THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
21
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
PUBLISHED DATE: - 31-07-2024
DOI: -
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume06Issue07-06
PAGE NO.: - 21-24
MAIN TRENDS AND PROSPECTS FOR
IMPROVING THE ADMINISTRATIVE
JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Bakhtiyor Klichev
Independent Student of the Higher School of Judges, Uzbekistan
INTRODUCTION
One of the most important factors in the
development of any industry is the improvement of
its system, adaptation to modern requirements,
and modernization. With the changing society and
the beginning of a new stage in our country's
development, the judiciary, formed over the years
of independence, was unable to fully perform its
functions and rationally distribute official duties. In
the context of democratic changes and reforms,
there arose a need for a fundamental reform of the
judicial system and consistent democratization
within the framework of New Uzbekistan.
In response to these challenges, a new phase of
judicial reforms was initiated, aimed at
fundamentally improving and optimizing the
existing structure of the judicial system, enhancing
its efficiency, and transforming it into a truly
independent state institution. During the revision
of the current structure of judicial bodies,
significant organizational and structural changes
were made, taking into account the requirements
of the new society and international standards.
By the Decree of the President of the Republic of
Uzbekistan "On measures for the fundamental
improvement of the structure and increase in the
efficiency of the judicial system of the Republic of
Uzbekistan" dated February 21, 2017, No. UP-
4966, administrative courts of the Republic of
Karakalpakstan, regions, and the city of Tashkent,
as well as district (city) administrative courts, were
established in order to further ensure genuine
independence, increase the efficiency of activities
and authority of the judiciary, and improve the
structure of courts and the system of selection and
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
Abstract
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
22
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
appointment of judges [1].
Before the establishment of administrative courts,
until June 1, 2017, cases arising from
administrative and other public legal relations
were considered in civil and economic proceedings
depending on the legal status of the persons
involved in the case, based on Article 264 of the
Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan
and Article 23 of the Economic Procedure Code of
the Republic of Uzbekistan [2].
In the context of intensive democratic reforms, the
introduction of modern and effective methods and
mechanisms of state and society management, as
well as the need for fair consideration of disputes
arising from relationships between administrative
bodies and individuals and legal entities,
administrative courts were created, separate from
other courts.
After the establishment of administrative courts in
Uzbekistan:
1. The protection of the rights, freedoms, and
legitimate interests of individuals and legal entities
through the courts became more accessible,
including the possibility of appealing illegal actions
(inaction) of state authorities and administrations,
officials, and civil society institutions.
2. The jurisdiction of administrative courts in
resolving disputes arising from public legal
relations
was
established.
Before
the
establishment of administrative courts, disputes
between citizens and state authorities, whose
actions (inaction) violated the rights and interests
of citizens and legal entities, were resolved
depending on the legal status of the parties in civil
and economic courts. Now they are considered by
administrative courts based on the relevant
articles of the Administrative Procedure Code of
the Republic of Uzbekistan.
3. The protection of individuals and legal entities
from decisions, actions (inaction) of state
administration bodies and self-government,
contrary to the law and violating the rights and
freedoms of citizens, as well as the legitimate
interests of business entities, is ensured.
4. In 2022, administrative courts considered
15,344 administrative cases, of which 7,458 were
satisfied, representing 49%. Of these, 9,215 cases
were related to the annulment of decisions of
administrative bodies, and 4,653 cases were
related to the recognition of actions (inaction) of
officials of administrative bodies as illegal. Among
them, 4,623 cases concerned decisions of local
state authorities, and 3,206 concerned decisions of
officials of extrabudgetary pension funds and cases
arising from other public legal relations.
In 2023, administrative courts considered 15,226
administrative cases, of which 7,113 were satisfied,
representing 47%. Of these, 9,034 cases were
related to the annulment of decisions of
administrative bodies, and 5,005 cases were
related to the recognition of actions (inaction) of
officials of administrative bodies as illegal. Among
these cases, 3,641 disputes arose from public legal
relations concerning decisions of local state
authorities, and 3,253 concerned decisions of
officials of extrabudgetary pension funds and cases
arising from other public legal relations [3].
The establishment of administrative courts has
elicited varying opinions among legal scholars.
Some scholars advocate for the creation of an
administrative justice system, while others argue
that there is no necessity for such an institution.
Additionally, there is a viewpoint that judges
specializing in administrative cases should be
appointed instead of creating separate courts.
Thus, there is no consensus among scholars
regarding the existence of administrative courts.
However, analysis shows that many countries have
established specialized administrative courts.
A.I. Sapozhnikov, a Russian legal scholar, supports
the necessity of creating an administrative judicial
institution. According to Sapozhnikov, "the
introduction of administrative courts is a
constitutional duty of the legislator. The creation of
administrative justice bodies not only fulfills the
provisions laid down in the Constitution but also
brings Russia to a European level in this regard"
[4]. Another Russian scholar, V.T. Azizov, states
that "the judicial system is created in each country
based on its conditions, but historical traditions
form the foundation for the creation of
administrative courts in the Russian Federation"
[5]. The renowned jurist I.N. Grachev believes that
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
23
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
"the most optimal solution to this issue (in this
case, the question is whether to create
administrative courts. Author's comment) is to
establish the jurisdiction of specialized and
administrative courts by creating administrative
courts within the judicial system" [6].
In our opinion, it is advisable to deeply study and
analyze the experience of various countries where
administrative courts and bodies have long been
established.
