Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes:

IF 1.6 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Central European Public Administration Review Pub Date : 2023-11-30 DOI:10.17573/cepar.2023.2.07
Mario Rašić
{"title":"Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes:","authors":"Mario Rašić","doi":"10.17573/cepar.2023.2.07","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The right to an oral hearing is an essential element of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This is particularly emphasised in administrative procedures where the parties are in a hierarchical relationship. The absence of an oral hearing can significantly limit a party’s right to a fair trial. Therefore, this paper aims to explore the positive law and state of play in the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia regarding the right to an oral hearing. The purpose of this paper is to analyse relevant legislation and case law with the goal of proposing future legislation that better aligns with effective legal protection.Design/Methodology/Approach: Desk research was conducted to analyse current legal solutions and case law using sociological research methods. These involved analysing domestic and international legal texts and reviewing the rules governing national administrative procedures in the countries included in the research, as well as against decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. In addition, the research used a combination of primary and secondary data sources.Findings: Administrative courts should prioritise procedural justice and equality of arms, even when there is no clear need for oral hearings, especially if one of the parties requests to appear before the court. To minimise damaging discretion, both parties should consent to relinquishing the right to an oral hearing, which should be mandatory by default.Academic contribution to the field: The primary contribution of this paper lies in its de lege ferenda suggestions regarding the right to an oral hearing, which could potentially enhance the protection of human rights in relation to a fair trial in both administrative disputes and administrative procedures.Originality/Value: This research is original as it presents a comparative analysis of administrative procedure and disputes in selected Member States. To the best of the author’s knowledge, no such comparative study has been conducted before. The findings of this research could have significant value as they highlight the need for improving procedural justice and equality of arms in ensuring a fair trial in administrative disputes.","PeriodicalId":53802,"journal":{"name":"Central European Public Administration Review","volume":"25 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Public Administration Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17573/cepar.2023.2.07","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The right to an oral hearing is an essential element of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This is particularly emphasised in administrative procedures where the parties are in a hierarchical relationship. The absence of an oral hearing can significantly limit a party’s right to a fair trial. Therefore, this paper aims to explore the positive law and state of play in the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia regarding the right to an oral hearing. The purpose of this paper is to analyse relevant legislation and case law with the goal of proposing future legislation that better aligns with effective legal protection.Design/Methodology/Approach: Desk research was conducted to analyse current legal solutions and case law using sociological research methods. These involved analysing domestic and international legal texts and reviewing the rules governing national administrative procedures in the countries included in the research, as well as against decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. In addition, the research used a combination of primary and secondary data sources.Findings: Administrative courts should prioritise procedural justice and equality of arms, even when there is no clear need for oral hearings, especially if one of the parties requests to appear before the court. To minimise damaging discretion, both parties should consent to relinquishing the right to an oral hearing, which should be mandatory by default.Academic contribution to the field: The primary contribution of this paper lies in its de lege ferenda suggestions regarding the right to an oral hearing, which could potentially enhance the protection of human rights in relation to a fair trial in both administrative disputes and administrative procedures.Originality/Value: This research is original as it presents a comparative analysis of administrative procedure and disputes in selected Member States. To the best of the author’s knowledge, no such comparative study has been conducted before. The findings of this research could have significant value as they highlight the need for improving procedural justice and equality of arms in ensuring a fair trial in administrative disputes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
行政争议不进行口头听证:
目的:口头听证权是《保护人权与基本自由公约》第 6 条的一项基本内容。这一点在当事人处于上下级关系的行政程序中尤为突出。缺乏口头听证会极大地限制当事人获得公平审判的权利。因此,本文旨在探讨斯洛文尼亚共和国和克罗地亚共和国关于口头听证权的实在法和现状。本文的目的是分析相关立法和判例法,以提出未来立法的建议,使其更好地符合有效的法律保护:采用社会学研究方法进行案头研究,分析当前的法律解决方案和判例法。其中包括分析国内和国际法律文本,审查研究对象国的国家行政程序规则以及欧洲人权法院的裁决。此外,研究还结合使用了一手和二手数据来源:结论:行政法院应优先考虑程序公正和权利平等,即使在没有明确需要进行口头听证的情况 下,尤其是在一方当事人要求出庭的情况下。为了最大限度地减少自由裁量权的损害,双方都应同意放弃口头听证的权利,而口头听证应是默认的强制性权利:本文的主要贡献在于其关于口头听证权的拟议法建议,这有可能在行政争议和行政程序中加强与公平审判有关的人权保护:本研究具有原创性,因为它对选定会员国的行政程序和争议进行了比较分析。据作者所知,以前从未进行过此类比较研究。本研究的结果可能具有重要价值,因为它们强调了在确保行政争议的公平审判方面改善程序正义和权利平等的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
28.60%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes: Business’ Attitudes Towards Corruption in Selected Central European Countries Selflessness: An International Comparative Analysis of a Much-Needed Public Value Does Context Matter? Governance Models in Local Administration Trends in the Digitalisation of Public Administrations – in Light of EU Legislation and Domestic Developments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1