Supreme Administrative Court (Czech Republic)
The Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic ( Czech Nejvyšší správní soud České republiky ) in Brno (Brno) is the final instance for legal disputes falling within the competence of the administrative courts.
The task of administrative jurisdiction is to protect the individual rights of natural and legal persons under public law . This task is carried out by the administrative courts, specialist chambers within the regional courts and the Supreme Administrative Court, as the court of last instance. A special additional function of the Supreme Administrative Court is to ensure the unity and legality of the decision-making practice of the regional courts and the administrative authorities. The purpose of this is the appeal in cassation against judgments of the regional courts on administrative matters in which the complainant seeks the annulment of an administrative act. The judicial protection against administrative acts is supplemented by legal protection against inaction by an administrative authority as well as against illegal interference by an administrative authority.
The competence of this court also includes electoral matters, disputes regarding local referendums and the establishment and dissolution of political parties and movements.
In addition, the Supreme Administrative Court decides on both negative and positive competence disputes between administrative authorities and / or area or subject-specific self-government units and it is also the disciplinary court for proceedings in matters involving judges, public prosecutors and bailiffs.
General information
In administrative jurisdiction, the regional courts and the Supreme Administrative Court provide protection for the subjective public rights of natural and legal persons in proceedings on complaints against decisions by administrative bodies , supplemented by protection against the inaction of the administrative body and against unlawful influences, instructions and coercive measures the administrative bodies. The regional courts also decide certain disputes in electoral matters and in matters of local and regional referendum.
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Administrative Court is primarily responsible for decisions on appeals in cassation against the decisions of the regional courts on complaints and applications for the protection of subjective public rights. The Supreme Administrative Court also decides in a single instance in certain areas of law, above all in electoral matters, in matters of the dissolution of political parties and political movements, the cessation or resumption of their activities, as well as in proceedings on certain positive and negative competence disputes among the organs of public administration . The authority to decide on the disciplinary prosecution of judges, public prosecutors and bailiffs has now been delegated to the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court decides on the cassation complaints against the decisions of the regional courts on the repeal of measures of a general nature or their part due to illegality, as well as in matters of local and regional referendum.
The Supreme Administrative Court decides in senates of three, six, seven and nine members. The chairman of the Senate can also make certain simple process decisions. All judges form the plenum , which decides on the number of colleges of the court on the proposal of the court president.
In its work, the Supreme Administrative Court follows the rules governing the organization, jurisdiction and procedure before the Supreme Administrative Court.
The Supreme Administrative Court is a member of the Association of Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Courts of the European Union (ACA-Europe) and the International Association of Supreme Administrative Courts (IASAJ).
history
The Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic in its present form was only fully established on January 1, 2003, when the Administrative Court Code (Act No. 150/2002 Coll.) Came into force. However, the actual history of the Supreme Administrative Court goes far back into the past.
1867-1918
In the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the constitutional basis of administrative jurisdiction in the areas that represent today's Czech Republic was laid down in the so-called December Constitution of 1867. Art. 15 Constitutional Law of December 21, 1867 (No. 144/1867 of the Reich Law) on judicial power established the Administrative Court (VwGH) in Vienna. The VwGH was the sole administrative court for the entire Austrian part of the empire, the so-called Cisleithanien . Administrative jurisdiction was thus designed as a centralized and specialized system of judicial review. In the Hungarian part of the then Austro-Hungarian monarchy, the so-called Transleithaniens , administrative jurisdiction was only created later. It was based on other, probably not so modern, principles.
A central principle was the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the administrative courts from matters in which an administrative authority, exercising its legal competence, decided on matters under private law. This principle was enshrined right at the beginning of the creation of the Administrative Court, later incorporated into the first constitution of the Czechoslovak Republic of 1920 and finally adopted in full with the reform of 1993 after the separation of the Czechoslovakia and Slovakia . The judicial review of decisions on these matters was henceforth left to the decision of the civil courts.
