Upravni spor pune jurisdikcije : modeli i vrste

Abstract

Upravni spor predstavlja jedan od najznačanijih i najsloženijih instituta upravnog prava. Reč je o najvažnijem obliku spoljne kontrole rada uprave. Upravni spor pune jurisdikcije ili puni spor, predstavlja onaj upravni spor u kojem upravnosudska instanca poseduje i ovlašćenja koja se ne svode samo na mogućnost poništavanja određenog akta uprave. Zahvatanje u domen ovlašćenja subjekata uprave je, po pravilu, drugačije, odnosno intenzivnije u odnosu na spor za poništaj upravnog akta. Predmet disertacije je upravni spor pune jurisdikcije. Sadržinski najobimniji deo disertacije posvećen je proučavanju oblika spora pune jurisdikcije u nacionalnim pravima, kako domaćem, tako i uporednim pravnim sistemima. Na osnovu proučavanja razloga nastanka instituta spora pune jurisdikcije, kao i teorijskih shvatanja na ovu temu, formirani su prethodni kriterijumi za prepoznavanje oblika spora pune jurisdikcije u različitim nacionalnim pravnim sistemima. Uporedna zakonodavstva i praksa posmatrani su i proučavani kako autonomno, to jest sa pozicija domaćih teorijskih stavova o postojanju, oblicima i vrstama upravnog spora u predmetnom pravu, tako i uz pomoć seta prethodnih kriterijuma koji su formirani na početku samog istraživačkog poduhvata. S druge strane, sadržinski najvažniji deo disertacije sledi nakon egzegeze uporednopravnih oblika spora pune jurisdikcije. Pisanje tog dela rada ujedno je i cilj samog istraživanja. Premda su prethodni kriterijumi za određenje oblika spora pune jurisdikcije metodološka nužnost, istraživanje poseduje induktivni logički sled. Naime, nakon prepoznavanja oblika spora pune jurisdikcije u uporednom i domaćem pravu, na red dolazi apstrahovanje konkretnih manifestacija u cilju uobličavanja opštijih pojmova – pojma, vrsta i modela spora pune jurisdikcije. Dok doktrina poznaje uporednopravne sisteme i podsisteme, možemo reći modele, upravnog spora, odnosno sudske kontrole uprave, anglosaksonski, evropsko-kontinentalni, engleski i američki, francuski i germanski, i tako dalje, ista se nije bavila izučavanjem i stvaranjem modela spora pune jurisdikcije u uporednom pravu, kao i razvrstavanjem nacionalnih pravnih sistema u ove kategorije. Posebno zanimljivo deo istraživanja predstavlja ispitivanje stepena poklapanja ove dve vrste modela. Drugim rečima, u disertaciji se proverava da li su nacionalni pravni sistemi koji pripadaju određenom modelu upravnog spora, na primer, evropsko-kontinentalnom, uređuju spor pune jurisdikcije na dovoljno sličan način da bi pripadale i istom modelu spora pune jurisdikcije.

Administrative dispute is one of the most significant and most complex institutes of administrative law. It is the most important form of external control of administration. Administrative dispute of full jurisdiction or full dispute is an administrative dispute in which administrative jurisdiction has powers that are not limited to the possibility of annulment of certain act of administration. Penetration into the field of powers of administrative authorities is, as a rule, different, more intensive than in the dispute for annulment of administrative act. Subject of dissertation is the administrative dispute of full jurisdiction. Most voluminous part of the dissertation is dedicated to examination of forms of dispute of full jurisdiction in national legal systems, both domestic and comparative systems. Prior criteria for recognition of forms of disputes of full jurisdiction in different national legal systems are determined on the basis of analysis of the reasons for creation of the institute of dispute of full jurisdiction and theoretic standpoints on this issue, Comparative legislation and case-law are examined both autonomously, i.e. from the point of view of domestic theories on existence, forms and types of administrative dispute in analyzed legal systems, as well as with the aid of set of prior criteria identified in the beginning of this research. On the other hand, substantially most important part of the dissertation follows exegetic analysis of forms of dispute of full jurisdiction in comparative law. Writing that part of the dissertation presents its main goal. Though prior criteria for determination of forms of dispute of full jurisdiction are methodological necessity, the research has inductive path. Namely, after identification of forms of dispute of full jurisdiction in comparative and domestic law, comes abstraction of particular manifestation with the aim of establishment of more general notions – notion, types and models of dispute of full jurisdiction. While comparative systems and subsystems or, better said, models of administrative dispute, i.e. judicial control of administration, such as Anglo-Saxon, European-Continental, English and American, French and German, etc., exist in legal theory, theorists did not study and create models of dispute of full jurisdiction in comparative law, nor did they classify national legal systems within such categories. Especially interesting part of the research is examination of overlap of these two types of models. Differently put, what is examined in the dissertation is whether national legal systems belonging to a certain model of administrative dispute, e.g. European- Continental, regulate dispute of full jurisdiction similarly enough so as belong to the same model of dispute of full jurisdiction.