ENSURING EFFECTIVE JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTES THROUGH THE ANNULMENT POWER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY
1. Introduction. – 2. Research Methodology. – 3. The Development of the Nature of the Administrative Dispute from Protecting (Objective) Legality to Effective Protection of Human Rights. – 4. Judicial Powers and Mechanisms for Effective Judgment Implementation. – A. Trial Phase. – 1. Mechanisms at the Disposal of the Administrative Authority. – 2. Mechanisms at the Disposal of the Court. – B. Judgment Issuance Phase. – 1. Instructions to the Administrative Authority on How to Proceed after Annulment – ‘Didactic’ Function of the Judgment. – 2. Administrative Court Injunction Requiring the Administration to Act in a Particular Way to Implement an Administrative Court Decision. – 3. Res judicata as a Mechanism for Ensuring Compliance with an Administrative Court Decision. – 4 Power to Set the Temporal and Other Effects of the Judgment Annulling the Administrative Act. – C. Post-Judgment Phase. – 1. Communication between the Administrative Authority and the Administrative Courts after Annulment to Ensure the Correct Implementation of the Administrative Court Decision. – 2. Escalation of Sanctions in Case of Non-Execution of Administrative Court Decisions. – 5. Conclusion.
Background: Judicial control of administrative action has traditionally focused on the legality
of administrative acts with little regard for the consequences of the administrative dispute. This
was changed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) through its interpretation of
the right of access to court under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The
ECtHR expanded this right to include the enforceability of administrative court judgments,
prompting a shift in the role of the administrative judiciary toward ensuring the effective
resolution of disputes. This has influenced reforms across European countries, many of which
have introduced mechanisms to support administrative courts in delivering more effective
judicial protection.
This article has two main objectives: first, to examine how administrative disputes have evolved
from merely assessing the legality of administrative acts to ensuring effective judicial protection
of individuals by expanding the right to a fair trial, and second, to analyse how this shift has
influenced national legal frameworks, with a focus on mechanisms that empower courts to
enforce their decisions and conclusively resolve disputes.
Methods: The historical method is employed to trace the development of judicial control in
administrative disputes and the influence of ECtHR case law. The logical method supports the
analysis of key judgments, demonstrating the evolving interpretation of the right to a fair trial.
The comparative method assesses how different European legal systems have adapted their
frameworks to strengthen the enforceability of administrative court decisions. The systemic
method ensures the internal coherence of findings, while the dogmatic method interprets
relevant legal norms. Finally, the axiological method is employed to critically evaluate reforms
and their alignment with core legal values.
Results and Conclusions: The enforceability of administrative court judgments gained
prominence with the ECtHR’s Hornsby case, which recognised that the right to a fair trial
includes the execution of judgments. This understanding has led to substantial reforms across
Europe to increase the effectiveness of administrative justice. While these reforms have
improved individual rights protection and dispute resolution, they must respect constitutional
principles, particularly the separation of powers and judicial impartiality.
Abstract
Background: Judicial control of administrative action has traditionally focused on the legality
of administrative acts with little regard for the consequences of the administrative dispute. This
was changed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) through its interpretation of
the right of access to court under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The
ECtHR expanded this right to include the enforceability of administrative court judgments,
prompting a shift in the role of the administrative judiciary toward ensuring the effective
resolution of disputes. This has influenced reforms across European countries, many of which
have introduced mechanisms to support administrative courts in delivering more effective
judicial protection.
This article has two main objectives: first, to examine how administrative disputes have evolved
from merely assessing the legality of administrative acts to ensuring effective judicial protection
of individuals by expanding the right to a fair trial, and second, to analyse how this shift has
influenced national legal frameworks, with a focus on mechanisms that empower courts to
enforce their decisions and conclusively resolve disputes.
Methods: The historical method is employed to trace the development of judicial control in
administrative disputes and the influence of ECtHR case law. The logical method supports the
analysis of key judgments, demonstrating the evolving interpretation of the right to a fair trial.
The comparative method assesses how different European legal systems have adapted their
frameworks to strengthen the enforceability of administrative court decisions. The systemic
method ensures the internal coherence of findings, while the dogmatic method interprets
relevant legal norms. Finally, the axiological method is employed to critically evaluate reforms
and their alignment with core legal values.