It took almost ten years before an implementing law was passed and the Administrative Court could actually start operating on July 2, 1876. This step was implemented through the enactment of the Administrative Court Act (known in the literature as the “October Act”) of October 22, 1875 (Coll. No. 10/1985). The first hearings of the court were held in July 1876 under the chairmanship of Baron Stählin, the first president of the court. The intellectual father of the Administrative Court Act, which is still regarded as an excellent example of the drafting of the law, was a senior civil servant in the Ministry of Culture and Education - Karl von Lemayer. He became a judge, President of the Senate and later Vice President of the Administrative Court.
The law itself was very brief and contained only 50 articles. Even if inspired in a certain way by an older model of southern German administrative jurisdiction, the law was perfectly thought out and entirely original. The contemporary style of the draft law, in an effort to capture and regulate every minute detail of the process and thereby guarantee the greatest possible individual legal protection, created laws with hundreds of articles that resembled a tangled thicket. As a result, such a formalistic set of rules required constant changes to the law. However, the author of the law chose a completely different route. The tight October Act, on the other hand, with its broad formulations and its nonetheless rigid external borders, which could not be crossed, intentionally left a great deal of leeway for judicial training. The fact that after the disintegration of Austria-Hungary in 1918 the law remained in force both in Austria and in the newly formed Czechoslovakia shows its quality. The law remained in force on Czech territory until the administrative judiciary was dissolved as a result of the Communist seizure of power in 1948. His influence continues as the law was the primary source of inspiration for both modern Austrian administrative codification and the new Czech codification. The trend-setting and high-quality case law of the Vienna Administrative Court is reflected in the extensive and first-class collection of case law (published by Exel, Alter, Popelka, Reissig, and especially worth mentioning Adam Budwinski).
1918-1945
One of the first laws to be passed in the new Czechoslovak Republic was the Law on the Supreme Administrative Court and the Resolution of Conflicts of Competence (No. 3/1918 Coll. Of Laws and Ordinances, Administrative Court Act), which was to remain in force until the end of 1952. It formed the basic legal framework for the Supreme Administrative Court in Prague . In addition, the October Law of 1875 was adopted with minor changes (the so-called Pantůček recesses).
The initial president in the office of "First President" (President of the Supreme Administrative Court) was Ferdinand Pantůček (1863-1925). He was an important Czech statesman and involved in the overthrow of the Habsburg monarchy in 1918. Ferdinand Pantůček was also a member of the Imperial Council and later president of a senate at the Vienna Administrative Court. The initial "Second President" (Vice President) of the Supreme Administrative Court was Emil Hácha (1872–1945). Before 1918, Hácha was a councilor at the Vienna Administrative Court. He was one of the most important Czech administrative lawyers and at the same time a tragic figure in recent Czech history. Paradoxically, it was Mr Pantůček who, under threat of resignation, pushed through the appointment of Hácha, even against the will of the government, which wanted a politician in the office of vice-president. After Pantůček's death, Hácha was President of the Supreme Administrative Court from 1925 to November 1938. In November 1938, Hácha was elected President of the so-called " Second Republic ", the devastated remnant of the state that had survived the fragmentation of the Czechoslovak Republic by the Third Reich.
It is often emphasized that the Czechoslovak administrative justice system was developed based on the Austrian model. In fact, however, factual events have led to this development. The original design preferred by Pantůček and Hácha was different. The Czechoslovakian constitution of 1920 provided for an administrative system that was modeled on the north German (Prussian) system. This system provided for first instance courts in the counties and districts. These courts should be staffed with a qualified civil servant and a lay judge who should be elected by a district committee. The Supreme Administrative Court should act as the court of last resort and only rule on legal issues.
Together with the Constitution of 1920, the Law on Administrative Jurisdiction and District and District Authorities (Law No. 158/1920 Coll. Of Laws and Regulations) was enacted. However, this law never came into force, probably due to political disagreement (and it has not been repealed verbatim to this day). The lack of courts of first instance had a drastic impact on the workload of the Supreme Administrative Court. As early as the mid-1920s, the number of new cases pending exceeded the capacity of the court. The length of the proceedings gradually increased up to several years and a continuous increase in the number of judges (from originally 26 to around 50 at the time of the dissolution of free Czechoslovakia) was in vain. The major changes made in 1937 to the Administrative Court Act (Act No. 164/1937 Coll.), The appendix of which was the first official Czech text of the October Act, could not remedy the situation.
