ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE COURT IN ESTABLISHING THE ILLEGALITY OF THE ACT IN THE HYPOTHESIS OF ART. 204, PAR. 3 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE CODE AS INDIRECT JUDICIAL REVIEW

Author

Tanya Daskalova

Annotation

Indirect control is exercised by courts when court does not have the relevant administrative act as the main subject of the trial, but it rules on its legality with reference to the resolution of another dispute, which is the specific subject of the trial.Legal doctrine assumes that indirect judicial review may be exercised in criminal (including administrative penal), civil and administrative procedure. For the purposes of this article, however, the focus is solely on the manifestation of indirect judicial review in administrative procedure. The essence of this article is focused on actions for damages caused by illegal acts, actions and inactions of administrative bodies and officials under Chapter XI of the Administrative Procedure Code, but specifically on a particular opportunity to realize the right to compensation, namely: when requesting compensation of damages caused by a void or revoked administrative act - art. 204, par. 3 of the APC. Emphasis is placed on the activity of the court, before which the action for damages caused by a void or revoked administrative act is brought, in establishing the illegality of the act and its nature. In conclusion, after an analysis of the relevant judicial practice, an answer is given to the question: In the hypothesis of Art. 204, par. 3 of the APC does the activity of the court in establishing the illegality of the act constitute indirect judicial control?

Keywords

indirect judicial review, administrative procedure, damages, claim, compensation, illegality, assessment, reasons, prejudicial