Skip to main content
Top

2019 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review in the Czech Republic

Authors : Zdenek Kühn, Josef Staša

Published in: Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Administrative courts at the onset of the new century face the challenge of ever-changing legislation. Frequent amendments do solve some gaps but create even more gaps which have to be filled by the courts. In the Czech Republic relative ease of judicial review by the courts of first instance and the wide open access to the Supreme Administrative Court mean that many administrative cases are resolved in four instances—two instances of administrative proceedings and additional two instances of judicial proceedings. All these things considered, it is not surprising that neither legal scholarship nor case law defines any general concept of judicial deference (or self-restraint) to the administration. Various areas of public law contain some expressions of judicial deference (most notably the limitation of judicial review of administrative discretion and subsidiarity of judicial review). Nevertheless, both case law and scholarship are far from subsuming these concepts under the common label of “judicial deference to the administration”. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the notion of judicial deference in the Czech Republic as well as some prospects in this field.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Footnotes
1
Cf. in English Markovits (1977–1978), pp. 619–620.
 
2
Cf. Markovits (2002), p. 852.
 
3
See the Act No. 36/1876 RGBl. [Imperial Collection of Laws of the Austrian Empire] on the establishment of Administrative Court.
 
4
Cf. France and jurisdiction of administrative courts there. See Brown et al. (1998).
 
5
Measures of a general nature are defined by their specific subject and indeterminate group of their addressees. The most typical examples cover urban zone plans and other measures of land-use planning.
 
6
Chevron U.S.A. Incorporated v. Natural Resources Defense Council Incorporated, 467 U.S. 837 (1984); United States v. Mead Corporation, 533 U.S. 218 (2001). See in the comparative perspective Garoupa and Mathews (2014).
 
7
Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the SAC of 27 August 2015 No. 1 Afs 171/2015-41, para 22, Photon SPV 3.
 
8
See judgment of the Grand Chamber of the SAC of 21 November 2017 No. 7 As 155/2015-160, Eurovia, para 40.
 
9
See Garoupa and Mathews (2014), p. 12.
 
10
Cf. for instance the Polish administrative judiciary. The Supreme Administrative Court of Poland is divided into three chambers, the Financial Chamber, the Commercial Chamber and the General Administrative Chamber, within which judges are further specialised. See <www.​nsa.​gov.​pl/​en.​php>.
 
11
The only exception to the rule of the non-specialised SAC is its specialised chamber, which deals with elections and the lawfulness of political parties and another chamber which deals with competence issues within the public administration.
 
12
See the data at the SAC website (www.​nssoud.​cz) and at the Ministry of Justice for the lower courts (www.​justice.​cz).
 
13
Cf. 115 judges at the Polish Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny), almost 70 judges at the Austrian Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof)—see www.​vwgh.​gv.​at/​english.​html or 54 judges at the German Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht)—see www.​bverwg.​de/​informationen/​english/​federal_​administrative_​court.​php. Moreover, in Germany two additional supreme courts in administrative matters exist—the Federal Social Court (Bundessozialgericht) and the Federal Finance Court (Bundesfinanzhof).
 
14
It happens that both the civil and administrative court refuses to decide the case for lack of jurisdiction or (less often) both claim jurisdiction. If this is the case, a special competence chamber would decide such a competence dispute. This consists of three Supreme Court judges and three SAC judges.
 
15
Part Five of the Code of Civil Procedure.
 
16
Decision of the Supreme Court of 26 February 2014, No. 21 Cdo 1072/2013, or decision of the Supreme Court of 31 August 2010, No. 33 Cdo 415/2008.
 
17
Judgment of the Supreme Court of 25 February 2016, No. 21 Cdo 5046/2014.
 
18
Section 75 (2) of the Code of Administrative Justice.
 
19
See the recent decision of the Grand Chamber of 21 February 2017 No. 1 As 72/2016-48.
 
20
Id.
 
21
Judgment of the SAC of 28 April 2004, No. 7 A 131/2001-47; similarly decision of the Grand Chamber of the SAC of 22 April 2014, no. 8 As 37/2011-154 (case FERRERO), para 15.
 
22
Cf. Bažil (1993).
 
23
See judgment of the SAC of 22 March 2007 No. 7 As 78/2005-62, or judgment of the SAC of 30 April 2008 No. 1 As 16/2008-48.
 
24
See the decision in FERRERO, supra note 21, para 24.
 
25
See BVerwG (the German Supreme Administrative Court), the decision of 17 January 1996 - 11 C 5.95 - NJW 1996, 1766.
 
26
See judgment of the SAC of 23 August 2007 No. 7 Afs 45/2007-251.
 
27
Judgment of the SAC of 28 April 2005 No. 2 Ans 1/2005-57. Cf. decision of the Grand Chamber of the SAC of 21 July 2009 No. 6 Ads 88/2006-132, L’ORÉAL, paras 80–82.
 
28
Therefore, this concept is understood more or less similarly throughout different legal cultures. Cf. Rabin (2003), p. 35.
 
29
Decision of the Grand Chamber in the case FERRERO, supra note 21, para 14.
 
30
Art. 3 (e) of Act No. 36/1876 RGBl., on the establishment of the Administrative Court.
 
31
Act No. 3/1918 Sb., on the Supreme Administrative Court.
 
32
Judgment of the Czechoslovak Supreme Administrative Court of 21 January 1919 No. 191/18, Boh. A. (The Bohuslav Collection of the decisions of the Czechoslovak Supreme Administrative Court, administrative section) No. 13, in the same line of argument see judgment of the Czechoslovak Supreme Administrative Court of 1 September 1919, No. 3755/19, Boh. A No. 164.
 
33
Mazanec (2000), p. 8. Between 1992 and 2002 the provision on discretion was Section 245 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
 
34
Judgment of the High Court in Prague of 15 October 1992, No. 6 A 6/92.
 
35
Act No. 150/2002 Sb., the Code of Administrative Justice (Sbírka zákonů, Collection of laws of the Czech Republic).
 
36
Judgment of the SAC of 28 February 2007, No. 4 As 75/2006-52.
 
37
See judgment of the SAC of 13 August 2009, No. 7 As 43/2009-52.
 
38
See judgment of the SAC of 20 July 2006, No. 6 A 25/2002-59, Nabhani II.
 
39
Decision of the Grand Chamber of the SAC of 23 March 2005, No. 6 A 25/2002-42, Nabhani I.
 
40
See Mazanec (2000).
 
41
E.g. judgment of the SAC of 30 November 2004, No. 3 As 24/200479.
 
42
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 16 March 2006, No. IV. ÚS 49/04.
 
43
Act No. 250/2016 Sb., on responsibility for public offenses and related proceedings.
 
44
Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of Czechoslovakia, No. 1466/23, Boh. A. 1918/1923 (Administrative courts could deal with the amount of the penalty only with respect to the question whether it remained within the legal margins); judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of Czechoslovakia, no. 8244/32, Boh. F. 6261/1932 (The issue of which particular amount of penalty imposed within the lawful limits is appropriate falls beyond the jurisdiction of the administrative court).
 
45
See the European Court of Human Rights, case Lauko v. Slovakia, 2 September 1998, case No. 26138/95, and Kadubec v. Slovakia, 2 September 1998, case No. 27061/95 (the absence of any judicial review of a decision imposing a fine on applicants who committed a common traffic offense constituted a violation of their right to a hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law).
 
46
Judgment of the Czech Constitutional Court of 27 June 2001, No. Pl. ÚS 16/99 (translated into English at www.​usoud.​cz/​en/​decisions/​).
 
47
Cf. the judgment of 19 April 2012, no. 7 As 22/2012-23; in the same line the decision of the Grand Chamber of the SAC of 16 November 2016, no. 5 As 104/2013-46, para 25.
 
48
See decision of the Grand Chamber of the SAC of 2 May 2017, No. 10 As 24/2015-71.
 
49
Judgment of the SAC of 12 May 2010, No. 1 Afs 71/2009-113.
 
50
Section 70 (d) of the Code of the Administrative Justice.
 
51
Decision of the Municipal Court in Prague of 29 April 2015, No. 9 A 160/2011-49, judgment of the SAC of 7 October 2004, No. 2 As 16/2004-44, decision of the Municipal Court in Prague of 21 February 2012, No. 9 Ca 100/2009 – 48, judgment of the SAC of 17 February 2010, No. 4 Ads 168/2009-86.
 
52
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 15 January 2013, No. Pl. ÚS 15/12.
 
53
Judgment of the SAC of 30 September 2013, No. 4 Ads 134/2012-50.
 
54
Judgment of the SAC of 28 March 2013, No. 1 Afs 72/2012-29.
 
55
Judgment of the SAC of 15 December 2005, No. 3 As 28/2005-89.
 
56
Judgments of the SAC of 18 December 2003, No. 5 A 139/2002-46, of 30 November 2004, No. 3 As 24/2004-79, and of 26 November 2009, No. 1 As 89/2009-73.
 
57
First formulated by Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 12 October 1994, No. Pl. ÚS 4/94.
 
58
Section 2 (4) of the Act. No. 500/2004 Sb., Code of Administrative Procedure.
 
59
See note 5 and the accompanying text.
 
60
Art. 99, Art. 100 (1) and Art. 101 (3) and (4) of the Czech Constitution.
 
61
Section 101a (1) of the Code of Administrative Justice.
 
62
This test was applied for the first time by the SAC in its judgment of 27 September 2005, No. 1 Ao 1/2005-98.
 
63
Judgment of the SAC of 31 August 2011, No. 1 Ao 4/2011-42.
 
64
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 7 May 2013, No. III. ÚS 1669/11, Rokytnice nad Jizerou.
 
65
Judgment of the SAC of 7 October 2011, No. 6 Ao 5/2011-43. See also judgment of the SAC of 13 May 2014, No. 6 Aos 3/2013-29.
 
66
Judgment of the SAC of 21 June 2012, No. 1 Ao 7/2011-526.
 
67
The Code of Administrative Justice, Section 73.
 
68
Decision of the Regional Court in Prague of 12 May 2014, No. 45 A 35/2013-58 (at stake was an urban zone plan, or its part).
 
69
Decision of the Regional Court in Prague of 6 February 2013, No. 45 A 4/2013-29.
 
70
The Code of Administrative Justice, Section 38.
 
71
Decision of the SAC of. 24 May 2006, No. Na 112/2006-37.
 
72
Decision of the SAC of 1 February 2017, No. 6 As 6/2017-75.
 
73
The Code of Administrative Justice, Section 104 (3)(c).
 
74
Hoetzel (1937), p. 447.
 
75
Judgment of the SAC of 31 July 2006 no. A 2/2003-73.
 
76
See judgment of the Grand Chamber Eurovia, supra note 8.
 
77
Act No. 500/2004 Sb.
 
78
Section 94 (4), Section 95 (5). Cf. also Section 97 (3) and Section 99.
 
79
Section 84 (3).
 
80
Judgment of the SAC of 14 May 2008, No. 3 As 11/2007-92.
 
81
Judgment of the SAC of 21 July 2010, No. 3 Ans 11/2010-193.
 
82
Judgment of 21 June 2017, No. 3 As 157/2016-63.
 
83
Interestingly, if the superior administrative authority annuls the decision outside of appellate proceedings (based on some extraordinary remedies), it enjoys discretionary power to decide about the effects of the annulment. See Section 99 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. If we were to apply analogy, the court should enjoy a similar freedom.
 
Literature
go back to reference Bažil Z (1993) Neurčité právní pojmy a uvážení při aplikaci norem správního práva [Ambiguous legal terms and administrative discretion]. Charles University, Prague Bažil Z (1993) Neurčité právní pojmy a uvážení při aplikaci norem správního práva [Ambiguous legal terms and administrative discretion]. Charles University, Prague
go back to reference Brown LN, Bell J, Galabert J-M (1998) French administrative law. Clarendon Press Brown LN, Bell J, Galabert J-M (1998) French administrative law. Clarendon Press
go back to reference Garoupa N, Mathews J (2014) Strategic delegation, discretion, and deference: explaining the comparative law of administrative review. Am J Comp Law 62:1CrossRef Garoupa N, Mathews J (2014) Strategic delegation, discretion, and deference: explaining the comparative law of administrative review. Am J Comp Law 62:1CrossRef
go back to reference Hoetzel J (1937) Československé správní právo. Část všeobecná [Czechoslovak administrative law. General Part]. Melantrich, Prague Hoetzel J (1937) Československé správní právo. Část všeobecná [Czechoslovak administrative law. General Part]. Melantrich, Prague
go back to reference Markovits I (1977–1978) Socialist vs. Bourgeois rights – an East-West German comparison. Univ Chicago Law Rev. 45:612, 619–620CrossRef Markovits I (1977–1978) Socialist vs. Bourgeois rights – an East-West German comparison. Univ Chicago Law Rev. 45:612, 619–620CrossRef
go back to reference Mazanec M (2000) Neurčité právní pojmy, volné správní uvážení, volné hodnocení důkazů a správní soud [Ambiguous legal terms, administrative discretion, free evaluation of evidence and the administrative court]. Bulletin advokacie 4:8 Mazanec M (2000) Neurčité právní pojmy, volné správní uvážení, volné hodnocení důkazů a správní soud [Ambiguous legal terms, administrative discretion, free evaluation of evidence and the administrative court]. Bulletin advokacie 4:8
go back to reference Rabin J (2003) Administrative discretion. In: Encyclopedia of public administration and public policy. Dekker, New York Rabin J (2003) Administrative discretion. In: Encyclopedia of public administration and public policy. Dekker, New York
Metadata
Title
Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review in the Czech Republic
Authors
Zdenek Kühn
Josef Staša
Copyright Year
2019
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31539-9_6

Premium Partner