Application of the new Administrative Disputes Act (NN 36/24)
The new Administrative Disputes Act (hereinafter: ADA) was published in the Official Gazette (Narodne novine) No. 36/24 and entered into force on 1 July 2024. At that time, the previous Administrative Disputes Act (Official Gazette Nos. 20/10, 143/12, 152/14, 94/16, 29/17, 110/21; hereinafter: the previous ADA) ceased to apply. The fundamental approach to the regulation of administrative disputes under the ADA has not changed. Nevertheless, the changes brought by the ADA are not minor, either in scope or significance.
This is why the option of a completely new act was chosen, rather than amendments to the existing one.
It is important to emphasise that administrative disputes initiated before the date the ADA entered into force will be completed under the provisions of the ADA, except for administrative disputes in which the hearing was concluded before the date the ADA entered into force, i.e. in which the hearing was concluded before 30 June 2024. The latter disputes will be completed under the provisions of the previous ADA.
Therefore, from 1 July 2024, the ADA applies in all disputes in which the hearing had not been concluded by that date.
Key changes brought by the new Administrative Disputes Act (NN 36/24)
In this article, we will highlight several key changes brought by the new Administrative Disputes Act, particularly those relating to the composition of the court, dissenting opinions of judges, and the recusal of judges.
Article 8, paragraph 2 of the ADA (NN 36/24) prescribes that in cases where a special act prescribes a deadline for resolving an administrative dispute, the proposer of the special act is obliged to provide a detailed and reasonable justification for prescribing such a deadline.
The ADA (36/24) also introduces the possibility of drafting and publishing a reasoned dissenting opinion in first-instance decision-making by a panel and in second-instance decision-making, which is in any case conducted by a three-member panel (Article 115, paragraph 3 and Article 136, paragraph 4).
Article 12, paragraph 4 of the ADA (NN 36/24) prescribes that in cases where a special act prescribes the jurisdiction of the High Administrative Court of the Republic of Croatia, the proposer of the special act is obliged to provide a detailed justification for such a resolution of the administrative dispute.
Article 16, paragraph 2 of the ADA (NN 36/24) introduces the authority to dismiss an inadmissible or untimely request for recusal of a judge by the single judge or the president of the panel. This makes it more difficult to abuse the recusal mechanism through frequent filing of recusal requests in the same case. A separate appeal against the decision on the recusal request is not permitted (Article 15, paragraph 6 of the ADA).
Article 108 of the Administrative Disputes Act (NN 36/24) prescribes that if, in five or more first-instance administrative disputes, the subject of the action is of the same legal and factual nature, the court may by order decide which case to resolve as a test case. In the remaining cases, the court shall by order stay the proceedings.
Main objectives of the new Administrative Disputes Act (NN 36/24)
One of the main objectives of adopting the new Administrative Disputes Act is certainly the modernisation of administrative disputes, the abolition of the subsidiary application of the Civil Procedure Act, which was previously applied in relation to certain issues of administrative disputes, and the explicit regulation of the relevant matters by the provisions of the ADA (concerning representation, procedural discipline and maintenance of order, representation, and the taking of evidence), prevention of the unnecessary burdening of the High Administrative Court of the Republic of Croatia and the Administrative Court in Zagreb by prescribing their exclusive jurisdiction in certain types of cases.
