The transformation of the judicial system in Kyrgyzstan an after 1991. Aspects of the development of administrative justice

This article examines the transformation of the judiciary in the Republic of Kyrgyzstan after 1991, as well as aspects of the development of administrative justice in this state. The article presents the main stages of the development of the judicial system of the Kyrgyz Republic: 1993-2002, 2003-2009, 2010-2020. The device of the judicial system of the republic is described, the system of courts of general jurisdiction, inter-district economic courts, the judicial bids of the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan, as well as the courts of the second instance, and in addition to the elimination of the system of arbitration courts in the Republic and Military Courts (2003), disbanding the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan (2010), the creation of the Constitutional Chamber in the Supreme Court of the Republic. The article provides aspects of the development of administrative justice.

Sądowoadministracyjna kontrola przyjęć na studia w PRL

The scope of judicial review regarding the application of administrative law in the authoritarian Polish People’s Republic (Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa — PRL) was limited. The reason for this is obvious: resolving disputes between executive power (public administration) and individuals in PRL by courts functioning in honest and effective way would be an “obstruction” of the tasks executed by the communist state. The Supreme Administrative Court was reactivated in the last stage of PRL’s functioning in 1980, following the model of interwar tradition. The paper offers an analysis of judicial-administrative review in PRL in the field of university admissions. Organization and functioning of the authoritarian PRL exerted an influence on the way judicial review of public administration operated. Administrative justice reactivated in 1980 was submitted to organizational and jurisdictional limitations, as the created Supreme Administrative Court was a one-instance institution with limited jurisdiction, filled with only nine judges. Still, reactivating administrative justice began the process of restoring the proper place for freedoms and individual rights against the state, including the right to attend higher education schools. The analysis of the chosen case has allowed to identify some significant interconnected processes and phenomena in the judicial-administrative review in the declining stage of PRL within the whole domain of administrative law. One example is public administration striving for avoiding judicial review by taking a position that settlement of an administrative matter by the university is not an administrative decision. Another example is regulation of individual freedoms and rights by a multi-layered unstable system of legal sources, including: law on higher education, order of the Minister for Science, Higher Education and Technology, and non-published guidelines from the Minister of Health and Social Welfare of 21 May 1981 on admission principles and procedure of full-time studies at medical universities.

Urgent applications in French administrative justice

The institute of urgent judicial decisions is a special procedure for administrative justice bodies in France, which allows to prescribe effectively and quickly a wide range of necessary measures (from the appointment of expert examinations to the suspension of normative administrative acts) and to protect the legitimate interests of individuals and organizations. There are two main categories of urgent judicial decisions, accordingly their functional purpose. The procedural features of urgent judicial decisions are related to the obligation of the French administrative courts to establish conditions for urgency and the need to prescribe certain measures as a matter of urgency. These criteria, being evaluative, are specified by the jurisprudence of the French administrative courts, according to which the judge determines whether there is a threat of causing immediate and sufficiently serious harm to the interests of the applicant and whether there is a need to take urgent measures, taking into account the circumstances of the case. At the same time, the urgent applications judge does not consider the case, but sets temporary measures that can be changed in the course of further proceedings. The article suggests creating mechanisms in Russian law that are similar to those existing in the French legal regulation of urgent judicial decisions in administrative cases. In particular, the author suggests expanding the powers of Russian courts to suspend normative administrative acts and individual decisions when courts take measures of preliminary protection in administrative claims.

Acts Under the Bulgarian Law on Administrative Offences and Sanctions Falling Within the Scope of Direct Administrative Justice After the 2020 Amendments to the Law

The paper analyses the acts under the Bulgarian Law on Administrative Offences and Sanctions (LAOS) which fall within the scope of direct administrative justice after the amendments to the law passed in late 2020. It defines the scope of application of the ordinary and special legislative procedures of control based on the acts that may be subject to revision. In the end, the paper lists the acts under LAOS which cannot be disputed separately.

Administrative Justice and Globalization

This chapter, a discussion of administrative justice beyond the borders of the states, has three related objectives. The first is to point out the growth of this dimension of administrative justice, either within regional organizations or within global regulatory regimes. The second is to examine the challenges facing the new institutions and the commonalities and differences between their foundations, particularly with regard to the general principles of law aiming at promoting sound governance, such as due process, impartiality, and proportionality. The third objective is to examine the role of law. Judicial review and judicial doctrines are part of the story, but are not the whole story. It will be seen that law, both hard and soft, plays several roles in this area and variably impinges on the interest at stake.

