Whatever happened to Code of Administrative Justice amendment?
The amendment to the Code of Administrative Justice was published in the Collection of Laws on September 2.The new rules of will affect the process of defending against decisions or interventions by administrative authorities in court. In our article we provide an overview of the main changes that you should be aware of.
The original major amendment to the Code of Administrative Justice (CAJ) was not debated separately; instead, the change to the CAJ passed through the legislative process hidden within an amending proposal to the amendment to the Asylum Act.
One of the most interesting novelties is that a binding opinion of an administrative authority preventing the issuance of a permit or a consent can be challenged by a separate legal action, while its unlawfulness can also be argued within an action against the final decision. In practice, this will concern binding opinions of the zoning/planning authorities or binding opinions relating to environmental impact assessments (EIAs). Until now, it was not possible to challenge these binding opinions in court separately, but it was necessary to wait for the administrative authority’s final decision issued based on these opinions before bringing any action against them. This is therefore a major strengthening of the parties' defence options.
The amendment also strengthens the procedural position of persons with legitimate interest in the proceedings, i.e. those who are not parties to the proceedings but may be directly affected by the decision. They are now to have the same rights and obligations as the parties to the proceedings.
An important new feature is the modernisation of the rules of submission. If a submission is made electronically, the court will no longer reject it outright if it does not obtain the information necessary for serving the documents. In such a situation, the court will invite the party to remedy this by sending an email to the address from which the submission was received. Holders of mandatory data mailboxes will be obliged to make their submissions exclusively electronically; they will only be able to make paper submissions if they provide a legitimate reason. It will also be possible to ask the court to send copies from the file electronically, which means that the parties or persons with legitimate interest in the proceedings will not have to make a trip to the court to inspect the file.
The amendment also allows the Supreme Administrative Court to decide on the merits of the case in the cassation complaint procedure if it has vacated the judgment of the regional court and has sufficient grounds from the previous proceedings to make the decision. The parties will thus receive a final decision on the merits of the case earlier and without further costs.
As before, it will still be possible to challenge a measure of a general nature within one year of its entry into force. In addition, it will now also be possible to apply to the court, even after this period, to have the measure of a general nature not applied in a particular case, although it will not be possible to repeal it completely.
The amendment introduces significant changes to the procedural rules of administrative justice, which will strengthen the position of the parties and may increase the effectiveness of judicial protection. It will enter into effect on 1 January 2026. We are closely monitoring the changes to the procedural rules and will incorporate them into our practice in due course. If you would like to discuss the amendment from the perspective of your litigation, please do not hesitate to contact us.