WHAT CHANGES HAS THE NEW ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTES ACT (OG 36/24) BROUGHT US?

Application of the new Administrative Disputes Act (OG 36/24)

The new Administrative Disputes Act (hereinafter: ADA) was published in the Official Gazette No. 36/24 and entered into force on 1 July 2024. On that date, the currently applicable Administrative Disputes Act (Official Gazette Nos. 20/10, 143/12, 152/14, 94/16, 29/17, 110/21; hereinafter: the former ADA) ceased to apply.

The fundamental approach to regulating administrative disputes has not been changed by the new Administrative Disputes Act. However, the amendments introduced by the new Administrative Disputes Act are significant in both scope and importance. 

For this reason, the adoption of an entirely new act was chosen instead of amendments and supplements to the existing one. 

It is important to emphasize that administrative disputes initiated before the entry into force of the new Administrative Disputes Act will be completed pursuant to the provisions of the new Administrative Disputes Act, except for disputes in which a hearing was concluded by 30 June 2024. Those disputes will be completed under the provisions of the former Administrative Disputes Act. 

Therefore, as of 1 July 2024, the new Administrative Disputes Act applies to all disputes in which the hearing was not concluded by that date.

Key Changes Introduced by the New Administrative Disputes Act (OG 36/24)

This article highlights several key changes introduced by the new Administrative Disputes Act, particularly those concerning the composition of the court, dissenting opinions of judges, and the disqualification of judges.

Article 8(2) of the Administrative Disputes Act (OG 36/24) provides that in cases where a special law prescribes a deadline for resolving an administrative dispute, the proponent of such special law must reasonably and thoroughly justify the need for such a time limit.

The new Administrative Disputes Act (OG 36/24) also introduces the possibility of drafting and publishing dissenting opinions at the first-instance level within a judicial panel, and at the second-instance level, which is already conducted before a three-judge panel (Articles 115(3) and 136(4)). 

Article 12(4) of the Administrative Disputes Act (OG 36/24) stipulates that in cases where a special law prescribes the jurisdiction of the High Administrative Court of the Republic of Croatia, the proponent of such law must provide a detailed justification for resolving the administrative dispute in such a manner.

Article 16(2) of the Administrative Disputes Act  (OG 36/24) introduces the authority to dismiss inadmissible or untimely motions for the disqualification of a judge, by the single judge or the presiding judge of the panel. This change aims to prevent the abuse of the disqualification mechanism through repeated motions in the same case. No special appeal is permitted against a decision on a motion for disqualification (Article 15(6) of the ADA).

According to Article 108 of the Administrative Disputes Act  (OG 36/24), if five or more first-instance administrative disputes involve claims of the same legal and factual nature, the court may designate one case as a model (representative) case. Proceedings in the remaining cases will be suspended by court order.

Main Objectives of the New Administrative Disputes Act (OG 36/24)

One of the main objectives of enacting the new Administrative Disputes Act is to modernize the administrative dispute procedure, eliminate the subsidiary application of the Civil Procedure Act—which was previously applied to certain aspects of administrative disputes—and to explicitly regulate those areas within the Administrative Disputes Act itself. These areas include legal representation, procedural discipline and order, and evidence gathering. 

Another key goal is to prevent the unnecessary burdening of the High Administrative Court of the Republic of Croatia and the Administrative Court in Zagreb, by clearly prescribing their exclusive jurisdiction only in certain types of cases.