Vliv organizace státní správy na (místní) příslušnost soudů ve správním soudnictví

This paper deals with changes that have taken place in the organisation of state administration from the perspective of administrative justice and its local jurisdiction. In order to do so, the paper answers the basic question of whether the organisation of state administration (in terms of the local jurisdiction of administrative authorities) and the organisation of administrative courts (also in terms of their local jurisdiction) are related or not. In this context, it is worth considering whether the organisation of administrative justice should follow the organisation of the public/state administration as such and its trends, or even the opposite, and whether the two phenomena should not be independent of each other. The paper summarises the issue of the criteria for determining the local jurisdiction of administrative courts, the legal regulation of which has undergone certain developments, similar to the development of the legal regulation of the organisation of the state administration. The question is whether any common indicators can be traced. The issue under examination is not only of a purely practical nature, such as the criteria for determining the local jurisdiction of an administrative court. It is related to the overall state of both the state administration and the administrative justice and their organization, and it offers a number of questions of a more general nature, such as the formal and informal impact of “its” regional court on the administrative authorities within its jurisdiction, the influence of their case law on “local administrative law”, the question of the availability of administrative courts, or access to them, as well as their caseload. Overall, the paper discusses whether it is possible to find any relationship, or rather consequences, arising from the local jurisdiction of administrative authorities, resulting of course from the form of the organisation of the state administration, and the (non)corresponding local jurisdiction of the administrative justice. Possible de lege ferenda considerations in terms of the organisation and local jurisdiction of the administrative justice are also mentioned.

ORIGIN AND FORMATION OF THE IDEA OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE. HISTORICAL ASPECT

The reform of all branches of government in the Russian Federation is caused by the need to implement the idea of building a rule-of-law state and increase the effectiveness of the fight against corruption and arbitrariness of all branches of government. Improving the mechanism of functioning of the executive power both at the federal and regional levels, increasing the responsibility of officials for the decisions taken should have a legal basis. The article considers the historical aspect of the emergence and formation of the concept of “administrative justice”, “administrative courts”, “administrative proceedings”. The problem has a long history: starting with the emergence of the idea itself in France and Germany, continued by research in the field of administrative and legal science in Russia. The views of scientists on the problems of the formation and functioning of administrative justice in the Russian Federation at different historical stages of the development of society and depending on the political and state structure are given. The necessity of improving legislation in the light of the decisions taken related to the establishment of administrative justice in the Russian Federation, the adoption of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation is emphasized. The dynamics of the processes taking place in Russia related to the formation of administrative justice is investigated. The role of administrative justice and its influence on management processes in the state are considered. The authors noted the importance of administrative justice in the process of solving the problem of combating corruption by the state and society in all spheres of life of society and the state.

The Individual and Administrative Justice

This chapter discusses what individual justice means in the realm of administrative justice. The standards of justice and fairness that apply in administrative decision-making need consideration from the perspective of the service user. Should the administrative justice system serve the citizen or the state? What role do individual service users have in the design, use, and evaluation of more bureaucratic systems of redress? Different notions of justice, as they relate to primary decision-making processes, have been described through various models. This chapter provides a set of tools with which to study the subject and argues for the importance of user voice and perceptions of fairness in the provision of a more citizen-focussed justice.

Directions for Future Research on Administrative Justice

Administrative justice is central to peoples’ relationship with government. As the current volume illustrates, this field is attracting diverse work using a range of methods across jurisdictions. After considering the breadth of research, from basic or discovery research to applied research, the article focuses on the UK context, where the administrative justice landscape is marked by complexity and fragmentation, to consider key research challenges. While stressing the value of diversity, the article argues for the need to adopt a more proactive and coordinated approach to research that enables greater collaboration and dialogue between independent researchers and government, policymakers, the professions, other users of research, and funders. As well as building research into system design and evaluation, such an approach will help overcome practical obstacles facing researchers and enable priority research needs to be identified and met without being dominated by government’s policy agenda. The article argues that these priority needs include work on: improving the availability of information on how administrative justice systems operate; the use of new technologies including AI; and on how people engage (or fail to engage) with, and are affected by, administrative justice. The article concludes by suggesting questions drawn from the UK experience that may be of relevance across other jurisdictions.

Reflections About the Administrative Process in Modern Russia

The article deals with the problem of understanding the administrative process in modern Russia. Discussion about its essence has not stopped in the science of administrative law for many years. There are two main points of view. The administrative process is understood in a narrow sense as a jurisdictional activity and in a broad sense as a set of administrative procedures, administrative jurisdiction and administrative justice. The opinion is expressed that the understanding of the administrative process should be based on the understanding of the subject of administrative law. After the adoption of the Code of Administrative Proceedings of the Russian Federation in our country, a real legal basis appeared for the creation of administrative justice, which resolves disputes between a citizen and the state. The legal nature of administrative justice and administrative jurisdiction is not the same. They belong to various subbranches of administrative law. The situation should be preserved when one part of cases of administrative offenses is considered by courts, and the other - by other bodies of administrative jurisdiction. The proposal to consider cases of administrative offenses in accordance with the norms of the Code of Administrative Proceedings is critically assessed. An attempt to create administrative courts in the Russian Federation is analyzed and evaluated. The experience of creating administrative courts in France and Germany is presented. The reasons why the administrative courts were never created are indicated. Administrative cases are considered by courts of general jurisdiction. An attempt to adopt the Administrative and Administrative Procedure Codes of the Russian Federation is analyzed. The Code of Administrative Proceedings of 2015, on the basis of which administrative cases are considered, is, in fact, the Administrative Procedure Code. The proposal to develop and adopt the Federal Law “On Administrative Procedures” is critically assessed. It is concluded that the administrative process is a judicial procedure for considering cases arising from public legal relations according to the norms of the Code of Administrative Proceedings of the Russian Federation, as well as the activities of bodies of administrative jurisdiction, including the court, to consider cases of administrative offenses in the manner established by the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses.