 | Abstract The paper refers to the control over the legality of individual administrative acts, which regulate concrete civil rights and duties. It contains the fundamental ideas of this problem area articulated in administrative legal theory.
Focusing on the situation in the Republic of Macedonia, the paper addresses the internal or so-called higher administrative resort supervision over individual administrative decisions prescribed by the General Administrative Procedure Act. In addition, the types of external supervision are presented -- the work of the institution of the Ombudsman in accordance with the Macedonian Law on Public Attorney; and administrative-judicial control over the legality of individual administrative acts (decisions). 1. Brief Theoretical Presentation of Types of Control
over Public Administration The concept of control refers to conducting a special activity of constantly monitoring the performance of assigned duties and tasks, and comparing the results achieved with the set goal, with the possibility of having a corrective influence in the event of digression.(1)
With regard to the types of control over the administration, in theory, there are a variety of views and opinions. The classification depends on the criteria that the authors take as a basis for distinguishing between the types of control.
There is political control of the administration, which is conducted by political players (for example, parliament, government, political parties, and public opinion) and legal control of the administration, which can be:(2) - Administrative control exercised by the administration itself, which can be 1) internal administrative and 2) external administrative;
- Judicial control of the administration, as control of the administration performed by the courts, which can be 1) general judicial control of the legality of administration actions and decisions, carried out by regular courts; 2) judicial control of the legality of administrative acts carried out by (administrative) courts in administrative-judicial procedure (administrative and administrative-accounting disputes). 3) so-called special court protection of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and rights and 4) protection by the Constitutional court ;
- Special control of the administration, as a type of control conducted by special institutions, such as 1) the public prosecutor's office based on the procedural powers to initiate adequate procedures and 2) the ombudsman who controls the administration as a protector of civil rights.
Thus, there are three instruments for ensuring legality and protection of civic rights against the actions of the executive. The first instrument is competent, skilled, efficient, and conscientious personnel, who know their jobs well. The second instrument is the system for procedural protection against work errors and illegalities, some of which include the possibility for higher administrative bodies to remedy the mistakes and illegalities, meaning within the executive itself. Finally, the third instrument is the system of external supervision, which is done by somebody from the outside, someone who is not part of the administrative bodies or part of the executive branch in general.(3)
The third or external control integrates the following types of control of the executive: - control by the Parliament, where the government, that is, ministers are concerned, as heads of certain departments; control that leads to political liability;
- judicial control, which can be carried out by regular courts or special administrative courts, or as the third option, by regular courts authorized to rule on administrative disputes;
- control of the administration by the public opinion, which can vary depending on its role in a given society;
- control by the Ombudsman, as a special means for ensuring legality and protection of civic rights.
1.1. Types of Control over the Work of the Administration
in the Republic of Macedonia The 1991 Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia presents a relatively short, precise, and clear text, which, unlike previous highest acts, contains only a small number of provisions dealing with the types of control over actions and acts of the administration. They do not outline their contents, but rather leave this up to the legal regulations, adopted based on the Constitution.
Thus, the administrative higher resort supervision, a type of control over the administrative concrete acts, is also prescribed in the Macedonian Constitution. That is done in the Constitutional part that refers to fundamental civil and human freedoms and rights, which also guarantees the right to appeal against individual legal acts issued in first level proceedings by courts, administrative bodies, organizations or other institutions carrying out public authorities (Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia). That means, the two-level principle is guaranteed.
In accordance with the new requirements, in Article 77, for the first time, the Macedonian Constitution introduced the institution of Public attorney, an office that is compatible with the Scandinavian Ombudsman.
Article 50, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia guarantees judicial protection of the legality of individual acts of state administration and other institutions carrying out public authorities.(4) 2. Internal Supervision under the General Administrative Procedure Act The overall administrative procedure in the Republic of Macedonia was regulated by the General Administrative Procedure Act (GAPA), which represents a complete federal law of the former SFRY.(5) Thus, fourteen years were needed (since the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia in 1991, which established a new legal and political system of independent Macedonia), in order the new GAPA has found itself on the daily agenda of the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia. Finaly, this Law was adopted at the end of May 2005.
The internal supervision procedure denotes control over the legality of decisions made by an administrative body or organization with public authorities, which are enforced by a directly higher body. This procedure is initiated when a dissatisfied complainant files an appeal, or (which is rarely done) ex officio. Apart from the complaint as a standard legal remedy, the GAPA prescribes as many as seven so-called special (extraordinary) legal remedies that, in the event of serious material or formal illegality, can be brought to bear against the decision reached.
The Macedonian scholarly and expert public accurately reviewed the need of the existing of eight special legal remedies in the administrative procedure as they are predicted in the current regulation. Some opponents of that solution thing that it enables final decisions that had gone into effect to be contested.. In their opinion, this large number of special remedies in the administrative procedure has to be reduced. The arguments for such approach are that the use of so many special legal remedies usually leads toward endless procedure protraction, which as a result affect to the administration’s efficiency. In addition, this occurrence even obstructs the implementation of the most vital procedural principles in law: res judicata and non bis in idem. Furthermore, the parties in the administrative procedure do not use those remedies often; actually, their usage is a real rarity. That way, the legal text is burden with too many unnecessary provisions.
Still, the new General Administrative Procedure Act (2005), contains the same number and types of special legal remedies in the administrative procedure as the previous Law from 1978. The reasons for such a decision come from the following; the aim to provide better citizen’s legal protection against the public administration’s activities; the idea to avoid possible administrative disputes in court; and the intention to accomplish the principle of legality of the administration’s acts.
In spite of the above-mentioned criticism, this solution deserves support because it is oriented toward citizens/clients that provide the democratic process of governance.
The next GAPA’s issue, which deserves our attention in this paper, is so-called “the silence of administration”. That term designate a situation when the public administration does not issue any decision after the citizen’s request. Namely, after the request submitting, the authority is obligated to solve the subject and to issue a decision within 30 or (for more complicated cases) within 60 days. If this will not happened at the expiration of that period, it will be considered that the request is rejected. The unsatisfied party has a right to lodge complain to the higher-level administrative authority. The situation will be much more complicated in case the second-level authority chooses the silence, too. In the both cases, there is no real decision but the party should take into consideration the legal presumption that his/her request is rejected.
During the drafting process of the existing new General Administrative Procedure Act, some experienced lawyers suggested establishment of a new, quite opposite rule. In their opinion, the “silence of administration” must be interpreted to the detriment of the administration.In that case, if the administrative authority does not succeed or refuse to solve the subject by issuing a decision within 30/60 days, the client can consider that the authority accepted his/her request.