Results and Conclusions: The enforceability of administrative court judgments gained
prominence with the ECtHR’s Hornsby case, which recognised that the right to a fair trial
includes the execution of judgments. This understanding has led to substantial reforms across
Europe to increase the effectiveness of administrative justice. While these reforms have
improved individual rights protection and dispute resolution, they must respect constitutional
principles, particularly the separation of powers and judicial impartiality.
About Authors
Bruna Žuber
Ph.D. (law), Assoc. Prof., Department of Administrative Law, Faculty of Law, University of
Ljubljana, Slovenia
bruna.zuber@pf.uni-lj.si
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1137-4561
Corresponding author, responsible for conceptualization, funding acquisition, project
administration, investigation, methodology, resources, supervision, writing – original draft,
writing – review & editing
Tilen Majnik
Master of Law, Teaching Assistant, Department of Administrative Law, Faculty of Law,
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
tilen.majnik@pf.uni-lj.si
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2367-5587
Co- author, responsible for investigation, methodology, resources, writing – original draft,
writing – review & editing
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Disclaimer: The authors declare that their opinion and views expressed in this manuscript
are free of any impact of any organizations.
Copyright: Bruna Žuber and Tilen Majnik. This is an open access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC BY 4.0), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
References
administrative law in the Netherlands’ in Szente Z and Lachmayer K (eds), The Principle
of Effective Legal Protection in Administrative Law: A European Comparison (Routledge
2017) 231.
2. Bell J and Lichère F, Contemporary French Administrative Law (CUP 2022)
doi:10.1017/9781009057127.
3. Bortels H, The Belgian Constitutional Court and the Administrative Loop: a Difficult
Understanding (Maastricht Faculty of Law Working Paper series 2017-2, Maastricht
University 2017) doi:10.2139/ssrn.2943929.
4. Cacciavillani I, Il Giudizio di Ottemperanza: Il Processo Esecutivo Amministrativo
(Istituto Editoriale Regioni Italiane 1998).
5. Calmes-Brunet S, ‘The Principle of Effective Legal Protection in French Administrative
Law’ in Szente Z and Lachmayer K (eds), The Principle of Effective Legal Protection in
Administrative Law: A European Comparison (Routledge 2017) 158.
6. Cebada Romero A, ‘A Challenged Council: The Spanish State Council between a
Decentralized Advisory Function and the Publicity of Opinions’ (2023) 43(1)
Parliaments, Estates & Representation 50, doi:10.1080/02606755.2023.2169409.
7. D'Antonio S, Il Commissario ad Acta Nel Processo Amministrativo: Qualificazione
Dell’organo e Regime Processuale Degli Atti (Editoriale Scientifica 2022).
8. Detterbeck S, ‘Das Verwaltungsakt-Wiederholungsverbot’ (1994) Neue Zeitschrift für
Verwaltungsrecht 35.
9. Gjidara M, ‘Les causes d’ inexécution des décisions du juge administratif et leurs
remèdes’ (2015) 52(1) Zbornik Radova Pravnog Fakulteta u Splitu 69.
10. Graaf KJ de and Marseille AT, ‘On Administrative Adjudication, Administrative Justice
and Public Trust’ in Comtois S and Graaf K de (eds), On Lawmaking and Public Trust
(Eleven 2016) 103.
11. Grashof F, Neighbours “Reinventing the Wheel” or Learning From Each Other? The
Belgian Administrative Loop and its Constitutionality: A Comparison to the German
Debate (Maastricht Faculty of Law Working Paper series 2017-4, Maastricht University
2017) doi:10.2139/ssrn.2943939.
12. Jansen S and Eliantonio M, The Modernisation of the Rules of Administrative Judicial
Procedure under Scrutiny: the Rulings of the Belgian Constitutional Court on the
“Administrative Loop” in a Comparative Perspective, Concluding Remarks (Maastricht
Faculty of Law Working Paper series 2017-7, Maastricht University 2017)
doi:10.2139/ssrn.2943945.
