Silence of the Administration in the Current Macedonian Administrative Dispute Legislation and the Necessity of Amendments
Journal
Iustinianus Primus Law Review
Date Issued
2021
Author(s)
Bitrakov, Konstantin
Abstract
The Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia (hereinafter: Macedonia or North Macedonia)
adopted a new Law on Administrative Disputes in May 2019, thus commencing the third phase of
the administrative dispute development in the country. The respective Law on Administrative
Disputes came into force one year later, precisely on the 25th of May 2020. Generally speaking,
multiple novelties in the administrative dispute regime were introduced with the adoption of the
referenced law: (*) the scope of the administrative dispute was broadened; (*) new principles on
which the administrative dispute is based upon were introduced; (*) the administrative judiciary
was bound to pay attention to the consistency of adjudications (which, one might argue, is a step
closer to developing a case-law system); (*) the administrative judiciary can now fine the public
authorities which do not cooperate; (*) the new institutes of model-procedure and model-decision
were introduced, etc. In that context, the Law of Administrative Disputes from 2019 may serve as
a point of reference when speaking of positive reforms in terms of judicial oversight over the public
authorities. However, the Law on Administrative Disputes also changed the rules for filing a
lawsuit in the cases of “silence of the administration”, that is situations when the administration
does not adopt the decision (individual administrative act) within the statutory deadlines. The
objective of this article is to explain the new rules for filing a lawsuit due to silence of the
administration are less favourable for the citizens. The relevant provisions of the Law on
Administrative Disputes from 2019 should be restructured so that they fit the old regime for silence of the administration. While it is certain that the topic at hand is indeed narrow, it is of utmost importance that the relevant provisions of the Law on Administrative Disputes are amended as soon as possible since they would harm citizens interests in a scale rather difficult to foresee.
adopted a new Law on Administrative Disputes in May 2019, thus commencing the third phase of
the administrative dispute development in the country. The respective Law on Administrative
Disputes came into force one year later, precisely on the 25th of May 2020. Generally speaking,
multiple novelties in the administrative dispute regime were introduced with the adoption of the
referenced law: (*) the scope of the administrative dispute was broadened; (*) new principles on
which the administrative dispute is based upon were introduced; (*) the administrative judiciary
was bound to pay attention to the consistency of adjudications (which, one might argue, is a step
closer to developing a case-law system); (*) the administrative judiciary can now fine the public
authorities which do not cooperate; (*) the new institutes of model-procedure and model-decision
were introduced, etc. In that context, the Law of Administrative Disputes from 2019 may serve as
a point of reference when speaking of positive reforms in terms of judicial oversight over the public
authorities. However, the Law on Administrative Disputes also changed the rules for filing a
lawsuit in the cases of “silence of the administration”, that is situations when the administration
does not adopt the decision (individual administrative act) within the statutory deadlines. The
objective of this article is to explain the new rules for filing a lawsuit due to silence of the
administration are less favourable for the citizens. The relevant provisions of the Law on
Administrative Disputes from 2019 should be restructured so that they fit the old regime for silence of the administration. While it is certain that the topic at hand is indeed narrow, it is of utmost importance that the relevant provisions of the Law on Administrative Disputes are amended as soon as possible since they would harm citizens interests in a scale rather difficult to foresee.
Subjects
File(s)![Thumbnail Image]()
Loading...
Name
5. Konstantin Bitrakov.pdf
Description
Full text
Size
365.51 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum
(MD5):cc804c4197809911c400fd90f52783e6