This last solution would be more acceptable for the citizens (as consumers) and that is undoubted. However, it is also well known that the Macedonian public administration in general is not capable enough to hold on to the assigned role. Shortly, the conditions for changing the current legal presumption in case of the “silence of administration” are still not matured. Beeing aware of this, the legislator decided to accept the already existing decision.
In terms of the appeals proceedings outlined under the GAPA, there are inconsistencies in achieving the devolution of the appeal as a regular legal remedy. The principle of devolution means that only a higher body than the one that made the contested decision can act on the appeal. The inconsistency in applying this principle becomes evident when the highest body of the administration, for example, a certain ministry, makes the first-level decision. In such a case, according to the GAPA, a Government Appeals Committee is authorized to carry out the supervision, which raises doubts as to its objectivity. It is standard practice that the minister whose decision is contested takes part in appointing members of this Committee!
Thus remains a large hole in the law, which seems to be not solvable, and yet causes dilemma, insecurity, even misconduct in state administration, but also in citizens' efforts to fulfil their rights and legal interests.
The thoughts of the author of this written work are moving in this direction:
In the Republic of Macedonia there is a number of state authority that are independent ( their functionaries are elected by the Parliament, and not named by the Government) and deal with solving administration cases, that is, administration proceedings. In that way, they directly decide for the citizens' rights and obligations.
The status, organization and duties of these authority are established with special laws (lex specialis). Often, these laws state that the entire administration procedure ( both on the first and the second level) should be conducted within the same authority.
The following example will be given as an illustration: The Direction for protection of personal data is leading a case in the name of an unsatisfied party due to her or his personal data (not) being protected by a certain state authority. On the first level a Committee, named by the director of the Direction, decides. Against the Committee's decision, on the second level, the director decides. In this case, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Macedonia reacts with a claim that the devolution of the appeal ( which means after the appeal an authority to decide different from the one that made the first decision) is deragatory. Theoretically, that is true. However, what is necessary to be seen is what options are there available as a sollution to the situation.
A proposition by a part of constitution judges and a part of public expertise is that the appeal procedure should be lead by the Committee of Appeal at the Government of the Republic of Macedonia.
At present, due to practical reasons, the independency of the Direction while administrating its jurisdiction is under question, if it is placed under control of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia. First, the chief executive of the Direction is a person elected by the Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia. Is it a necessity for such an independent and above all unpolitical body to be placed under the Government jurisdiction and thus to be turned into the executive authority's 'cat's paw'?
In addition, the Direction should be in control of every state authority that deals with data register, such most often is a Ministry. Will there not be a doubt in the independent work of the Government Committee, when it decides on an appeal brought against a Minister in the same Government? Furthermore, is not there a danger of politization of the Direction's chief executive, aiming to get closer to those who control his or her decisions?
Such cases are not rare in the practise of the country's public administration. Examples to the fact that all state authority are formed on behalf of the Parliament – the Antimonopoly Office, the Agency for State Officials, the National Bank of the Republic of Macedonia, etc. Therefore, the Constitutional Court should consider carefully before it reaches a decision.
The practise of the Macedonian Constitutional Court so far leads to the above mentioned proposition. Namely, the Constitutional Court has decided that one and the same authority cannot make a second level (appeal) procedure against a first level decision. Thus, a practise is created of forming Governmental Committees of second level, when there is not a higher state authority than the first level one. It seems more just that the Constitutional Court should denounce this decision and a sollution to be provided that has actually been subject matter to this project and a basic thesis of this author: the independent state organs formed on behalf of the legislature, aiming to control the executive power to reach final first level agreements. This means an inability to appeal against them. Yet, the parties will have legal protection provided, but now in front of the Head Court.
To conclude, instead of an appeal, both parties will be provided with the right of an appeal ( both being regular legal remedies) in front of a strictly specialized authority that will work exclusively with law administration, and that is the future Head Court of the Republic of Macedonia. The Ombudsman Institution - A Citizen's Rights Defender The Ombudsman is parliamentary representative authorized to process the citizens’ petitions and also to begin a procedure on his own initiative whenever he notice illegal or inappropriate activities of the public administration which are causing violation of human basic rights and freedoms.(6)
It seems that the whole world is simply faced with the necessity for a mechanism, such as the Ombudsman, that is solely competent to act on the complaints of the citizens unsatisfied with the work of the public administration, thus protecting their basic rights and freedoms. The necessity is even greater having in mind that the procedures at the Ombudsman is devoid of the strict formalities and high expenses, quite different from the court procedure which is slow, expensive and preconditioned with strict procedural forms. Furthermore, the function of the Ombudsman has a psychological side, very important to the citizens, which enables the plaintiff to feel satisfied even with his complaint is dismissed, because the citizen will still have the feeling that he was listened to, that he got somebody's attention, that that somebody engaged on his/her problems, without having to suffer great expenses.
In regards to the passive subject of supervision, i.e. the administration, the Ombudsman also has some sort of preventive function. It is demonstrated through the restraint of the public administrative bodies and their employees in terms of future violation of the Law, through the principles of justice and administrative standards, since they become aware that there is a distinctive, specialized control over their work. That way, they take advance care and caution to avoid to become a subject of that control's criticism.
Regarding the role of the Ombudsman, the conclusion would be that it is double-folded: on the one hand, it works on solving the complaints of the citizens, and on the other hand, it works towards the improvement of the public administration.
Disregarding the differences in the functional and organizational positioning of the institution in different countries in the world, there is the essential general characteristic of the Ombudsman's power to act as a corrective of the work of the state institutions, without the capacity to issue repressive and coercive measures. The power results from its authority to educate and convince, as well as from the personal qualities of the person that holds the position. Immediately we face the question: where does the Ombudsman's power come from? What is the base on which it builds the authority? The answer lies in its basic properties and characteristics, without which its existence is unimaginable, or to express it better, the realization of the goal of its existence: first, its independence, both from the legislative and from the executive branches; and second, its political neutrality which presumes a person that will be able to realize the responsibilities that the office carries with itself, and at the same time the Ombudsman will be immune to the influence and pressure coming from any political streams within a society. This is the biggest problem especially in the Balkan countries. I am wondering: is this presumption feasible parallel with the existing of the so-called "spoils" system of recruiting of the public servants in the most of the countries from this region? 3.1. The Public Attorney as a Macedonian Ombudsman The 1991 Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia introduced the institution of the Public Attorney, which is parallel to the Scandinavian Ombudsman.(7) Lamentably, that created only the Constitutional basis for the establishment of the institution, while in 1997 belatedly the Law on the Public Attorney was adopted, which regulates the issues of appointment, organization, competencies and the methods of operation of the Public Attorney.(8) Thus, after almost six years, the institution of the Public Attorney was finally made operational in the Republic of Macedonia. Yet, despite the long period of waiting for bringing the Law on the Public Attorney, it was shown that it needed a large number of changes and supplements which resulted with bringing a new Law on the Public Attorney in 2003.