13. Jansen S, The Dutch Administrative Loop under Scrutiny: How the Dutch (Do Not) Deal
With Fundamental Procedural Rights (Maastricht Faculty of Law Working Paper series
2017-3, Maastricht University 2017) doi:10.2139/ssrn.2943938.
14. Kerševan E, Zakon o Upravnem Sporu z Novelo ZUS-1C (GV Založba 2023).
15. Köhler M, ‘The Reform of the Administrative Jurisdiction in Austria: Theoretical
Background and Main Features of the System’ (2015) 14 Public Security and Public
Order 31.
16. Lachmayer K, ‘The Principle of Effective Legal Protection in International and European
Law: Comparative Report’ in Szente Z and Lachmayer K (eds), The Principle of Effective
Legal Protection in Administrative Law: A European Comparison (Routledge 2017) 339.
17. Lafaix JF, ‘L’injonction au Principal: Une Simplification de L’exécution ?’ (2017) 39(2)
Civitas Europa 109.
18. Mari G, ‘Il giudizio di ottemperanza’ in Sandulli MA (ed), Il Nuovo Processo
Amministrativo: Studi e Contributi, vol 2 (Giuffrè Editore 2013) 457.
19. Mari G, Giudice Amministrativo ed Effettività Della Tutela: L’evoluzione del rapporto
tra cognizione e ottemperanza (Editoriale Scientifica 2013).
20. Massot J, ‘The Powers and Duties of the French Administrative Judge’ in Rose-
Ackerman S and Lindseth PL (eds), Comparative Administrative Law (Research
Handbooks in Comparative Law series, Edward Elgar 2010) 422,
doi:10.4337/9781849808101.00035.
21. Mazzamuto M, ‘The Formation of the Italian Administrative Justice System, European
Common Principles of Administrative Law, and “Jurisdictionalization” of
Administrative Justice in the Nineteenth Century’ in Cananea G and Mannoni S (eds),
Administrative Justice Fin de siècle: Early Judicial Standards of Administrative Conduct
in Europe (1890-1910) (The Common Core of European Administrative Law, OUP
2021) 282, doi:10.1093/oso/9780198867562.003.0011.
22. Olechowski T, ‘Zwischen Kassation und Reformation: Zur Geschichte der
Verwaltungsgerichtlichen Entscheidungsbefugnis’ (1999) 16 Österreichische Juristen-
Zeitung 581.
23. Palazzo D, ‘La c.d. ottemperanza di chiarimenti nel processo amministrativo’ in Aperio
Bella F, Carbone A e Zampetti E (eds), Dialoghi di Diritto Amministrativo: Lavori del
Laboratorio di Diritto Amministrativo 2019 (L’Unità del Diritto, Roma TrE-Press 2020) 189.
24. Poorter JCA de, ‘Increasing the Efficiency of the Administrative Courts' Powers: A
Dutch Success Story?’ (Scientific Cooperations Workshops on Social Sciences:
Proceedings booklet: Branches Titanic Business Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey, 8-9 May 2015) 360.
25. Rozsnyai KF, ‘Current Tendencies of Judicial Review as Reflected in the New Hungarian
Code of Administrative Court Procedure’ (2018) 17(1) Central European Public
Administration Review 7.
26. Sanino M, Il Giudizio di Ottemperanza (Giappichelli 2014).
27. Schabas WA, The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary (OUP 2015).
28. Schaffstein S, The Doctrine of Res Judicata before International Commercial Arbitral
Tribunals (Oxford International Arbitration Series, OUP 2016).
29. Schoch F and Schneider JP (eds), Verwaltungsrecht VwGO: Kommentar (CH Beck 2021).
30. Sichler-Ghestin F, ‘L’exécution des Décisions du Juge Administrative’ (2017) 39(2)
Civitas Europa 5.
31. Sinai Y, ‘Reconsidering Res Judicata: A Comparative Perspective’ (2011) 21(2) Duke
Journal of Comparative & International Law 353.
32. Siuciński R, ‘Between Judicial Review and the Executive: The Problem of the Separation
of Powers in Comparative Perspective’ (2020) 9(2) Perspectives of Law and Public
Administration 137.
33. Steinman T, ‘Komentar k 65. členu ZUS-1’ in Kerševan E (ur), Zakon o Upravnem Sporu
(ZUS-1) s Komentarjem (Lexpera 2019) 371.
