141
2591-2259 / This is an open access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
DOI: 10.17573/cepar.2023.2.07 1.01 Original scientific article
Absence of an Oral Hearing  
in Administrative Disputes:  
A Comparative Analysis  
of Slovenia and Croatia
Mario Rašić
EFFECTUS University of Applied Sciences, Croatia
mrasic@effectus.com.hr
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5134-846X
Received: 30. 8. 2023
Revised: 5. 11. 2023
Accepted: 27. 11. 2023
Published: 30. 11. 2023
ABSTRACT
Purpose: The right to an oral hearing is an essential element of Article 6 of 
the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Free-
doms. This is particularly emphasised in administrative procedures where the 
parties are in a hierarchical relationship. The absence of an oral hearing can 
significantly limit a party’s right to a fair trial. Therefore, this paper aims to 
explore the positive law and state of play in the Republic of Slovenia and the 
Republic of Croatia regarding the right to an oral hearing. The purpose of this 
paper is to analyse relevant legislation and case law with the goal of propos-
ing future legislation that better aligns with effective legal protection.
Design/Methodology/Approach: Desk research was conducted to analyse 
current legal solutions and case law using sociological research methods. 
These involved analysing domestic and international legal texts and review-
ing the rules governing national administrative procedures in the countries 
included in the research, as well as against decisions of the European Court 
of Human Rights. In addition, the research used a combination of primary and 
secondary data sources.
Findings: Administrative courts should prioritise procedural justice and equal-
ity of arms, even when there is no clear need for oral hearings, especially if 
one of the parties requests to appear before the court. To minimise damag-
ing discretion, both parties should consent to relinquishing the right to an 
oral hearing, which should be mandatory by default.
Academic contribution to the field: The primary contribution of this paper 
lies in its de lege ferenda suggestions regarding the right to an oral hearing, 
Rašić, M. (2023). Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes: A 
Comparative Analysis of Slovenia and Croatia. 
Central European Public Administration Review, 21(2), pp. 141–164

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
142
Mario Rašić
which could potentially enhance the protection of human rights in relation 
to a fair trial in both administrative disputes and administrative procedures.
Originality/Value: This research is original as it presents a comparative analy-
sis of administrative procedure and disputes in selected Member States. To 
the best of the author’s knowledge, no such comparative study has been con-
ducted before. The findings of this research could have significant value as 
they highlight the need for improving procedural justice and equality of arms 
in ensuring a fair trial in administrative disputes.
Keywords: administrative dispute, administrative law, European Court of Human 
Rights, fair trial, oral hearing
JEL: K23, K40, K38
1 Introduction
The right to a fair trial is one of the fundamental human rights and a pinnacle 
achievement of modern legal systems. The concept of effective legal protec-
tion is entrenched within the European Union’s acquis communautaire and in 
European Court of Justice’s case law practice, as well as in the cases of the 
European Court of Human Rights.1 Subjects who cannot present their legal 
interests fully in the procedure or cannot rely on the impartiality of the pub-
lic authorities in the course of the administrative adjudication, in which their 
rights and interests are affected, are deprived of equal respect of equality of 
arms, fair trial and their human rights may as well be violated.2
However, in some cases the right to an oral hearing stands against other 
equally important principles of the administrative dispute procedure, most 
notably the principle of efficiency where the facts are clear or not disputed by 
the parties. Some authors also indicate that the right to an oral hearing is not 
an absolute right in administrative proceedings.3
A number of studies examined the right to a fair and public hearing in the 
broadest sense, as stipulated in the European Convention on Human Rights 
and Fundamental Freedoms4, within criminal proceedings.5 Also, literature 
1 Correia, S. (2011). Administrative Due or Fair Process: Different Paths in the Evolutionary For-
mation of a Global Principle and of a Global Right, in Anthony, G. et al. (eds.), Values in Global 
Administrative Law, Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp. 313–362.