The Public Attorney, according to the provisions in the Law, is proposed by the Parliamentary Committee for Appointments and elections, which chooses among the candidates proposed by the Coordinators of the Parties’ Parliamentary Groups, and then the MPs vote on the proposed candidate. In a quite different manner, the Ombudsmen in European countries are selected with a consensus of all political entities in a country, because of the fact that the most important issue is the selection of the person that has to get the position. If the selection is anomalous and not acceptable to everybody, it can lead to perversion of this noble idea, just as it has done with many ideas before. Instead of being enacted in practice, in everyday life, the office of the Public Attorney may turn into its antipode. Therefore, the person appointed to this office has to have personal authority, integrity, to be professional, experienced, to feel the problems of the common citizen and to deal with the complicated situations with great determination. The Public Attorney should have good communication skills and should be prepared to listen to the different opinions. Most important is its ability and skill in prevailing over and isolating itself from the party influence and everyday politics.
In Macedonian legal system, the Public Attorney is projected as a body that operates independently and autonomously, which does not mean a substitute for the regular legal instruments. The Attorney is appointed from the ranks of experienced lawyers with more than nine years of experience, with prominent and noticeable engagement in the field. The tenure in office is eight years, the same as with the assistants, with the possibility of reelection. Its office is incompatible with any other public office or profession or with a membership in a political party.
The Public Attorney of the Republic of Macedonia, as the other Ombudsmen in the world, is not competent to adopt decision, for instance, similar to the sentences and rulings of the Courts, or to the decisions of the administrative bodies, which are backed by instruments of legal force. Instead, the Ombudsman simply intervenes. His/her interventions take the form of suggestions, opinions, recommendations, proposals, etc. That does not mean that they are less important than the decisions we mentioned above. To the contrary, the reason why such interventions should be even stronger is that they are made by and independent body, which is professional, expert, impartial and objective. Furthermore, there is no appellate procedure foreseen for the interventions of the Ombudsman. Finally, the failure to act on those interventions brings in the pressure of the public opinion and the media as its ultimate and strongest instrument. Namely, the public is informed through the annual report on the activities of the Ombudsman submitted to the Parliament, as well as the special reports, press conferences, bulletins, publications, etc.
The bringing of a new Law on the Public Attorney is a political decision. Regretably, the basic changes and supplements which the Law contains, in relation to the old one from 1997, have a political background On the other hand, some of the expertise questions have remained untouched. First, the news expected in the Law of 2003 had the Ohrid Framework Agreement – a political act that brought peace in the Republic of Macedonia after the war conflict in 2001. What has basically been new is the specific decision that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman should be wider, not in direction of a protection of the individual rights and freedom, but in direction of a protection of the just and fair number of the members of the ethnical minorities in the public administration. In this way, the basic characteristic of the Ombudsman is being torn - protection of the individual human rights, when they are hurt by specific acts of the public administration.
Placing any kind of woking staff ( ethnical minorities etc.) under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman firmly changes the essence of this institution.
The Law on the Public Attorney from 2003 enhances the jurisdiction of the Macedonian Ombudsman, refering to the decisions from the former Law and thus strengthens the position of this institution in the Macedonian society.
News to look forward to are the legal provisions with which: - a 2/3 Parliamental majority is needed to dismiss the Public Attorney for incompetent and not conscientious work – with the former Law a qualified majority was not needed, with which the Parliament was enabled to dismiss a firmly specialized expertise authority, such as the Ombudsman, with a regular majority, under an elastic excuse 'incompetent and not conscientious work' behind which a political interest can always be hidden;
- a probability is expected for the Public Attorney to visit and investigate without previous announcement all offices of closed type, in which people are fully or partially deprived of their freedom – this is under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman which was not especially mandated to be used without a prior announcement. Often in practise it happened so that the entry of the Public Attorney in such institutions was rejected or a special announcement for this kind of activity was required. This provided a time period to show the living conditions and environment of the prisoners and the mentally ill in a much better light than the real one;
- the prolonging of court proceedings is under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, with which this institution has approached nearer to its inspiration – the Swedish model. However, it is important to state that the judges do not present subjects to the Ombudsman's control according to the principle of independance of the legislature. Having in consideration not to reach disputable situations and misinterpretation of the Law, any holder of the title Public Attorney must bear in mind that only court posts (persons with the status of state administratives, and not judges) can be controlled by the institution Ombudsman;
- In the end, the Macedonian Ombudsman has an authorization, entirely new and almost unknown for this institution, and that is a suspension of an administration act brought by the state authority of administration. This in fact means that the Public Attorney may postpone the execution of the act until a second level decision is made, that is, until a court ruling is made, a posibility to initiate an administration dispute against the denied act. This authorization presents a classical means of repression that is contradictory to the basic function and aim of this institution's existance – preventive influence, persuasion and education of the public offices.
4. In General about Judicial Control Over the Administration The objective of judicial control is to protect the rights of the citizens or the civil servants with regard to the administration.(9) Therefore, an independent body is formed to regulate administrative conflicts. The modalities for conducting judicial control differ based on whether there is specialized administrative judiciary in a certain country (France, for instance) or control over the administration is entrusted to regular courts (in England, for example). There are opinions that the second solution is more democratic, however, there are others who reckon that the administrative judiciary allows judges who exclusively treat administrative problems to become better specialized.
In the Republic of Macedonia, judicial control over the bodies of state administration is conducted: - By way of employing legal means in criminal proceedings for the criminal liability of official in the state administration;
- Through the use of legal means in civil proceedings, when it comes to the liability of public servants for damages inflicted to legal or physical entities;
- Through Constitutional Court control over administrative acts;
- By way of resolving administrative disputes against final administrative acts.
