Restriktivnost zakonskog određenja pojma upravnog ugovora u srpskom pravu

Abstract

Upravni ugovor je postao zakonska kategorija srpskog prava u martu 2016, kada je novi Zakon o opštem upravnom postupku (ZOUP) stupio na snagu. Po pravilima tog zakona upravni ugovor se zaključuje samo kada je to određeno nekim posebnim zakonom. Međutim, domaći zakonodavac do sada nije izričito kvalifikovao nijedan ugovor uprave (contrat d’administration) kao upravni ugovor (contrat administratif). Upravni ugovor nije deo domaće pravne tradicije; srpsko pravo još uvek ne raspolaže ni zakonskom, ni sudskom, ni pravnoteorijskom tipologijom upravnih ugovora. Autorka smatra da bi domaći sudovi trebalo da se uzdrže od „prepoznavanja“ upravnih ugovora među ugovorima uprave koji su zakonom uređeni pre donošenja ZOUP, kao što su ugovor o javnoj nabavci, ugovor o poveravanju vršenja javne službe i ugovor o javno-privatnom partnerstvu, jer ni zakonodavac ni domaća pravna misao a ni sami sudovi nisu do sada izgradili merila za to prepoznavanje.

The administrative contract became a legal category of Serbian law in March 2016 when the new Law on General Administrative Procedure (LGAP) went into effect. Under the new law, administrative contracts may be concluded only in cases specified by statute. However, there have been no cases of administrative contracts established by statute as yet. In other words, none of the existing categories of contracts of administration (contrat d’administration) have been determined by the legislature as administrative contracts (contrat administratif). Administrative contracts are not part of Serbian legal tradition. Therefore, neither the legislator, nor the courts, nor Serbian legal scholars have thus far developed a viable typology of administrative contracts. In that context, the worrisome fact that there is no reference to the notions of public interest, public purpose or public needs in the existing statutory definition of administrative contract calls for judicial restraint. The lack of statutory, scholarly and judicial typology of administrative contracts should prompt the courts to leave the matter to the legislature, and to refrain from singlehandedly identifying any of the existing contracts of administration – such as public procurement contracts, public service contracts and public-private partnership agreements – as administrative contracts in the sense of LGAP.