been made due to a criminal act of the judge or of a court official, or, has been brought due to a deceit of the attorney or the proxy of the party, of the attorney of the opposite party or its proxy, when such an act is defined as a criminal act;
3) if the decision is based upon verdict reached upon criminal or civil action, but later the verdict being repealed by another court decision legally effective;
4) if the document upon which the decision is made, is false or fictitiously set forth; or, if the witness, the legal assessor, or the party, has given a false statement to the court, so that the court decision is based upon such a statement;
5) if the party finds out or gets an opportunity to use the previously made decision following the same administrative dispute;
6) if the interested party has not been given a possibility to participate in the administrative procedure.
In respect with the circumstances in item 1 and 5 of this Article, a review shall be permitted only if the party without its own fault was not in a position to present those circumstances in the previous procedure.
A procedure review can be requested not later than 30 days from the day the party was notified on the reason for reviewing. If the party was notified on the reason of reviewing before the procedure has been finalized at the court, though the reason was not possible to be used throughout the procedure, the review can be requested within 30 days from the day the decision is submitted.
After five years since the court decision has been effective, a review can not be requested.
The court that brought the decision related to the reason of reviewing, shall bring a decision upon the complaint the procedure to be renewed.
The complaint for a procedure renewal shall be submitted to the authorized court (Article 53).
The complaint must consist of the following:
1) the verdict or the decision reached upon the procedure for which the review is requested;
2) legal basis for performing the review as well as the proofs (Article 51), i.e., exact circumstances making the existence of such basis possible;
3) facts presenting that the complaint has been lodged within the regular time period, and the way they are supported;
4) which direction and to what extent a redefinition of the verdict is suggested, reached upon a procedure requested to be reviewed.
The authorized court shall bring a decision on the request for a renewal, at its closed session.
The court shall reject the complaint by a decision, if it realizes that the complaint has been lodged by an authorized person, or, that the complaint has not been lodged on time, or, that the party has not defined the existence of the legal basis for a possible renewal.
If the court does not reject the complaint from paragraph 2 of this Article, the court shall deliver it to the interested persons and ask them to respond to the complaint within 15 days.
After the termination of the time period for responding to the complaint (paragraph 3 Article 55), the court shall reach a verdict upon the complaint for renewal procedure.
If the renewal is approved, the previous decision shall be completely or partially ineffective.
Previous procedure activities, that the reasons for a renewal are not going to have an effect on, shall not be repeated.
The main case shall be also settled by a verdict that permits a renewal.
Legal remedies, permitted in the main case, can be submitted against the court decision upon the request for a procedure renewal.
The provisions from this law on proceedings related to the complaint and legal remedies shall be implemented accordingly within the procedural renewal, unless otherwise stipulated in Articles 52 and 58 of this law.
4) Other provisions of the procedure
If this law does not comprise provisions of a procedure in administrative disputes, the provisions from the Law on Civil Procedure shall be implemented accordingly.
Each party shall bear its own expenses in the administrative disputes.
V. Verdict obligation
When the court repeals an act against which an administrative dispute has been initiated, the case shall be brought back to its initial position before the verdict has been reached. If due to the character of the issue, being a subject of the dispute, instead of the repealed administrative act another act is to be reached, the authorized unit shall be obligated to reach it without delays, not longer than 30 days from the day the verdict has been submitted. The authorized unit shall be obligated based on the legal interpretation of the court, as well as on the comments of the court referring to the procedure.
If the authorized unit, after the administrative act has been repealed, reaches an administrative act opposite the legal interpretation of the court, or the comments of the court referring to the procedure, so that the complainant brings a new complaint, the court shall repeal the disputed acts, and, as a rule, settle the matter by a verdict. Such verdict shall completely replace the act of the authorized unit.
The court shall notify the supervisory unit on such a case.
If, after the administrative act has been repealed, the authorized unit does not reach new administrative act or an act on giving into effect the verdict immediately within 30 days, based on paragraph 5 Article 41; the party can provide a special submission for requesting such an act. If the authorized unit does not do such an act within seven days since the request has been made, the party can request that such an act be done by a court that reached the verdict of first instance.