5. Theories on Administrative-Judicial Control
over Specific Administrative Acts A point of special interest in this paper is the last type of judicial control over the administration. Developed democratic countries have recognized the indubitable need for judicial control over administrative acts, as a type of external legal control over the administration.
Speaking from a strictly normative aspect, this type of legal control over the administration runs counter to the widely accepted concept of the division of state powers. However, the administrative dispute, as the fundamental form of judicial control over the administration, comes as a consequence of the numerous essential deficiencies of the internal administrative control and is, simultaneously, a result of the constant aspirations for and concepts for the greater protection of human rights and freedoms. It can be freely said that the administrative dispute, that is to say, its very advent and development, represents the strongest proof of the victory of life over law.
The basic definition of the judical control over administration contains two elements: - A control executed by judges, that is, independent and professional magistrates who have technical knowledge of the legal matter, and
- A control executed in administration dispute
- A basic characteristic of the judical control over administration is that it is lead with an appeal, which means it is not lead by the judge officially appointed; the procedure is organised following strict rules and in accordance with the principle of contradiction, the judge must decide, that is, to respond to the claim clearly which is decided by making a verdict and giving a reasonable explanation to it.
5.1. Continental-European System The Continental-European system provides for the formation of special administrative courts for resolving administrative disputes. The cradle of the formation of the special administrative judiciary is France, in which special administrative tribunals exist. The State Council -- Conseil d-Etat -- was established in 1801. In fact, the administrative judiciary was created in the second half of the 19th century, because of liberal-individualistic ideas about protecting the rights of the individuals from the state. The administrative courts, magistrates, or administrative tribunals, as they are called in different countries, have no other function apart from the administrative-judicial and they are organizationally incorporated within the administration, but their work is completely independent from the latter. With legal control over administrative acts being their main and only task, they dedicate themselves entirely to this issue, exerting a genuine influence on the respect for law within the administration.
The most representative countries of this Continental-European system are: France, Germany, Austria, as well as Italy and Belgium, which used to belong to, but abandoned the Anglo-Saxon system. We would also add to this group of countries the countries from our neighborhood, as well as those from the former SFRY regions: the Republic of Bulgaria, Republic of Croatia, Republic of Slovenia, and the Bosnia-Herzegovina Federation. 5.2. Anglo-Saxon System Under the Anglo-Saxon system, judicial control over the administration and administrative acts is conducted by the courts of general jurisdiction. This system has been accepted, above all, in England, the United States, and other countries in which solely the common law applies. Under this law, the state, its bodies and public institutions, are subjected to the same legal rules as the individuals. For these reasons, these countries have no separate administrative law as a branch of the legal system, which represents an aggregate of legal norms and which regulates the work of the administration. Therefore, the right to rule in administrative disputes is not entrusted to special administrative bodies, but rather to the regular courts of general jurisdiction.
Judicial control over administrative acts in the countries of the Anglo-Saxon system is not conducted as part of a special procedure, as is the case in the countries of the Continental-European system, but rather the same procedure is applied as in civil matters -- common law.
Lately in England, even though it represents the cradle of the common law system, a process of creating a separate legal public administration regime has been under way, as the private law and procedure in regular civil courts cannot meet real administrative needs. 6. The French model of Administrative – Judical Control –
an inspiration and a necessity The French model of administrative legislature is indisputably the oldest and most developed system. The closest points of similarity of the Macedonian Law, that belongs to the continental law model, are in fact with the French system, in the part of administrative law. The most important difference however, is found in the part of administrative-judical citizens' protection. In the following lines of this written work a detailed description of the French type of judical control over public administration will be made, so that it could serve as a basic idea for the future establishment of the Macedonian administrative legislature. 6.1. Historical Development The aim of forming a special administrative legislature in France is found in the idea for emancipation of the administration from the legislature, because in the old, pre-revolutionary regime – the legislature, through the Parliament, was fully in charge of the administration. Thus the principle of absolute governing division in Loi des 16-24 aout is proclaimed. 1 The post-revolutionary positive law rules an inherent power for the administration to act – a pouvoir d'action d'office.
The administration has the right of taking all the necessary steps so that it provides a good administrative menaging, even if these steps hurt citizens' individual rights. This right is provided for the administration and it is at the administration's disposal, untill it is taken away by law ( or even constitution).
1 With the law of 1790, the French executive was given significant authorisation, the performance of which was outside court jurisdiction. From the court jurisdiction and supervision every administrative act is drawn, regardless if it is of public judical or private judical character. 1 That represented – as Jeze states – not a usage of a judical organisation system thought of in advance, but a consequence of the Government's revenge and desire to have a weapon at hand, capable of breaking any kind of resistance in a direction of the new generation. 1 Under these conditions and having nothing further to add, France would be a police state. However, the reality is different. During the nineteenth century in this country a system of judical control over the administration is developed, which is an obvious presentation of contradiction between its outer appearance and reality, and that on the other hand, together with the lack of legislative written materials, makes this concept to be closer to the English, rather than the customary French judical control. The embargo taken in consideration in the Law of 1790, forecasts liberation of the administration from the jurisdiction of the regular courts (courts within the frames of ordre judiciaire), but it becomes a matter of control of the central authority of the executive itself – Conseil d'Etat, which according to its capacity, jurisdiction and almost in all particulars, operates as a court. In short, the administration is under the control of a court, but it is a court within the executive itself. 1 Conseil d'Etat is given an addition of a system of lower administrative courts, with which two separated judical hierarchies, one for the public, the other for the private law. The judical control over the acting of the administration is shown through the right of annulation (jurisdiction d'annulation). Due to the fact that all acts of the administration by principle are out of the control of the regular courts, the public law grasps all the aspects of protecton from badly conducted operation by the administration, even when it is a question of unfulfiling an agreement. This topic is a case of a lawsuit of full jurisdiction ( pleine juridiction). The Law that the administrative courts use in such cases is almost entirely case law, which is found in the verdicts of Conseil d'Etat and around of which an immense law literature is written.
To conclude, the contemporary French administrative judiciary represents a result of the combination of the revolutioners' political needs and yet the necessity of establishing judical cotrol over the administration. In this kind of onstelation of relationships, the "kasacioniot" Court dominates dominates over the whole of the regular courts, and the State Council dominates over the whole of the administrative courts. 6.2. Duality of functions The duality of French judiciary is established also with the existance of the Constitutional Council which, in accordance with the conception of the division of state authority, added to the basic principles of the Republic the principle of 'jurisdiction of administrative courts to invalidate or change the decisions that are brought by the executive authority while performing the prerogatives of public coercion'.