During the time of the First Republic (1918-1938) the Czechoslovak Supreme Administrative Court was on a par with the corresponding administrative jurisdictions in Europe. The activity of the court can be seen in the case law collections of the court. The official case law collection is named after its editor Josef V. Bohuslav. The “Bohuslav Fall Collection” was highly regarded. Tens of thousands of decisions were published in this collection between 1918 and 1948. The Bohuslav case collection was divided into two editions: an administrative edition (abbreviated as Boh. A) and a financial edition (abbreviated as Boh. F). At least one sixth of these decisions are still relevant today. The complete collection is difficult to access and is currently only known from excerpts, which are published in the press and are also included in legal electronic information files.
The period during the German occupation (of the so-called Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia from 1939 to 1945) represented a dark epoch for the work of the court. The judicial work of the court often included the interpretation of anti-Semitic legal texts. However, due to the limited jurisdiction of the court and the separation between domestic matters and those that came under the jurisdiction of the Third Reich, much of the proceedings pending before the war began was settled. As a result, the Supreme Administrative Court was able to enter the post-war period at least partially with a clean slate, both legally and personally, as some judges left the court after the war.
1945–1952
However, the court was unable to fully resume its work in 1945. This was due, on the one hand, to the fact that there were still problems with the composition of the court and, on the other hand, to the simultaneous activity of the “rival” Slovak administrative court in Bratislava , which had been established during the war in the newly independent Slovak state. The division of competencies between the two courts was unclear and was only fully resolved later, with the transfer (by Act No. 166/1949 Coll.) Of the Supreme Administrative Court to Bratislava in 1949. However, this was only part of a larger plan to completely abolish the court. This plan was based on a political decision made soon after the communist overturn in February 1948.
An institution known as the “administrative court” was still provided for in Article 137 of the new constitution of May 9, 1948. Nonetheless, immediately after the communist seizure of power in February 1948, it became apparent that under the new communist regime no attention was paid to independent judicial control of public administration and the protection of subjective individual rights under public law. A rigorous “purge” of the revived Prague Supreme Administrative Court followed, and senior judges were forced to resign. Due to the lack of judges, some senates could not even meet; No new judges were appointed. Another consequence was the non-functioning system of satellite courts under public law, which were staffed by the Supreme Administrative Court (patent court, cartel court, electoral court). Soon there was not a single Senate left with a presiding President. As a result of these events, the court completely ceased operations in 1952. In autumn 1949 the court was finally moved to Bratislava. The court was supposed to be active until 1952, but there is no clear evidence of such activity in the archives.
Ultimately, administrative jurisdiction was completely abolished by the Constitutional Law on Courts and Public Prosecutor's Office (Law No. 64/1952 Coll.). This constitutional law provided for an amendment to the constitutional provisions on the judiciary and, without justification, removed all provisions on the administrative court. In addition, this constitutional law contained in Art. 18 (Act No. 65/1952 Coll., On the Public Prosecutor's Office) a general clause that repealed all legal acts relating to the administrative court. The last remnant of the Czechoslovak administrative jurisdiction was the insurance jurisdiction (originally provided for in the Law on Employee Insurance in Case of Illness, Inability to Work and Old Age, Law No. 221/1924 Coll.). However, the insurance jurisdiction was transformed into a special procedure on appeals against decisions by administrative authorities and incorporated as part of the civil procedure code. As a result of these events, the perception of administrative jurisdiction changed; it became a special sub-category of civil justice.
