Keywords
Access to Court
Fair Trial
Procedural regulation
Drafting a Petition
Court Communication
Court Accessibility
Court Capacity
Simplification
How to Cite
Abstract
The right of access to a court is subject to certain limitations. While a number of these limitations may be created deliberately, in line with the function of the administrative justice system (e.g. restrictions on review by the higher courts, others may be more or less unintended consequences of the design of the administrative justice system (or application of relevant rules or case law). The article attempts to present possible forms of these limitations and tries to outline some of the main “bottlenecks” in the access to judicial protection in the context of Czech administrative justice. These limitations can be regarded mainly as formal and informal, and their recognition can result in increasing the efficiency of the functioning of judicial protection, in particular by simplifying procedural regulation in relation to the ongoing societal and technical changes.
Funding
The paper was prepared at Masaryk University as part of the project “Twenty Years of Modern Administrative Justice” No. MUNI/A/1479/2022 funded by the special purpose support for specific university research provided by the Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic in 2023.
References
Ferrari, Giuseppe Franco. “Simplification and Consent in Administrative Ac- tion: A Comparative Perspective.” Bocconi Legal Studies Research Paper Series, no. 3126763. 2018.
Garner, Bryan A. Legal Writing in Plain English, 3rd ed. Chicago, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226816555.001.0001
Halliday, Simon, and Colin Scott. “Administrative Justice.” In The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research, edited by Peter Cane, and Herbert Kritzer. Oxford, 2010: 469–491.
Kovač, Polonca, and Dacian C. Dragos, eds. Administrative Sciences, special issue – Simplification of Administrative Procedures – in Search of Efficiency, Public Interest Protection and Legitimate Expectations. 2022.
Mocková, Eliška. “Přístup ke spravedlnosti podle článku 13 Úmluvy o právech osob se zdravotním postižením. Lépe už to nejde?” In Lidé s postižením jako„nová menšina“ – právní výzvy a souvislosti, edited by Harald Christian Scheu, and Zuzana Durajová. Praha, 2021: 216–230.
Mullen, Tom. “Access to justice in administrative law and administrative jus- tice.” In Access to Justice: Beyond the Policies and Politics of Austerity, edited by Ellie Palmer et. al. Oxford, Portland, 2016: 69–104.
Pomahač, Richard. “Patnáct let inovovaného správního soudnictví – je čas na změnu?” Správní parvo, no. 1–2. 2018: 72–85.
Potěšil, Lukáš. Kasační stížnost. Praha, 2022.
Potěšil, Lukáš. “Restriction of access to the Supreme Administrative Court to reduce its burden (via expanding the institution of inadmissibility of a cas- sation complaint in the Czech Republic).” Institutiones Administrationis. Journal of Administrative Sciences 1, no. 1. 2021: 74–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54201/iajas.v1i1.9
Svoboda, Tomáš, and Denisa Skládalová. “The Qualification of Action in Ad- ministrative Justice and its Perils – the Czech Experience.” Adam Mickiewicz University Law Review, no. 14. 2022: 281–295. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/ppuam.2022.14.13
Waltr, Robert. “§ 1, Subject of court fees.” In Robert Waltr et. al., Zákon o soudních poplatcích. Komentář, 2nd ed. Praha, 2012.
Zorza, Richard. “Some First Thoughts on Court Simplification: The Key to Civil Access and Justice Transformation.” Drake Law Rev., no. 879. 2013: 845–881.
<https://advokatnidenik.cz/2019/10/01/spravni-soud-resi-i-banalni-pripady-je-tak-pretizeny-rika-baxa/>
<https://jinepravo.blogspot.com/2011/06/nejnespravedlivejsi-rozsudky.html>
<https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Guidelines_pleadings_communication_ENG>