The mechanisms that divide the jurisdiction of regular and administrative courts are the following: - Written sources: The Laws of the sixteenth and the twenty-fourth of August 1790 and the Decree of the sixteenth of Fructidor of year the third and around a hundred special laws,that are with a bigger or with a less significance. Most of them expand the jurisdiction of the regular judiciary. Regarding the expansion of the jurisdiction of the administrative courts predicted in the given basic regulations, on this occasion what may be mentioned is the Decree of 1938 on the contracts for leasing of public surroundings, which places them under the administrative courts' jurisdiction.
- The judical practise as a mechanism of jurisdiction division may have two instances as a background: the "kasacion" Court and the State Council. The State Council has reached a number of important verdicts, with which it determines its own jurisdiction in relation to the regular courts: the Terrier verdict with the conclusions of the Government's commissary Romieu in which the notions of public and private administration are formulated, the verdicts of 1956 on the notion of public service and its purpose in the area of contracts, public matters and public surroundings.
However, in terms of jurisdiction division between the regular and the administrative judiciary, what is thought to be a basic principle is the following:
the administrative judiciary is authorized to solve lawsuits that regard the administrative activities of the public authorities. Public authorities are the state, the territorial collectives, the public institutions and the private organisations that perform public sevice. The exceptions in terms of expanding the jurisdiction of administrative judiciary refer to the lawsuits by the administration agreements. The remaining exceptions from the above stated principle have to do mostly with the expansion of the regular courts. 6.3. Different categories of administration lawsuits In terms of the administrative judiciary there are two different categories of lawsuits: judical control over the administration due to overstepping the jurisdiction and a lawsuit of full jurisdiction. What is the difference between these two types of administration lawsuits? The lawsuit due to overstepping the jurisdiction may be defined as 'a lawsuit the aim of which is an annulment of an administration act'. 1 The most relevant characteristic of the lawsuit due to overstepping the jurisdiction is that it could be lead by persons to which the administration acts, directly or indirectly, do not refer to. The consequence to such a lawsuit is the annulment of the administration act, the action of which is retroactive, that is, all the legal consenquences to the act are annuled and it is regarded ad not being brought in power in the first place. The lawsuit on overstepping the jurisdictions is an objective one. It is not aimed against persons, but against acts. Unlike the previous, in lawsuits of full jurisdiction (pleine jurisdiction) the judge has wider authority at disposal, that allow him or her not only to annul the act, but also to make a different verdict regarding the administration. According the definition of Laferriere 2'the lawsuit of full jurisdiction means conducting a fully factual and legal arbitration of the lawsuit'. In leading such cases, the principle that a prosecutor can be any person regardless of his or her relationship to the matter of the lawsuit is not in power, but in power is the one principle that is closely concerned with the administration act.
In lawsuits of full jurisdiction, the so-called settlement appeals, a distinctively important category of appeals, are appeals which purpose is to decide lawsuits from administration agreements. Therefore, the legal protection of the administration agreements is lead in front the administrative judiciary, specifically in the form of a lawsuit of full jurisdiction. All lawsuits that can appear between the administration and its contractor are lawsuits of full jurisdiction. On this occasion a distinctive characteristic should be highlighted: the suit is moving in two directions – it contains action of the individual against the administration, but also action of the administration against its contractor. Thus, a unique situation is created, the administration to position itself in the role of a prosecutor, in front of the court. 6.4. Structure of the Administrative Legal System The structure of the Administrative Legal System in France includes three elements: State Council, Administrative Courts and Specialized Administrative Courts. 6.4.1. State Council The State Council is at the same time a body of officials, but also a special institution in which this body belongs and which brings decisions, gives opinions and prepares studies. The Council carries out its functions in six sections: Section for disputes that provides all of the court activities, four traditional administrative sections responsible for giving opinions to the Government for all legal documents that are the responsibility of the State Council and for questions that are laid out to them, and the section for reports and investigations, which prepares studies and carries out meditations. In the framework of the Council, there is constant inspection of the Administrative Courts, Documentation Center, Library and Information Service.
A president manages the State Council. However, the real president of the Council is actually his vice-president, because the formal president, and that is the President of the country, executes this function only in cases of running supreme sessions that are exclusively rare. This is why the real president of the State Council is his vice-president, who appoints the Ministry Council with a decree. In ranking order, he is the first state official because he represents the requirements of the administration of the President of the Republic at the beginning of each year and also according to his earnings, the vice-president of the State Council is the president of the Council's Bureau, which represents a collegiate body composed of the presidents of all the sections and the General Secretary of the Council. In this structure, the Bureau debates about the general problems of politics and management in the State Council. From 1963, the Bureau has also its own Consultative Commission that debates the organizational problems and the functioning of the State Council, at the same time it also gives opinions on the individual measures of promotion or discipline punishment.
The number of members of the State Council varies from year to year. This number amounts to somewhere around 300 persons, among which a small portion is composed of state advisors on part-time service. They carry out other functions as well, like doctors, union leaders, high officials, university professors and other. Their appointment has a purpose of introducing new, international experience in the section, but they never participate in the resolving of administrative disputes. The remaining members that work in the State Council are the vice-president, presidents of the sections, state advisors, federal judges and professional assistants. The state advisors may be judges or correspondents in the councils or administrative sections. The federal judges and professional assistants are mainly correspondents in the disputes and administrative sections.
It is interesting to point out that the State Council always has a certain number of young servants that are recruited after leaving the ENA – National School for Administrative Affairs, which represents a peculiarity in relation to other management courts in France or abroad where recruitment is carried out by persons who have already gone through part of their career and who should be promoted. Traditionally, there is a belief in the State Council that this mix of generations is favorable for the development of judicial policy.(10)
Apart from resolving administrative disputes, the State Council of France carries out one more important function that consists of consultant activities. The consultations may be compulsory or facultative. The first category encompasses giving opinions for all legal, constitutional or international legal documents (including the most important sub-lawful acts) that originate from administrative power. So, the draft laws proposed by Parliament are not the only documents that are included in this. The Council gives advice on certain individual acts: decisions for expropriation, decrees that contain the change of someone's personal name, documents related to citizenship and other.
Facultative consultations are related to different matters. Whenever there are difficulties during the interpretation of some document, the responsible minister may, through the General Secretary of the Government, consult the State Council. These requirements often have the subject of resolving the conflict of responsibility between two administrations.
