An amendment to the Administrative Procedure Code (APC), which aims to modernise and simplify the administrative justice system, has been submitted to the Government. The APC plays a key role in the area of judicial review of public administration, including protection against unlawful decisions, inaction by administrative authorities and other unlawful interventions.

This amendment comes more than twenty years after the adoption of the original law and reflects the needs of practice and the requirements of modern society. Although the Administrative Procedure Code is considered to be a good standard, longstanding practice has shown some shortcomings that hinder the efficient and rapid functioning of the administrative justice system.

Among the main identified shortcomings of the current legislation were insufficient cost-effectiveness, flexibility and efficiency of the courts’ activities. In addition, the amendment aims to improve the protection of public subjective rights, unify the legal regulation with the constant case law and support the now ubiquitous digitalization. With regard to the proposed legislation, the legislators point out, or perhaps rather promise (depending on one’s point of view), that this is not a major revolution, but rather a refinement of minor shortcomings of the current legislation.

What we like

• At first glance, it is obvious that there is an effort to make this regulation clearer and more systematic. From our perspective, the most favourable changes are the new limitation of costs to lump sums that a successful administrative authority can claim from a plaintiff. This change may well have the effect of relieving potential plaintiffs of the fear of sunk costs in the event of disputes with the State, which may at first sight appear to be a losing battle.
• We also appreciate the extension of the possibility for authorised bodies to bring actions in the public interest. The current legislation allowed the Attorney General and the Ombudsman to bring an action in the public interest only against a decision of an administrative authority. The new authorisation will probably also apply to defence against unlawful interference or inaction by administrative authorities.
• Last but not least, we also welcome the extension of the powers of the Supreme Administrative Court (“SAC”) when hearing an appeal in cassation. The SAC will also be entitled to consider appeals filed on the basis of any defects that may have affected the legality of the contested decision of the administrative authority and the court. The previous legislation substantially narrowed this power to specific types of defects in the proceedings.

What we like, but it may arouse passions

• The amendment establishes a new obligation for persons with a mandatory data mailbox to make submissions to the court via the data mailbox. In particular, legal entities or individuals engaged in business are newly subject to this obligation. In general, we are big supporters of digitalisation in any public process, whether within the public administration or the judicial system. In recent years, it is also possible to observe efforts of the state to force a certain group of persons – especially entrepreneurs and business corporations – into digitalisation, as opposed to ordinary individuals. In many cases, the imposition of new obligations may be a nuisance, but in this case, we see the mandatory communication between participants via data boxes as beneficial. We believe that this will help to make both the courts and the parties more efficient.
• On the contrary, it may be interesting for non-business individuals that there is no obligation to document a submission in documentary form additionally in cases where an electronic signature is missing in a submission made by email. Now the court only asks for a signature to be added and does not require a paper form of submission.

The above-mentioned amendment is still at an early stage and has yet to enter the “full” legislative process. The question is how much it will change and whether the current Parliament will be able to pass the amendment. We will monitor everything closely and keep you informed in due course.

Should the amendment pass in this wording, only practice will ultimately show if the legislators’ promises and expectations will be fulfilled.