Neprobojni zid ćutanja uprave u srbiji

Abstract

Ćutanje uprave postaje sve veći problem u Srbiji. Podaci pokazuju da se broj tužbi protiv ćutanja uprave uvećao 26 puta u poslednjih 10 godina. Uprkos pomenutom povećanju, postoje indicije da se pravna sredstva protiv ćutanja uprave izjavljuju u zanemarljivo malom broju slučajeva u kojima nadležni organi nisu odlučili u zakonom predviđenom roku. Dva moguća razloga za to su neznanje stranaka (većina njih su laici) ili nepoverenje u raspoloživi sistem pravnih sredstava protiv ćutanja uprave. Nažalost, zakonodavac i sudstvo su dodatno pogoršali situaciju. Rad se upravo bavi zakonodavnom i sudskom podrškom ćutanju uprave, koja odvraća stranke od izjavljivanja raspoloživih pravnih sredstava i podstiče ih da se uzdrže od angažovanja advokata. Zakonodavac podržava ćutanje uprave tako što, s jednim izuzetkom, ne dozvoljava strankama da traže naknadu štete pretrpljene usled ćutanja uprave. Upravni sud je podržao ćutanje uprave zauzimanjem pravnog stave prema kojem tužilac nema pravo na naknadu troškova postupka u slučaju kad je podneta tužba protiv ćutanja drugostepenog organa, a prvostepeni organ je zamenio sopstveni ožalbeni akt pre nego što je Upravni sud odlučio o tužbi.

The administrative silence, as an apparent manifestation of maladministration, has become an ever-increasing problem in Serbia. The number of administrative silence lawsuits submitted to the Administrative Court has increased more than 26 times in the last 10 years. Two potential reasons why the parties do not submit administrative appeals and administrative silence lawsuits to the Administrative Court even more often could be the lack of necessary legal knowledge (most of the parties are lay persons) or their distrust in the available legal protection mechanisms. Unfortunately, the legislator and the judiciary have undertaken measures that further aggravate the situation. This paper discusses two forms of legislative and judicial support to administrative silence, which discourage parties from using legal remedies against administrative silence and engaging lawyers. The legislator effectively supports administrative silence by, save for one exception, preventing parties from claiming damages for the damage they sustained due to the failure of competent administrative authorities to decide in their cases in a timely manner. The Administrative Court supports the administrative silence by a legal stand prescribing that a party is not entitled to reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of lawyer's services, provided that the first-instance administrative authority replaced its act challenged by an administrative appeal before the Administrative Court decided on the administrative silence lawsuit.