During the execution of compulsory and facultative consultation activities, the State Council issues about 2-2.5 thousand opinions annually. The opinions cover each legal branch and not only administrative law. Consultations are required for documents of criminal, civil, trade or international law as much as consultations for administrative law.
If it agrees to legal documents, the State Council only returns the document without any comments. In case of disagreements notes are made for the comments, while for the facultative consultations, an explained opinion is compulsory. The control of the State Council is carried out in three directions: 1) style, correctness, of the language and grammar form. Even if does not seem vital, this control is important because preciseness and strictness in legal documents is exclusively important for correct interpretation and dispute resolving. Sometimes legal documents may receive a totally different meaning depending on the (non-) existence of a punctuation sign; 2) lawfulness of the documents. When we speak of legal documents, the State Council respects how constitutional the text is, it warns the Government or the administration on the possible interventions by the Constitutional Council after the adoption of the law; opportune-ness, but not political opportune-ness because the State Council is not a political authority, but the legal and administrative appropriateness of the document (for an example how to promote an authority/body, what opinion for the number of degrees in some body, how to recruit personnel, for the eventual privatization of a branch from the public sector).
The opinions of the State Council are secret and are not publicized except in cases when the Government will allow it. Even though there is a law on the freedom of access to administrative documents from 1978, the opinions of the State Council are compulsory excluded. Opinions have no compulsory legal power, in other words, even if it is compulsory to consult the State Council, the Government is not obliged with the opinion. However, the Government often respects these legal opinions because if it adopts the document there is danger for it to lose all disputes in the future that arises from the clients and is related to the document. This is even more important for the individual cases for which an opinion is needed, agreement from the State Council. In the legal documents, the Government has no choice: it must accept the amended text by the State Council or to accept its own initial proposal. There is no third outcome because the State Council has not been consulted.
The most important activity of the State Council is of course resolving administrative disputes that encompass three activities: - a) Responsibility in the first and final degree, which represents an exemption today, and is related to disputes regarding the position of the officials appointed with a decree, or high officials and officers, and for the disputes in relation to lawmaking decisions by the ministers;
- b) Responsibility in the second degree when deciding on the appeals of the Administrative Courts and the Council for Administrative Disputes. The decisions of the State Council during such a responsibility are final, but the matter under which it decides in the second degree is only related to selection procedures, lawmaking documents and for disputes regarding lawfulness;
- c) Cassation responsibility (in the final degree) or responsibility that is restricted in the inquiry of legal issues. The State Council is a Supreme Court for the decisions that are adopted in the final degree by the Specialized Administrative Courts and the Second-degree Appeal Administrative Courts.
Statistical information speaks of constant inflow of cases that are the responsibility of the State Council, and the number of cases each year amounts to over 20,000.
Each individual case is subject to contradictory investigation, under which proposing outcomes decide the final bringing of a verdict. The whole procedure of resolving administrative disputes in the framework of the State Council is characterized with the existence of two types of filters: individual (correspondent, reviser, Government commissary, president of Judicial Council) and collective (subsection for preparing and a Judicial Council). The advantage of this procedure consists in the guarantees of quality of justice, while the disadvantage is slowness.
It must also be mentioned that collegiate authority adopt all of the decisions, so this way justice is executed collectively and this is why individual responsibility of the judges is not set out. The verdicts of the State Council nay be brought with only one predominating vote or unanimously without debate – it is not disclosed to the public; it is always a verdict of the State Council and has the same authority. 6.4.2. Administrative Courts The Administrative courts in the beginning of their existence were formed as "Councils of Prefecture" at the department level and represented part of the administration of the prefecture. During time its judicial role enhances. Firstly they were transformed into interdepartmental councils of the prefecture. During that period they represented so called courts with given responsibility, which means that they could act only when their responsibility was compulsory determined by law. In 1953 major reforms were carried out in the direction towards the fact that these courts become courts of general legal regime in the administrative matter, and vice versa, the State Council - a court in the first and final degree only when it is determined by law. Reasons for these reforms: approaching justice closer to the public by transferring authority to the Administrative Courts that are closer to the public; in the period after the war, the State Council was in excess with cases and the failure to resolve them in time increased their number from one year to the next, and all this resulted with slower procedures of bringing verdicts. In order to resolve these problems, part of the responsibilities are transferred to the Administrative Courts, which had their independence guaranteed by law from 1986, where the status and prestige of the Administrative Courts was enhanced.
But, from the 90s the number of annually received cases increases in relation to annual brought verdicts, which again leads to an excess of cases this time at the Administrative Court level. So, during this period, 150,000 left behind and newly received cases are annually collected, while the verdicts of the courts amounts to around 70,000. The number of appeals against these verdicts is really small and amounts to around 10-15% annually and around 1/3 of the contested verdicts are changed or revoked, and this is only in the most complicated cases. The Administrative Courts, as well as the State Council, carry out consultative actions, but of a smaller scale. So, the prefectures of their departments may consult them and very often the Administrative Courts give official opinions to the local administrative governments.
Between the Administrative Courts and the State Council, there are Second-level (appeal) Administrative Courts. They resolve appeals against the decisions of the First-level Administrative Courts. The decisions are brought in a dispute of full jurisdiction especially in the matter of responsibility, agreements and taxes. Statistical information does not show any holdup in the resolving of the cases by the Second-degree Administrative Courts. So, the conclusion would be that the largest excess and slowness in the procedure exists in the First-degree level Administrative Courts. 6.4.3. Specialized Courts The most significant, most respected and oldest among these courts is the Accounting court. This is a financial court that belongs to the administrative court order in which, after the decentralization of 1982, the regional accounting councils join the administrative court order.
In the framework of the administration, discipline courts are established, but also outside the administration, for the free professions like the doctors and architects.
There are certain types of social courts in the field of social and health protection, but some of them have temporary character.
With the increase in the number of immigrants, the Commission for Refugee Disputes receives more attention, it decides on the decisions of the French Bureaus for Refugees and Eupatrids, where applications for issuing the status of a refugee are refused. On a quantitative scale, with annual resolving of 60,000 cases, this commission has become the most significant administrative court.