Today, the institution of administrative justice is
well-developed in the USA, Austria, Bulgaria,
Germany, Spain, China, Sweden, and other
countries. For instance, in Bulgaria, administrative
cases are handled by administrative courts. The
administrative justice system includes 28 district
administrative
courts
and
the
Supreme
Administrative Court. Administrative courts have
jurisdiction over the following actions:
- Modification or annulment of documents issued
by administrative bodies;
- Termination of contracts concluded in violation of
the Administrative Procedure Code;
- Establishment of judicial control over
unreasonable
actions
or
inactions
of
administrative bodies;
- Verification of the validity of administrative
documents and compliance with the requirements
of the Administrative Procedure Code [7].
In Lithuania, disputes arising from administrative
legal relations are handled by the Supreme
Administrative Court of Lithuania and district
administrative courts. The district administrative
court considers complaints (appeals) against
administrative documents and actions (inactions)
of administrative bodies and resolves disputes
arising from the failure of state bodies to fulfill their
duties. The Supreme Administrative Court is the
final instance and has the authority to ensure the
legality of administrative cases. It is considered an
appellate court and reviews judicial documents
issued by district administrative courts [7].
In Spain, administrative courts review the legality
of actions taken by authorities and financial claims
against them. The central administrative courts are
located in Madrid, the capital of the country, and
their jurisdiction extends throughout Spain [7].
One reason for the significant attention given to
administrative procedures in the USA is that
judicial cases related to public legal disputes are
conducted based on the legality of reports
compiled following administrative procedures [8].
As evidenced by international experience, many
developed
countries
have
established
administrative courts that play a crucial role in
resolving disputes between administrative bodies
and individuals or legal entities.
Nearly seven years have passed since the
establishment of administrative courts in
Uzbekistan. Judicial practice during this period has
shown the necessity of further improving the
administrative case management system. In this
regard, a short-term plan for bringing the judicial
system to a qualitatively new level for 2023-2026
was approved by the Presidential Decree of the
Republic of Uzbekistan dated January 16, 2023, No.
PF-11 "On additional measures to further expand
access to justice and increase the efficiency of
courts." Clause 5 of the Action Program for the
implementation of the strategy sets the task of
"taking measures to improve the work of
administrative courts based on a critical analysis of
law enforcement practices and considering
advanced foreign experience" [9].
Analysis of the practice of administrative courts
has revealed the necessity of addressing the issue
of "resolving all disputes between administrative
bodies and citizens and entrepreneurs, as well as
improving the rules related to their appeal to the
court" [9]. Today, there are problems associated
with clarifying the jurisdiction of administrative
cases and disputes.
One of the primary tasks of administrative courts is
to check the legality of decisions made by
administrative bodies or the compliance of actions
(inactions) of officials of state bodies with the law,
as well as to provide a legal assessment of the
overall legality of these administrative bodies or
officials. Assessing the legality of the activities of
any administrative div or its systematic study
requires the court to spend a significant amount of
time. The specificity and complexity of disputes
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
24
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
arising from administrative and other public legal
relations necessitate the optimization of the
activities of administrative courts.
Currently, there are problems with the
participation
of
parties
in
inter-district
administrative courts established in the Republic
of Karakalpakstan, the city of Tashkent, and
regional centers. For example, some districts are
located almost 200 km from the regional center,
creating difficulties for participants in judicial
processes. Therefore, it is advisable to consider the
issue of reorganizing district (city) administrative
courts.
In short, further development of the administrative
courts system serves to ensure the rule of law, the
rights, and the legitimate interests of citizens and
business entities in their interactions with
administrative bodies at the modern stage of
development of New Uzbekistan.
REFERENCES
1.
Decree of the President of the Republic of
Uzbekistan No. PF-4966 "On Measures for the
Fundamental Improvement of the Judicial
System Structure of the Republic of Uzbekistan
and
Increasing
Its
Efficiency,"
https://lex.uz/docs/3121087.
2.
Eshimbetov M.Yu., "Issues of Improving
Administrative Legislation in the Republic of
Uzbekistan," "Issues of Improving the Conduct
of Criminal and Administrative Judicial Cases,"
Collection of Materials of the International
Scientific and Practical Online Conference
"Current Issues of Judicial Practice" held on July
3, 2020. Hilal Media Publishing House,
Tashkent-2020, p. 149.
3.
Information from the Supreme Court (sud.uz).
4.
Sapozhnikov A.I., "On the Issue of Creating
Administrative Justice in the Russian
Federation" // Advocate Practice.
–
2008.
–
No.
1.
5.
Azizov
V.T.,
"Problems
of
Creating
Administrative Courts in the Russian
Federation," Center for Scientific Cooperation
"Interactive Plus" https://interactive-
plus.ru ›
Action587-474223.
6.
N.I.
Grachev,
A.G.
Kolomeytseva,
"Administrative Court in the Context of Judicial
Reform," ISSN 2078-8495. Bulletin of
Volgograd Institute of Management Series 5,
Jurisprudence. 2015. No. 2 (27), pp. 122-127.
7.
Comparative Analysis of the Procedure for
Selecting Administrative Judges, Strasbourg,
November
23,
2020,
p.
6,
https://rm.coe.int/comparative-study-on-
selection-of-judges-rus/1680a59e56.
8.
Nematov Zh.N., "Improvement of the
Administrative Procedures Institute in the
Republic of Uzbekistan (Comparative Legal
Analysis)," Monograph, Tashkent LESSON
PRESS 2018, p. 207.
9.
"Action Program for the Implementation of the
Short-term Strategy for Bringing the Judicial
System to a Qualitatively New Level for 2023-
2026," https://lex.uz/docs/6358976.
