Restriction of access to the Supreme Administrative Court to reduce its burden (via expanding the institution of inadmissibility of a cassation complaint in the Czech Republic)

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54201/iajas.v1i1.9

Keywords:

administrative justice, Supreme Administrative Court, Code of Administrative Justice, cassation complaint, inadmissibility of cassation complaint

Abstract

The article deals with the current change in the concept of a cassation complaint filed with the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic. The Supreme Administrative Court’s core activity is deciding on cassation complaints. They challenge previous final decisions of regional courts in the administrative judiciary. An amendment was adopted in February 2021. Since April 2021, it has been introducing (or rather substantially expanding) a certain “filter” of cassation complaints. This “filter” consists of restricting access to the Supreme Administrative Court, aimed at reducing the Supreme Administrative Court’s workload through cassation complaints. The essence of this “filter” is that it will be easier for the Supreme Administrative Court to reject a cassation complaint without dealing with it on the merits and in detail. The article briefly describes the realities of the Czech administrative judiciary and the reasons that led to this relatively controversial solution. The key reason was the growing number of cassation complaints and the related length of proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court. The paper focuses on the analysis of the new legislation and an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages it brings.

References

Adamec, M. a kol. (2019). Soudní řád správní. Kritická analýza. Auditorium.

Bobák, M., Hájek, M. (2015). Nepřijatelnost dle § 104a s. ř. s., smysluplný krok nebo kanón na vrabce? [Filtering the Cassational Complaints pursuant § 104a of the Code of Administrative Justice: A Meaningful Step or Shooting a Mosquito With a Bazooka?]. In Molek, P., Kandalec, P., Valdhans, J. (Eds.), Dny práva 2014 - Days of Law 2014 (pp. 47-76). Masarykova univerzita.

Bobek, M., Molek, P. (2006). Nepřijatelná nepřijatelnost ve věcech azylových; srovnávací pohled. Soudní rozhledy, 12(6), 205-215.

Dušek, L. (2020, May 21). Epidemie na Nejvyšším správním soudu a nepřijatelnost kasačních stížností. Jiné Právo. Online: https://bit.ly/3tLEdjk

Filipová, J. (2011). Některé vybrané problémy právní úpravy přístupu k Nejvyššímu správnímu soudu. Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi, 19(2), 148-156.

Jemelka, L. a kol. (2013). Soudní řád správní. Komentář. C. H. Beck.

Kučera, V. (2005). K institutu nepřijatelnosti kasační stížnosti. Právní zpravodaj, (6)11, 7-9.

Kühn, Z. a kol. (2019). Soudní řád správní. Komentář. Wolters Kluwer.

Mazanec, M. (1996). Správní soudnictví. Linde Praha.

Piątek, W. (2020). Access to the Highest Administrative Courts: between the Right of an Individual to Have a Case Heard and the Right of a Court to Hear Selected Cases. Central European Public Administration Review, 18(1), 1-23. doi: http://doi.org/10.17573/cepar.2020.1.01

Piątek, W., Potěšil, L. (2021). A Right to Have One’s Case Heard within a Reasonable Time before the Czech and the Polish Supreme Administrative Courts – Standards, the Reality and Proposals for the Future. Utrecht Law Review, 17(1), 20-32. doi: http://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.586

Šimíček, V. a kol. (2014). Soudní řád správní. Komentář. Leges.

Šimíček, V. (2006). Přijatelnost kasační stížnosti ve věcech azylu – jedna z cest k efektivitě práva. Soudní rozhledy, 12(6), 201-205.

Šiškeová, S., Lavický, P. (2005). Nad novou úpravou řízení o kasační stížnosti v azylových věcech. Právní rozhledy, 13(19), 693-703.

Žondrová, S. (2007). Nepřijatelnost kasační stížnosti ve věcech azylu v rozhodovací praxi Nejvyššího správního soudu. Správní právo, 40(6), 408-415.

Zumbini, A. (2019). Standards of Judicial Review on Administrative Action developed by the Austrian Verwaltungsgerichtshof in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Common Core of European Administrative Law Working Paper Series, 5(1). Online: https://bit.ly/3sVbQQH

Legal sources

Act No. 36/1876 Coll.

Act No. 150/2002 Coll., The Code of Administrative Justice.

Act No. 94/2021 Coll., on extraordinary measures during the COVID-19 disease epidemic.

Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

Constitution of the Czech Republic.

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 26 April 2006, file no. No. 1 Azs 13/2006, 933/2006 Coll. NSS.

Ministerstvo spravedlnosti [Ministry of Justice]. (2020). České soudnictví 2019: Výroční statistická zpráva [Czech Judiciary 2019: Annual Statistical Report]. Online: https://bit.ly/3CsigtD

Nejvyšší správní soud [Supreme Administrative Court]. (2019, February 26). In 2018, the length of proceedings at the SAC was 178 days. Online: https://bit.ly/3hQaall

Resolution of the Constitutional Court of 9 November 2006, file no. No. I. ÚS 597/06.

Downloads

Published

2021-06-30

How to Cite

Restriction of access to the Supreme Administrative Court to reduce its burden (via expanding the institution of inadmissibility of a cassation complaint in the Czech Republic). (2021). Institutiones Administrationis - Journal of Administrative Sciences, 1(1), 74-81. https://doi.org/10.54201/iajas.v1i1.9