The reasons for forming these special courts are the following: greater professionalization and narrow specialization of the courts, which is especially the case with the Accounting Court, whose task is strictly specialized and technical. There is a political reason for the formation of such courts and that is approaching the justice system closer to the public. Namely, members in the greater number of Specialized Courts are representatives of interesting communities (except in the Accounting Court). For example, doctors in the discipline commissions, pensioners in councils that decide on pension disputes, military veterans in disputes regarding military pensions and other. The advantage of this decision is connecting professional courts and representatives of the interested groups in the sharing of justice. The disadvantage consists of insufficient technical competency on the legal scale as well as in the possibility of misuse and arbitrariness when persons that have direct interest resolve cases. However, the decisions of these courts are under second-degree control of the State Council, which represents a sure factor in coherence and uniqueness of administrative law.
In a large number of countries, the abovementioned French Administrative Legal System represented a source and model during the establishment of judiciary control over administrative and executive-judiciary protection of rights and citizens. Of course, it has been harmonized for the concrete conditions in each country separately, but the conclusion remains that of the countries that belong in the European-continental Legal System, exceptions are the countries where there is no special Administrative Legal System. Unfortunately, one of them is the Republic of Macedonia. 7. Administrative-Judicial Control in the Republic of Macedonia
de lege lata The permanent legal regulations in the arrangement of this issue foresees the following decisions:
First, in the legal continuity of the Republic of Macedonia, the institution Administrative dispute is used, which means that the Law for Administrative Disputes as a former federal regulation, in accordance with the Constitutional Law for Conducting the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia, is used as a Republican regulation until the adoption of a new law for administrative disputes. After more than one decade since the independence of our country and the introduction of new political and economic order, such a law for administrative disputes in the Republic of Macedonia has not yet been adopted, so the Law for Administrative Disputes from 1977 is in force ("Official gazette of Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia", No. 4/77, with correction made in "Official gazette of Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia", No. 36/77)!
Second, judicial control over the lawfulness of the administrative acts in the Republic of Macedonia represents one mixed system between the Continental-European and the Anglo-Saxon system of administrative dispute. Actually, it is a so-called Anglo-French system because of the following reasons. First, in the Republic of Macedonia, there is no special administrative legal system responsible for resolving administrative disputes, that is why we cannot speak of a clean type of European-continental system. Second, the resolving of the administrative disputes is entrusted to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia, which undoubtedly represents a regular court in the organization of our legal system. But, regarding the resolving of administrative disputes, a special administrative section in the framework of the Supreme Court is responsible for it, composed of two administrative councils with three judges each, professionals for resolving administrative disputes. So, we cannot say that it is either an Anglo-Saxon system in clean form because some kind of specialization of the judges who work on resolving administrative disputes is foreseen.
The classic administrative-legal theory in the definition of administrative-legal relation, as one of its basic elements, states that the administrative-legal relation is not subject to judiciary control. However, this feature of administrative-legal relation, with the introduction of the institution of the administrative dispute,(11) becomes surmountable in the legal system of the Republic of Macedonia. The administrative dispute is defined as "a dispute that originates between an individual, legal person or establishment or other institution, from one side, and an administrative authority or other state authority or public service, which carries out public authorization, from another side, in relation to the lawfulness of a decision brought in an administrative work in a dispute that is run in the Supreme Court in a special administrative-judicial procedure".(12) In accordance with the Law on the Courts,(13) as well as in accordance with the Constitution of 1991, the authority for resolving administrative disputes in the Republic of Macedonia is the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia. It is the highest court in the Republic of Macedonia, a court of general authority, where there is an administrative section, responsible for resolving administrative disputes.
The Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia resolves administrative disputes in the first and final degree, but against certain verdicts an appeal is allowed where again the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia decides, in a composition of 5 judges, which did not participate in the first-degree resolving of the administrative dispute.(14)
The Law on administrative disputes, with special regulations (Art. 66-Art. 76), foresees one more type of control over the organs of the administration. This is the possibility of submitting a request for special court protection of the freedoms and rights guaranteed with the Constitution, when they are violated with an individual act or action of the organs of the administration, and when another form of protection is not provided. For such a request, the court for administrative disputes will decide, in accordance with the rules set out in the Law for Administrative Disputes.
When it comes to the powers to conducting administrative-judicial control, the Macedonian Administrative Disputes Act does not opt for either of the above -- the Continental or Anglo-Saxon model -- creating a combined version of the two systems.
In Macedonian administrative-legal theory, there have been varying opinions on the justifiability of this solution in terms of the efficiency that it offers in attending to the administrative-judicial protection of individual administrative acts. Opinions making a case for maintaining the existing model see it as representing a successful combination of the English and French system, as being rational and economic, while retaining all their advantages (specialization, autonomy, special procedure, authority of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia, and so forth).
There have also been doubts, however, with regard to the authority of the eventually formed special administrative tribunals in the sense that it is more rational and more efficient to allow solely the Supreme Court to rule in administrative disputes, also for the reason of equalizing (uniform ruling) administrative-judicial cases. Furthermore, certain amendments have been proposed in the sense of decentralizing the powers to rule in administrative disputes at the level of appellate courts, which is justified from the aspect of expediting the resolution of administrative disputes.(15) Finally, commitments have been articulated to introducing special administrative courts, which would carry out administrative-judicial control over concrete acts of the administrative bodies, in accordance with the changes being made to our political system. This would ensure the greater specialization of judges who deal with the administrative problem area.(16)
The existing legal solution, however, bring the Republic of Macedonia closer to the second, so-called Anglo-Saxon system of legal control over the administration. On the other hand, although it is the cradle of the common law system, England has recently seen the launch of a process of creating a separate legal regime for the state administration, because private law and procedures in regular civil courts cannot answer to the administration's real needs.
For these reasons, we feel that there is need to amend the Macedonian system of judicial control over the concrete acts of public administration with a view to ensuring its adaptation to solutions accepted in most European-Continental countries. 8.Macedonian Administrative Judiciary de lege ferenda -
utopia or reality? The realistic situation in terms of judicial protection of human rights against potential violations in the adoption and execution of administrative acts, legal practice, and the statistical data in connection with this issue indicate the indisputable need for reforms in the system of judicial control over legal acts in the Republic of Macedonia.
Above all, the very fact that, in our country, the jurisdiction, means, and procedure for resolving administrative disputes is regulated by a regulation from 1977 speaks of the need to take urgent measures to introduce new legislation that will provide for new solutions to these issues, which would correspond with the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia.