Following such a request, the court shall ask from the authorized unit to be informed about the reasons for not doing such an administrative act. The authorized unit shall be obligated to give this information immediately, within seven days. If the information is not satisfactory, or the provided information, according to the court opinion, does not justify the validity of the court verdict, the court shall bring a decision that will completely replace the act of the authorized unit. The court shall submit this decision to the unit authorized for its realization and simultaneously inform the supervisory unit. The unit authorized for realization shall be obligated to realize such a decision without any delay.
When following an administrative dispute, a verdict has been reached, and, the authorized unit brought an administrative act for effecting such a verdict, so that, a renewal of an administrative procedure based upon that administrative act is requested, such a renewal can be permitted if the reason for that appeared within the unit that brought the act.
VI. Special provisions
The court authorized for administrative disputes, in accordance with the provisions of this law, shall decide upon the requests for protection of the freedom and rights guaranteed by the Constitution, if such freedom or right has been violated by a final separate act.
The protection of freedom and of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, in case such freedom or right has been violated by an action of a civil servant within an administrative unit or by a high official within an enterprise, institution, or another organization or association; whereas directly but against the law the realization of freedom or rights of an individual, organization or association has been prevented or limited, - shall be provided throughout a procedure stipulated by the provisions from Article 67 to 75 of this law, unless different court protection has been defined.
The proposal on protection from illegal action shall comprise the action, time and place when the action was made, the organization or the association, or the official that did it, proofs, as well as a request the obstacle or the limitation for realizing the rights and liabilities to be eliminated.
The proposal can be submitted until the action takes place.
If the individual, against which an action has been brought, is not in a position to submit a proposal on protection from the illegal action by himself, such a proposal can be made by the spouse, child, parent, or by another close relative.
The authorized court, where the action has been made, shall bring a decision upon the proposal on protection from the illegal action. The authorized court, consisting of a council of three judges, shall bring a decision.
The authorized court shall immediately act in accordance with the proposal, following the basic principles of the procedure, providing efficient protection of the rights and interests of the citizens and organizations, or associations.
The court shall, without any delays, submit the proposal to the unit, or the authorized person to be responded, depending on who did the action. The response to the proposal shall be notified within the time limit defined by the court.
The court can, regarding the case circumstances, bring a decision based upon the proposal immediately and without previous submission of the proposal to be responded, if the data in the proposal present sound basis.
If the court realizes that the proposal is on sound basis, it will bring a decision to ban further actions. Otherwise, the proposal shall be rejected.
At the same time, the court shall define by a decision what is necessary in order to implement legal environment, giving a period of time for its realization; and, it shall stipulate legal sanctions in case the decision is not implemented accordingly.
If the decision from Article 72 of this law has not been made by a court having the position of the highest court in the Republic, a complaint can be lodged to the authorized court within three days from the day the decision has been received.
The complaint shall not postpone the implementation of the decision, though, the court can, following the proposal, postpone the implementation if considered necessary according to the circumstances.
In order to protect and implement the decision, the court shall, following the circumstances of the particular case, undertake necessary measures, with a possibility to notify the head of the supervisory unit, public prosecutor and other bodies, so that they can undertake essential measures for settling the legal situation.
If the decision is not implemented within the given time limit, the court shall enact the decision directly or through another court or unit.
The implementation, regarding the case circumstances, shall be made at the expense of the unit, organization or association, or the responsible person that made the action.
The court can submit a proposal to the authorized unit on replacing the responsible person from his duty, following the implementation of the decision; and, when needed, the court can fine the responsible person for not implementing the decision on time, with 5,000 denar, as well as determine other appropriate measures in accordance with the regulations of the enactment.
VII. Transitional and Final Provisions
The procedure, based on the complaints submitted after this law has come into effect, shall be enacted according to the regulations valid until this law came into effect, unless otherwise stipulated by law.
The complaint, based upon current regulations, can be lodged against a decision on the administrative dispute being made until the day this law has gone into effect, if a complaint has been stipulated in accordance with such regulations.
Special legal remedies, according to the regulations valid until this law has gone into effect, can be implemented against an effective decision of an administrative dispute being made until the day this law goes into effect.
The Law on Administrative Disputes ("Official Gazette of SFRY", no. 4/77) shall cease to be valid from the day this law goes into effect.
This law goes into effect on November 1, 1996.