1989-2002
The renaissance of administrative jurisdiction was only possible (and necessary) after 1989. The constitutional basis of administrative jurisdiction was set out in Article 36, Paragraph 2 of the Acts of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Constitutional Law without a number, introduced by Constitutional Law No. 23/1991 Coll .; after the establishment of the independent Czech Republic, published with the decision of the Czech National Council No. . 2/1993 Coll., On the declaration of fundamental rights and freedoms as part of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic). As time was of the essence to implement the constitutional provisions, no immediate revival of the Supreme Administrative Court was made possible, nor was a special law on administrative jurisdiction drawn up, according to which only matters in administrative jurisdiction would be regulated. Between 1992 and 2002, the judicial review of administrative matters was carried out on the basis of special provisions contained in the fifth part of the Code of Civil Procedure (Art. 244 ff. ZPO). These provisions had previously been incorporated into the Code of Civil Procedure through an amendment to the law (Act No. 519/1991 Coll.). The review was carried out by courts with general jurisdiction. However, the decisive work in the area of jurisdiction was carried out by the regional and higher courts of the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic (after the partition of Czechoslovakia in 1993 by both higher courts in Prague and since 1996 also in Olomouc). The factual jurisdiction of the district courts and the highest courts was of practically no importance, especially after 1993.
Legally, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic was established on January 1, 1993, when the Constitution of the Czech Republic came into force. Art. 91 of the Constitution provides for the Supreme Administrative Court to be the court of last instance of the second branch of the Czech ordinary legal process. Despite multiple legislative initiatives in the 1990s, it took 10 years before the court was actually established. The situation was thus very similar to the year 1968, when the constitutional court was supposed to be established, which, however, was also in fact never established.
Between 1992 and 2002 the administrative judiciary faced many problems, particularly with the administrative court process. The problem of the incompatibility of the Czech system with the obligations of the Czech Republic under international law (especially with regard to Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights ) caused the greatest concern . Judicial review of administrative matters was limited to reviewing the legality of administrative acts. Actions by the administration that did not constitute an administrative act, such as the inactivity of an administrative authority or its illegal influence ( real files ), were excluded from the scope of this review . In addition, there were no legal remedies against the judgments of the administrative courts, which inevitably led to the fact that the respective regional courts diverged in their decision-making practice.
In its decisions in the mid-1990s, the Constitutional Court pointed out the inadequacies of the Czech legal system and, with its decision of June 27, 2001 (published as decision No. 279/2001 Coll.), Lifted the entire fifth part of the Code of Civil Procedure, which up to now constituted the legal basis of the Czech administrative judiciary. The formal legal force of this decision was postponed until January 1, 2003, in order to give the legislature sufficient time to enact the necessary laws. The decision of the Constitutional Court was the decisive impetus for the adoption of the new legal framework for administrative jurisdiction, which was to be adopted by both Houses of Parliament. Finally, on January 1, 2003, 50 years after its dissolution, the Supreme Administrative Court was restored.
2003 until today
At the beginning of its establishment, the composition of the new Supreme Administrative Court was rather sparse. Despite the fact that the new administrative court code provided for the possibility that the administrative judges of the two higher courts had the potential to be appointed judge of the Supreme Administrative Court, not all made use of this possibility. Contrary to the government's proposal, Brno was chosen as the seat of the court. The court began its work with a contingent of 13 judges. When the court began its work, however, it had no assistants (academic staff), only four clerks in the court offices and ten of its own administrative staff (economics, investments, transport, technical department, etc.).
In 2003, the court grew the fastest. At the end of 2003, 88 people were already working at the court (22 judges, 23 assistants and over 40 people in administration). The further enlargement of the court was initially hampered by several factors. The main factor was the lack of space due to the fact that the court was temporarily housed in a rented building on Masarykova Street. However, this problem was resolved with the move on September 1st, 2006 to the newly constructed courthouse at 6 Moravské námestí in Brno.
Summary
The reform of the administrative judiciary in 2002 still left some questions unanswered. It was uncertain whether the legislature would repeat the mistakes made between 1918 and 1938. In particular, the question of the extent to which the administrative regulations will produce a hierarchically structured and functional administrative court system has not yet been answered. Such a system could be designed in different ways. A functional model (based on the Prussian administrative jurisdiction and actually only liquidated by Hitler), as foreseen by the constitution in 1920, would be possible. Or a model in which the administrative courts are supplemented by independent administrative committees (which are used in continental Europe to strengthen judicial review in public law matters). A model inspired by the Anglo-American tradition of independent judicial review by so-called “boards” would also be conceivable.
Web links
Coordinates: 49 ° 11 ′ 51 ″ N , 16 ° 36 ′ 24.1 ″ E