Moreover, there is no denying the fact that the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia is snowed under a huge number of cases of an administrative nature. This, hinders prospects for efficient work, because of which citizens of the Republic are faced with the problem of delays in resolving their administrative cases in exhaustingly slow and expensive administrative-judicial proceedings. Ultimately, the dynamics of social processes relating to the work of the administration lead to the establishment of new legal institutes in the area of administrative law. That situation, requires narrow specialization, profound expertise, and knowledge of the administrative subject matter (which has been undergoing worldwide expansion over the last few decades), of the people (judges) authorized to resolve disputes in this area.
All this leads to a general conclusion about the inefficiency of the relevant bodies for resolving administrative disputes in the Republic of Macedonia. Thus, we are presenting our position on the existence not of a need -- but rather of a necessity -- to pass a new Administrative Disputes Act that, among other things, would also contain an entirely new legal solution, which is -- establishing a separate Administrative Court of the Republic of Macedonia. In this way, Macedonia will be counting itself among the countries that keep abreast of democratic trends and abandon the system of general judicial control over the administration by forming a special administrative judiciary. It has to be, naturally, adapted to social conditions in our Republic, all with a view to ensuring the more efficient judicial protection of human rights and liberties against the actions and acts of the public administration. This is not in the least an easy task, but the current state of the Republic of Macedonia judiciary unambiguously points to the need to identify new modalities to improve the efficiency of the judicial system.
The realization of this proposal would run in the following manner: - At the very beginning, it is important to note out that in order to accomplish this resolve it is not necessary to carry out any constitutional amendments because as we have already said, the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia does not determine the responsibility of the courts for resolving administrative disputes, but leaves room for this issue to be determined by law.
- Amendments and supplements, according to this, will need to be executed in the framework of the Law on the Courts, where there will have to be plans for the existence of an Administrative Court of the Republic of Macedonia and its basic responsibilities.
- The Administrative Court of the Republic of Macedonia would represent the only Administrative Court with a seat in Skopje, responsible for resolving administrative disputes on the whole territory of the Republic.
- The Administrative Court of the Republic of Macedonia, with the fact that it will be determined by the regulations of the Law on the Courts, means that it will represent an integral part of the organization of the legal system in the Republic of Macedonia (so it will be part of the judicial power), and not part of the administrative organization. In the system of the hierarchy positioning of the courts, the Administrative Court would be at the same level as the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia.
- The Administrative Court of the Republic of Macedonia will carry out the work of its responsibility in the composition of three separate judicial councils, composed of three judges each - experts from different fields of administrative-legal matters. They do not need to and should not be only judges, which means to fulfill the formal-legal conditions for being chosen as a judge. On the contrary, apart from the judges, it is desirable in the framework of these councils to include experienced administrative-legal practitioners, above all, from the group of high civil servants, people who are familiar with "the spirit" of the public administration, as well as lawyers, renowned in the field of administrative law.Of course, the exsistance of scientific personnel, theorists, whose scientific explorings and accomplishments had gained in the development of the administrative law theory thought, is necessery.
The aim of the suggested solution for establishing a separate Administrative Court of Law above all we acknowledge in the improvement of the efficiency of the judicial control above separate administrative acts. We find the suggestions for decentralization of the Supreme Court in order to transfer the resolving of the administrative disputes of first degree to the Appellation Courts of Law unacceptable for few reasons: - Incompetence and the low level of experience of the judges of the Appellation Courts of law in the process of resolving disputes from the administrative matter.
- Absence of the necessary authority during decision making process within this especially important matter in charge for the prosecutor and as well for the prosecuted state body or organization with public jurisdiction
- The enormous number of law sues with which the Appellations Courts had trouble in resolving so far.
9. Conclusion In the Republic of Macedonia is necessery a new Law for administrative disputes (that and a new Law for Courts) which will assure the exsistance of legal frame for the establishment, organization and acting of a speciallized Administrative Court of Law. With this kind of solution is assured the following: - higher level of efficiency in resolving the administrative disputes;
- stricked specialization of the future administrative judges which represents a special skill, practice and knowledge
- meritory way of resolving the administartive disputes more oftently means an enlarged role of the institute –dispute into full jurisdiction.
- creating conditions for administrative-court practice to achive the atribute – source of the administrative law, especially in the fields of the administrative law matter which are new and insufficiently analysed from the law makers but the science of Law as well, so they leave a space for appearance of lots of law empty spaces.
Therefore, as the best possible solution for the improvement of the efficiency and the quality of the resolving of administrative disputes we find only the establishing of the administrative courts in our country. Footnotes: - E.Pusić, Nauka o upravi, (Science of Administration), Zagreb, 1973, pp. 310-321
- S. Lilić, Upravno pravo (Administrative Law), Beograd, 1995, pp. 411-412
- M. Jovičić, Ombudsman - čuvar zakonitosti i prava građana (Ombudsman – guardian of legality and citizens’ rights), Beograd, 1969, pp.5-6
- Á. Äàâèòêîâñêè, Êîíòðîëà íàä óïðàâàòà (Control over the administration) Äîêòîðñêà äèñåðòàöè¼à, Ñêîï¼å, 1992, pp.168-169
- The last settled text of the GAPA is published in 1986, Official Gazette of SFRY, No 47/86
- À. Ïàâëîâñêà-Äàíåâà, Îìáóäñìàí (Ombudsman), Ìè-Àí, Ñêîï¼å, 2000
- Art.77 of The Macedonian Constitution
- Law on Public Attorney, Official Gazette of the republic of Macedonia, No. 7/97
- Ñ. Ãåëåâñêè, Í. Ãðèçî, Á. Äàâèòêîâñêè, Óïðàâíî ïðàâî (Administrative Law), Ñêîï¼å, 1993, p.162
- Nreban G., French Administrative Law, Belgrade, 2002, p.407-409
- See Official Gazette of FNRJ No. 23/52, Official Gazette of SFRJ No. 16/65. In 1977 a new Law for administrative disputes was brought in an Official Gazette of SFRJ No. 4/77and 36/77. This law is still being applied on the territory of the Republic of Macedonia.
- S. Gelevski, administrative-process law, Skopje, 1997, page 254.
- Art. 34 par. 1 point 3 from the Law on the Courts reads: The Supreme Court of the Repubic of Macedonia decides in the first and second degree in the administrative disputes when it is determined by law. The Law on the Courts is issued in an Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia No. 36/95.
- See: S. Gelevski, Comment on the Law for administrative disputes, Skopje, 1996, page 58.
- S.Gelevski, (Administrative Procedure Law), Skopje, p. 252
- À. Pavlovska-Daneva, Administrative contracts, doctoral dissertation, April 2003, p.324
|
