EXTRAORDINARY LEGAL REMEDIES IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTE

U ovom se radu analiziraju dva izvanredna pravna lijeka propisana Zakonom o upravnim sporovima; obnova upravnog spora i zahtjev za izvanredno preispitivanje zakonitosti pravomoćne presude. Iznose se njihove specifičnosti i razrađuju posebnosti s prikazom prakse prvostupanjskih upravnih sudova, Visokog upravnog suda Republike Hrvatske i Vrhovnog suda Republike Hrvatske. Autorica zaključuje da postoji propust zakonodavca kada se opredijelio samo za obnovu spora okončanog presudom, a ne i rješenjem, što se može ispraviti u nekim daljnjim noveliranjima Zakona o upravnim sporovima. Također, upozorava na nejasnoće pri reguliranju rokova za obnovu upravnog spora i uočava kako je veliki broj podnesenih prijedloga za obnovu spora odmah odbačen, a vrlo je mali broj pozitivnih odluka o prijedlogu. Autorica zaključuje da to ukazuje na činjenicu da su odluke upravnih sudova pravno i procesno utemeljene ili da se stranke zbog složene procesne koncepcije rijetko upuštaju u ponovni upravni spor. Nadalje, autorica se odlučuje za pristup zakonodavca pri reguliranju zahtjeva za izvanredno preispitivanje zakonitosti pravomoćne presude. Omogućavanjem strankama da podnose zahtjeve izravno Vrhovnom sudu Republike Hrvatske znatno bi se opteretio taj sud i stavilo bi ga se u ulogu suda trećega stupnja što nije bila namjera zakonodavca pri propisivanju toga izvanrednog pravnog lijeka.This paper analyzes two extraordinary legal remedies prescribed by the Law of Administrative Disputes; Reopening of an administrative dispute and Request for extraordinary review of the legality of a final judgment. The specifics of each of them are elaborated with a presentation of the jurisprudence of the administrative courts, the High Administrative Court of the Republic of Croatia and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia. The author concludes that there is an omission of the legislator when he opted only for the reopening of a dispute terminated by a verdict, and not by a decision, which can be corrected in some further amendments to the Law of Administrative Disputes. Also, the vagueness are pointed out when regulating the deadlines for the reopening of an administrative dispute and it is noticed that a large number of submitted proposals for reopening of an administrative dispute were immediately rejected, and there is a very small number of positive decisions on the proposals. The author concludes that this indicates the fact that the decisions of administrative courts are legally and procedurally grounded, or that the parties due to the complex procedural concept rarely engage in a new administrative dispute. Furthermore, the author opts for the legislator’s approach in regulating the request for extraordinary review of the legality of a final judgment, because giving the parties the opportunity to submit requests directly to the Supreme Court would significantly burden that court and put it in a role of a court of second instance, which was not the intention of the legislator when prescribing this extraordinary legal remedy