Suchergebnisse

The development of both conventional and written legal rules that were governing the roots of the administration, has run in parallel with the development of the country. The development of legal state was going parallel with the development of constitutional state. The legal state can not be imagined without pandering Administration under the law, but precisely because of it stems judicial control of management, which is necessary for the full realization of the principle of legality and the protection of rights and legal interests of citizens. Administrative action presents a means to protect the rights and interests of citizens, but on the other hand it is also an effective tool for ensuring the legality of administrative operations. Pandering administration under the law is linked to the French Revolution from 1789, in this respect, France is a country that is the first to introduce an administrative dispute. The development of an administrative dispute in France can be followed through the occurrence and development of the State Council, which was formed during Napoleon time in 1799. The legal institutionalization of the administration is not done in the same way everywhere, in that sense we distinguish two big legal systems, Anglo-Saxon and European-continental. In Anglo- Saxon law legal institutionalization of the administration included the procuring administration under the legal norms of general law, management control exercised by courts of general jurisdiction. In the European-continental law legal institutionalization of the administration departs from pandering Administration under the legal standards that belong to a specific branch of law administrative law. In the European- continental system there is a difference between private and public law, and an important part of the legal regime are special administrative courts. The development of an administrative dispute actually juridical control of administration in Serbia can be traced back to the second half of the 19th century. Although Serbia has created very early the State Council following the example of France, in a formal sense the administrative dispute in Serbia was fully introduced by the Constitution from 1869. At our place administrative activities are controlled by the courts, which are an integral part of the judiciary and acting under special rules, rules of administrative law. Depending on the positive law of certain countries, the subject of administrative dispute is defined broadly or narrowly. According to French positive law the subject of administrative dispute may be not only single authoritative legal acts of administration, but also the general acts of administration - implementing regulations issued by the administration, as well as administrative objections. According to French positive law the subject of administrative dispute is defined very broadly, unlike the German and Austrian positive law, where an administrative dispute can not be conducted against all acts of general administration. Regarding that in the comparative law we meet a number of different solutions, we believe that in our country we should choose the one that would be the best way to provide protection for the rights of citizens. We lead the administrative dispute in the first place about the legality of final administrative act against other individual legal acts because of the silence of administration, and it may be decided on the request for the return of items and damages. The results of scientific studies will confirm the importance of the need that the subject of the administrative procedure should be complied with the case of an administrative dispute. All acts adopted in the administrative procedure should have directly open the way so the control of legality can be accomplished in administrative proceedings in front of the competent administrative court. What is certainly a major challenge is a control of the legality of administrative contracts. Extended subject of administrative dispute will strengthen the position of the parties in the administrative procedure, in order to guarantee them the quality of court protection in front of the Administrative Court.

The modern state administration and its bodies and special organizations should act in the field of the rule of law. It is a term that originates from the Anglo-Saxon legal world, but it is also a category and a principle of the Constitution of Serbia from 2006. The paper points out the different understandings of the rule of law and briefly looks at the position of the administration or the phase in its historical course until its subsumption under the principle of legality. In Serbia, state administration bodies consist of ministries, administrative bodies within the ministry and special organizations. Administrative or special organizations are formed by the state in order to perform professional and related administrative tasks. In order to permanently and unhinderedly perform the professional work of these organizations, they can act authoritatively. Special organizations have numerous and diverse administrative powers. The paper points out both the similarities and differences of special organizations in relation to administrative bodies. A review of the activities and organizational structure of all special organizations (secretariats, institutes, directorates and one center) established by the Law on Ministries from 2020 was performed. It was also pointed out that all institutes: the Republic Institute of Statistics, the Republic Hydrometeorological Institute, the Republic Geodetic Institute and the Intellectual Property Institute are special organizations that provide services to interested parties. In one part of the final considerations, the author states that for special organizations (as part of the state administration) it could be concluded that they really operate in the field of rule of law as an order with positive properties as characterized by the Constitution, it is necessary to strictly respect the principles organization of state administration prescribed by the Law on State Administration: independence and legality; expertise, impartiality and political neutrality, effectiveness in exercising the rights of the parties, proportionality and respect for the parties; publicity of work. ; Published

The author explores the legitimating roots of the constitutional state. In his opinion, they can be found in moral universalism and national democracy. Both principles undoubtedly belong with the fundamental tenets of the constitution of modern constitutional state. While the former implies the universality of its postulates which are accepted by every constitutional state, the latter represents the restrictive principle of this universalness. The author links these two principles and defines a people as a group of individuals who, regardless of their ethnic, cultural, and religious station may, in line with the principles of freedom and equality of individuals create a successful political community. By the universality of its legality, the defence of human rights and power-sharing, constitutional state is a necessary prerequisite for the prospect of fashioning a people as a group of responsible individuals in establishing universal will. (SOI : PM: S. 16)

The value of a social order is worth as much as it is ruled by satisfaction, security and well-being among people. The purpose of civilized and democratic systems is to guarantee and ensure the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, primarily through organized institutions. In an organized state, each of the institutions has a clear specific function that is more or less aimed at making life easier for citizens. One of them, which will be the topic of this paper and which has recently been introduced into our legal system, is the Protector of Citizens or the Ombudsman. The idea for this institution was born in Sweden, and after a number of years, it spread around the world. The ombudsman is an independent state body that takes care of a person, his rights, and above all protects him from irresponsible and illegal behavior of administrative bodies. Its significance today is immeasurable for the individual and society, as well as for the state and its reputation on the international platform. In addition to protection, its function is also control, in terms of constitutionality and legality of acts and actions of administrative bodies.

The Croatian Constitutional Court by its decision of June 24, 1992 partly rejected a reqest to start proceedings, and partly terminated already started proceedings, to determine the constitutionality of some thirty emergency decrees passed by the President of the Croatian Republic during the undeclared war with Serbia and the Yugoslav People's Army in the second half of 1991. The Court backed its decision inter alia by the following arguments: the President has the power to pass emergency decrees without declaring first the state of emergency; presidential emergency decrees can be retroactive since Croatian Constitution does not forbid specifically their retroactivity. The Court's reasoning which endorses a permanent coup d'etat, is very probably a corollary of the idea, which is taken for granted by some Croatian constitutional lawyers, that the Croatian Constitution has been modelled on the Constitution of the French 5th Republic so that the sweeping powers of the French President belong also to his Croatian counterpart. The paper challenges the idea and discusses the relevance of comparative constitutional theory for Croatian constitutional practice. The first three sections demonstrate that, despite political similarities between the early years of the French 5th Republic and the Croatian Republic the two semi-presidential systems differ in several important constitutional and legal respects so that the powers - especially emergency powers - of the French President cannot be used as a persuasive authority to interpret powers of the Croatian President. Section four indicates that if anything in French law is authoritative in interpreting Croatian constitutional provisions on the state of emergency it is the effort of the French Conseil d'etat to control, even though in a very limited way, the legality of presidential emergency decrees. The last section points out that assumptions with which Croatian Constitutional Court interprets presidential powers are more in accord with the Weimar Constitution than with the Constitution of the 5th French Republic. The paper ends with the warning that the unrestrained exercise of presidential powers in Croatia may lead, as it did in Mussolinni's Italy and in the Weimar Republic, to a dictatorship. (SOI : PM: S. 165)