Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes: A Comparative Analysis of Slovenia and Croatia
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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Central European public administration review (Online) 2023-11, Vol.21 (2), p.141-164 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 164 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 141 |
container_title | Central European public administration review (Online) |
container_volume | 21 |
creator | Rašić, Mario |
description | 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.17573/cepar.2023.2.07 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2900684874</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2900684874</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c257t-c3be2d6d4c7577e6269f4d1e86963b6b7f082539679bfaa389c214f742fa63463</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kL1rwzAUxEVpoSHN3lHQ2a70JOtjNOlHCoEs7SxkWSoKie1KdqH_fd0kdLm74bj3-CF0T0lJZSXZo_ODTSUQYCWURF6hBVSaFjDr9X_m5Batct4TQoBT0EotUFU32XfO4z5g2-Fdsge88TbF7hPHDtftMXYxj8mO8dvjp5iHafT5Dt0Ee8h-dfEl-nh5fl9viu3u9W1dbwsHlRwLxxoPrWi5m5-UXoDQgbfUK6EFa0QjA1FQMS2kboK1TGkHlAfJIVjBuGBL9HDeHVL_Nfk8mn0_pW4-aUATIhRXks8tcm651OecfDBDikebfgwl5sTHnPiYPz4GDJHsFwoHV24</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2900684874</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes: A Comparative Analysis of Slovenia and Croatia</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>Rašić, Mario</creator><creatorcontrib>Rašić, Mario</creatorcontrib><description>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. </description><identifier>ISSN: 2591-2240</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2591-2259</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.17573/cepar.2023.2.07</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Administration, Journal Uprava/Administration</publisher><subject>Administrative courts ; Administrative procedure ; Case law ; Comparative analysis ; Comparative studies ; Courts ; Disputes ; Equal rights ; Equality ; Evidence ; Human rights ; Judicial reviews ; Justice ; Legislation ; Procedural justice ; Public hearings ; Research design ; Research methodology ; Rules ; Sociological research ; Sociology ; Trials ; Tribunals & commissions</subject><ispartof>Central European public administration review (Online), 2023-11, Vol.21 (2), p.141-164</ispartof><rights>Copyright University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Administration, Journal Uprava/Administration Nov 2023</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0001-5134-846X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,12824,27843,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rašić, Mario</creatorcontrib><title>Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes: A Comparative Analysis of Slovenia and Croatia</title><title>Central European public administration review (Online)</title><description>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. </description><subject>Administrative courts</subject><subject>Administrative procedure</subject><subject>Case law</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Courts</subject><subject>Disputes</subject><subject>Equal rights</subject><subject>Equality</subject><subject>Evidence</subject><subject>Human rights</subject><subject>Judicial reviews</subject><subject>Justice</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Procedural justice</subject><subject>Public hearings</subject><subject>Research design</subject><subject>Research methodology</subject><subject>Rules</subject><subject>Sociological research</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><subject>Trials</subject><subject>Tribunals & commissions</subject><issn>2591-2240</issn><issn>2591-2259</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kL1rwzAUxEVpoSHN3lHQ2a70JOtjNOlHCoEs7SxkWSoKie1KdqH_fd0kdLm74bj3-CF0T0lJZSXZo_ODTSUQYCWURF6hBVSaFjDr9X_m5Batct4TQoBT0EotUFU32XfO4z5g2-Fdsge88TbF7hPHDtftMXYxj8mO8dvjp5iHafT5Dt0Ee8h-dfEl-nh5fl9viu3u9W1dbwsHlRwLxxoPrWi5m5-UXoDQgbfUK6EFa0QjA1FQMS2kboK1TGkHlAfJIVjBuGBL9HDeHVL_Nfk8mn0_pW4-aUATIhRXks8tcm651OecfDBDikebfgwl5sTHnPiYPz4GDJHsFwoHV24</recordid><startdate>20231101</startdate><enddate>20231101</enddate><creator>Rašić, Mario</creator><general>University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Administration, Journal Uprava/Administration</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BYOGL</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5134-846X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20231101</creationdate><title>Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes</title><author>Rašić, Mario</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c257t-c3be2d6d4c7577e6269f4d1e86963b6b7f082539679bfaa389c214f742fa63463</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Administrative courts</topic><topic>Administrative procedure</topic><topic>Case law</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Courts</topic><topic>Disputes</topic><topic>Equal rights</topic><topic>Equality</topic><topic>Evidence</topic><topic>Human rights</topic><topic>Judicial reviews</topic><topic>Justice</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Procedural justice</topic><topic>Public hearings</topic><topic>Research design</topic><topic>Research methodology</topic><topic>Rules</topic><topic>Sociological research</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>Trials</topic><topic>Tribunals & commissions</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rašić, Mario</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>East Europe, Central Europe Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Central European public administration review (Online)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rašić, Mario</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes: A Comparative Analysis of Slovenia and Croatia</atitle><jtitle>Central European public administration review (Online)</jtitle><date>2023-11-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>141</spage><epage>164</epage><pages>141-164</pages><issn>2591-2240</issn><eissn>2591-2259</eissn><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. </abstract><cop>Ljubljana</cop><pub>University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Administration, Journal Uprava/Administration</pub><doi>10.17573/cepar.2023.2.07</doi><tpages>24</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5134-846X</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2591-2240 |
ispartof | Central European public administration review (Online), 2023-11, Vol.21 (2), p.141-164 |
issn | 2591-2240 2591-2259 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2900684874 |
source | PAIS Index; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; HeinOnline Law Journal Library |
subjects | Administrative courts Administrative procedure Case law Comparative analysis Comparative studies Courts Disputes Equal rights Equality Evidence Human rights Judicial reviews Justice Legislation Procedural justice Public hearings Research design Research methodology Rules Sociological research Sociology Trials Tribunals & commissions |
title | Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes: A Comparative Analysis of Slovenia and Croatia |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T11%3A12%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Absence%20of%20an%20Oral%20Hearing%20in%20Administrative%20Disputes:%20A%20Comparative%20Analysis%20of%20Slovenia%20and%20Croatia&rft.jtitle=Central%20European%20public%20administration%20review%20(Online)&rft.au=Ra%C5%A1i%C4%87,%20Mario&rft.date=2023-11-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=141&rft.epage=164&rft.pages=141-164&rft.issn=2591-2240&rft.eissn=2591-2259&rft_id=info:doi/10.17573/cepar.2023.2.07&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2900684874%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2900684874&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |