Administrative dispute and the right to a main hearing
In practice, the conduct of main hearings before the Administrative Court should not be a problem, as judges are well-versed in the process. Although the main hearing is mostly intended to address factual issues, facts in administrative disputes are relatively rarely disputed. However, the conduct of main hearings will lengthen proceedings, which will create a greater burden for the parties.
The new rule comes on foot of Supreme Court ruling X Ips 22/2020, passed at its sitting on 26 August 2020, by which it ruled on the revision of an Administrative Court judgement dismissing the plaintiff’s action without holding the main hearing and without stating the reasons for that.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the main hearing. It reaffirmed the opinion of the Constitutional Court that the main hearing not only serves as a means of presenting evidence, but also ensures equal procedural position of the authority and the party meeting before the judge. It allows the judge to freely evaluate the allegations and to use his senses to gauge the properties and nature as well as the content of the evidence. The first paragraph of Article 59 of the Administrative Dispute Act (ZUS-1) stipulates that the Administrative Court may also decide without a main hearing, if the factual situation between the plaintiff and the defendant, which was the basis for the issuance of an administrative act, is not disputed. However, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, such a provision must be interpreted restrictively, as this is the only way to ensure compliance with the Constitution. However, if the court in an admissible manner decides not to conduct the main hearing, it must give explicit, clear and unambiguous reasons for this.
The Supreme Court has thus outlined important guidelines for the Administrative Court regarding the conduct of main hearings. Additionally, the Administrative Court is no longer allowed to apply the second indent of the second paragraph of Article 59 of ZUS-1 which allows the court to rule without a main hearing if the facts of the case between the plaintiff and the defendant are contentious, but the parties state only new facts and new evidence, which the court may not take into consideration, or the proposed new facts and evidence are not relevant for the decision Namely, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, this provision is unconstitutional as it is contrary to the right to a statement under Article 22 of the Constitution.
Author: Martin Pirkovič, Associate
