What Can We Learn About Regulatory Agencies and Regulated Parties from the Empirical Study of Judicial Review of Regulatory Agencies’ Decisions? The Case of Croatia

Open access

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine regulatory agencies and regulated parties in an empirical study of administrative disputes initiated against the decisions of regulatory agencies in Croatia. We first aim to provide an overview of the status and trend estimates regarding these disputes; second, to answer the question how well does the system work from the perspectives of both the plaintiffs and the regulatory agencies; third, to identify the problem areas and to compare these with problem areas identified by the authors studying the broader area of administrative judiciary in Croatia, and finally to compare efficiency level of regulatory agencies to other public authorities in confirming the legality of their decisions and actions. Data on all administrative disputes against 12 Croatian regulatory agencies’ decisions in the 17-year period between 1995 and 2011 are used to identify the main characteristics and trends relating to these disputes. Data for 2012 to 2013 was also examined to identify initial changes and emerging trends in the new administrative judiciary system resulting from fundamental legal reform as part of Croatia’s process of accession to the European Union in 2013. The results show these administrative disputes to be often costly and timely with modest outcome for the plaintiff and impressive success rate for the most of regulatory agencies.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Barbic J. (2006). Foreword. In J. Barbic (ed.) The reform of the administrative judiciary and administrative procedures (pp. 7-10). Scientific Council for Public Administration Justice and the Rule of Law Croatian Academy of Science and Arts Book Forth Zagreb.

  • Bernstein M. H. (1995). Regulating Business by Independent Commission. Princeton University Press USA.

  • Bovens M. (2007). Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. European Law Journal 13(4) 447-468.

  • CARDS. (2004a). Twinning Project: Strategy Paper for the Drafting of a new Law on Administrative Disputes http://www.upravnisudrh.hr/frames.php?right=CARDS2004.html.

  • CARDS. (2004). Twinning Project: Impact Assessment of the draft for a new Law on Administrative Court Procedure and recommendations for its implementation.

  • Christensen T. & Lægreid P. (2004). Regulatory Agencies - the Challenges of Balancing Agency Autonomy and Political Control. Stein Rokkan Centre for Social Studies WP 18.

  • Gagro B. & Juric-Knezevic D. (2006). The quality of administrative acts and activities from the experience of the ACRC with suggestions for improvements. In J. Barbic (ed.) The reform of the administrative judiciary and administrative procedures (pp. 19-37). Scientific Council for Public Administration Justice and the Rule of Law Croatian Academy of Science and Arts Book Forth Zagreb.

  • Geradin D. (2006). The Development of European Regulatory Agencies: What the EU should learn from American Experience. http://ssrn.com/abstract=877922.

  • Geradin D. & Petit N. (2011). Judicial Review in European Union Competition Law: A Quantitive and Qualitative Assessment. TILEC Discussion Paper DP 2011-008 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1698342.

  • Geradin D. & Petit N. (2004). The Development of Agencies at EU and National Levels: Conceptual Analysis and Proposals for Reform. NYU School of Law Jean Monnet Working Paper 01/04.

  • Giunio M. (2013). Connecting the court to the citizen as an eliminatory criterion for reimbursement of administrative dispute. Croatian Law Review 13 (3) 42-49.

  • Jerovsek T. (2006). The experience of Slovenia in the administrative judiciary and conceptual changes in the regulation of administrative disputes. In J. Barbic (ed.) The reform of the administrative judiciary and administrative procedures (pp. 64-81). Scientific Council for Public Administration Justice and the Rule of Law Croatian Academy of Science and Arts Book Forth Zagreb.

  • Kopric I. (2006). Administrative judiciary in the context of EU standards. In J. Barbic (ed.) The reform of the administrative judiciary and administrative procedures (pp. 58-64). Scientific Council for Public Administration Justice and the Rule of Law Croatian Academy of Science and Arts Book Forth Zagreb.