34. Vaccari S, ‘The Problems of Res Judicata in the Italian Administrative Justice System’
(2019) 11(1) Italian Journal of Public Law 223.
35. Waline J, Droit Administrative (26th edn, Dalloz 2016).
36. Zhu G (ed), Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review: Comparative
Perspectives (Ius Comparatum – Global Studies in Comparative Law 39, Springer 2019).
37. Žuber B, ‘Oral Hearing in the Procedure of Judicial Control of Administrative Acts: A
Reviews for article
Add a Review
АНОТАЦІЯ УКРАЇНСЬКОЮ МОВОЮ
Дослідницька стаття
Бруна Жубер та Тілен Майнік
АНОТАЦІЯ
Вступ. Судовий контроль за адміністративними діями традиційно зосереджувався на
законності адміністративних актів, мало зважаючи на наслідки адміністративного
спору. Цей підхід був змінений Європейським судом з прав людини (ЄСПЛ) внаслідок
тлумачення права на доступ до суду відповідно до статті 6 Європейської конвенції з прав
людини. ЄСПЛ розширив це право, передбачивши можливість виконання рішень
адміністративного суду, що спонукало до зміни ролі адміністративного судочинства в бік
забезпечення ефективного вирішення спорів. Це вплинуло на реформи в європейських
країнах, багато з яких запровадили механізми підтримки адміністративних судів у
забезпеченні більш ефективного судового захисту.
Ця стаття має дві основні мети: по-перше, дослідити, як адміністративні спори
еволюціонували від простої оцінки законності адміністративних актів до забезпечення
ефективного судового захисту осіб за допомогою розширення права на справедливий суд, і
по-друге, проаналізувати, як ця зміна вплинула на національне законодавство,
зосередившись на механізмах, які надають судам повноваження виконувати свої рішення
та остаточно вирішувати спори.
Методи. За допомогою історичного методу було відстежено розвиток судового контролю
в адміністративних спорах та вплив прецедентного права ЄСПЛ. Логічний метод
підтримує аналіз ключових судових рішень, демонструючи еволюцію тлумачення права на
справедливий суд. Порівняльний метод використовувався для оцінки того, як різні
європейські правові системи адаптували свою нормативно-правову базу для посилення
примусового виконання рішень адміністративних судів. Системний метод допоміг
забезпечити внутрішню узгодженість висновків, а догматичний — тлумачення
відповідних правових норм. Нарешті, аксіологічний метод застосовується для критичної
оцінки реформ та їх узгодження з основними правовими цінностями.
Результати та висновки. Виконання рішень адміністративних судів набуло особливого
значення у справі Хорнсбі, що розглядалась ЄСПЛ, у якій визнано, що право на
справедливий судовий розгляд передбачає виконання рішень. Це розуміння призвело до суттєвих реформ у всій Європі для підвищення ефективності адміністративної юстиції.
Хоча ці реформи покращили захист прав людини та вирішення спорів, вони повинні
здійснюватись в межах конституційних принципів, зокрема поділу влади та
неупередженості судів.
Ключові слова: адміністративний спір; адміністративна юстиція; виконання рішень
адміністративного суду; скасування адміністративних актів; остаточне вирішення
спору; право на ефективний судовий захист.
Publication history
-
Date of submission: 20 Jan 2025
Date of acceptance: 07 Mar 2025
Date of publication: 14 May 2025
Whether the manuscript was fast tracked? - No
Number of reviewer report submitted in first round: 2 reports
Number of revision rounds: 1 round with minor revisions
Technical tools were used in the editorial process:
Plagiarism checks - Turnitin from iThenticate https://www.turnitin.com/products/ithenticate/
Scholastica for Peer Review https://scholasticahq.com/law-reviews
Managing editor – Mag. Bohdana Zahrebelna. English Editor – Julie Bold.
Ukrainian language Editor – Lilia Hartman.
How to cite it?
- Žuber B and Majnik T, ‘Ensuring Effective Judicial Protection in Administrative Disputes
Through the Annulment Power of the Administrative Judiciary’ (2025) 8(2) Access to Justice
in Eastern Europe 121-54
https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-8.2-a000113