  • Lavrijssen S. & de Visser M. (2006). Independent administrative authorities and the standard of judicial review. Utrecht Law Review 2(1) 111-135.

  • Lukanovic-Ivanisevic D. (2014). Trial within a reasonable time in the administrative judiciary - The practice of the Supreme Court of the RoC. In I. Kopric (ed.) Europeanization of administrative judiciary in Croatia. (pp. 135-155). Institute for Public Administration Zagreb Croatia.

  • Majone G. (1999). The Regulatory State and its Legitimacy Problems West European Politics 22(1) 1-24.

  • Majone G. (1994). The Rise of the Regulatory State in Europe West European Politics 17(3) 77-101.

  • Marusic-Babic G. (2014). The execution of the new Administrative Disputes Act. In I. Kopric (ed.) Europeanization of administrative judiciary in Croatia. (pp. 191-201). Institute for Public Administration Zagreb Croatia.

  • McCraw T.K. (1984). Propeths of Regulation. Harvard University Press Massachusetts.

  • Medvedovic D. (2011). The complete reform of administrative judiciary. Proceedings of the 49th meeting of Jurists Opatija 11-13 May 2011 The Croatian Association of corporate lawyers Zagreb 253-291.

  • Medvedovic D. (2003). Administrative judiciary in Croatia - Contribution for the historical overview. In Kriskovic V. Krbek I. Ivančević V. Borković I. & Medvedovic I. (ed.) Hrestomaty of administrative law. (pp. 309-356). Suvremena javna uprava Zagreb Croatia.

  • Ministry of Justice (2012). The general criteria for judges. Zagreb Croatia.

  • Musa A. (2014). Agency model of public administration. Faculty of Law Zagreb Croatia.

  • Musa A. (2013). Good Governance in Croatian regulatory agencies: towards a legal framework. in Kopric I. Musa A. i Djulabic V. (eds.) Agency in Croatia (pp. 103-154). Institute for Public Administration Zagreb.

  • OECD. (2002). Regulatory Policies in OECD Countries - From Interventionism to Regulatory Governance. Paris.

  • Omejec J. (2006). The relationship of the Constitutional Court of the RoC and the Administrative Court of the RoC in the control of public administration in the RoC In J. Barbic (ed.) The reform of the administrative judiciary and administrative procedures (pp. 81-97). Scientific Council for Public Administration Justice and the Rule of Law Croatian Academy of Science and Arts Book Forth Zagreb.

  • Petrovic S. (2008). The concept and role of independent regulators. Law in Economy 3 462-489.

  • Pierce R. (2010). What do the studies of judicial review of agency actions mean? Administrative Law Review Forthcoming; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 505; http://ssrn.com/abstract=1604701.

  • Pierce R. J. & Weiss J. A. (2011). An Empirical Study of Judicial Review of Agency Interpretations of Agency Rules Administrative Law Review Forthcoming; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 523; http://ssrn.com/abstract=1744990.

  • Popovic N. & Maricic D. (2014). Proceedings before independent regulatory bodies and the new Administrative Disputes Act. In I. Kopric (ed.) Europeanization of administrative judiciary in Croatia. (pp. 201-226). Institute for Public Administration Zagreb Croatia.

  • Sikic M. & Turudic M. (2013). The costs of an administrative dispute. Collected Papers of the Law Faculty of the University of Rijeka 34(2) 841-857.

  • Smerdel B. (2012). Platypus Reconsidered: How to integrate Independent Regulators into the German Constitutional Order. In Bodiroga-Vukobrat N. Sander G. Baric S. (eds.) Regulatory Agencies in the Tension Between Law and Economics (pp. 11-24). Verlag Dr. Kovac Hamburg.

  • Sunstein C. R. (1987). Constitutionalism after the New Deal Harvard Law Review 101(2) 421-510.

  • Tushnet M. (2009). Against Judicial Review Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 09-20 http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1368857.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.50

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.156
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.430

Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 255 84 2
PDF Downloads 135 72 4