2 Correia, S. (2011). Administrative Due or Fair Process: Different Paths in the Evolutionary For-
mation of a Global Principle and of a Global Right, in Anthony, G. et al. (eds.), Values in Global 
Administrative Law, Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp. 313-362.
3 For example, see: Žuber, B., Lovšin, Š. (2019). Judicial dialogue in the light of protocol no. 16 
to the European Convention on Human Rights. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci, 
vol. 40 (2), pp. 915-916. However, the refusal to allow such a hearing, firstly, must be reasoned 
by a court or a tribunal. See more: Zrvandyan, A. (2016). Casebook on European fair trial stan-
dards in administrative justice. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, pp. 73-74.
4 Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamen-
tal Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 November 1950, referred also as 
European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention further in the article.
5 Hirvela ̈, P. and Heikkila ̈, S. (2021). Right to a fair trial: a practical guide to the Article 6 case-law 
of the European Court of Human Rights. Intersentia; Ilić, I. and Knežević, S. (2020). Scope of Ar-

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
143
Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes: A Comparative Analysis of  
Slovenia and Croatia
extensively focused on the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time which 
remains one of the most common basis for Article 6 violations6, on access to 
justice in general7 and also on its implications on country-specific level.8
One of the first analysis of the applicability of Article 6(1) to administrative 
proceedings was conducted in 1975.9 Regarding the civil limb, analysed re-
search focused on harmonization of procedural guarantees with the Conven-
tion’s rights in non-criminal matters.10 Authors noted cases establishing the 
general entitlement to a hearing under Article 6 of the Convention, but also 
that the right to an oral hearing is not absolute, especially in cases whereas 
a public hearing has been held at least at one instance or due to exceptional 
circumstances.11
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, literature also extensively focused on en-
suring the Convention’s right to a fair trial in online hearings.12 The results 
of such research is twofold. On the one hand, Oliveira et al. conclude that 
the digitalisation of judicial administrative procedures provides for “more 
than just an update of technological tools for judicial operators. It signifies 
ticle 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Contribution of the European Court of 
Human Rights Practice. Balkan Social Science Review, 16, pp. 39–55. https://doi.org/10.46763/
BSSR2016039I; Guran, M. (2019). Short considerations on the scope of the right to a fair trial 
provided by art. 6 of the ECHR – the concept of “criminal charge. Law review (Romania), 2, pp. 
157–165.
6 See: Langford, I. (2009). Fair Trial: The History of an Idea. Journal of Human Rights. 8(1), pp. 
37-52, DOI: 10.1080/14754830902765857; Borraccetti, M. (2011). Fair Trial, Due Process and 
Rights of Defence in the EU Legal Order, in Giacomo, D. (ed.) The EU Charter of Fundamental 
Rights. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht.
7 Gerards, J. H., Glas, L. R. (2017). Access to justice in the European Convention on Hu-
man Rights system. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 35(1), pp. 11-30. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0924051917693988
8 Further reading on the implementation of the right to a fair trial in the Republic of Croa-
tia: Uzelac, A. (2004). Vladavina prava i pravosudni sustav: Sporost pravosuđa kao prepreka 
pridruživanju, in Ott. K. (ed.), Pridruživanje Hrvatske Europskoj Uniji, Izazovi institucionalnih 
prilagodbi, volume 2, pp. 99-123, Republic of Macedonia: Zendeli, E. (2013). The Challenges 
of the Implementation of Paragraph of Article of the European Convention on Human Rights 
and Fundamental Freedoms in the Judicial System of the Republic of Macedonia. Journal of 
Politics and Law, 6(2), pp. 193-201, for Republic of Serbia Milošević, M., Knežević Bojović, A. 
(2018). Trial Within Reasonable Time in EU Acquis and Serbian Law. EU and Comparative Law 
Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC), 1, pp. 447–470. https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/6540, for 
Republic of Montenegro Council of Europe (prepared by: Roagna, I.) (2018). The right to trial 
within reasonable time under Article 6 ECHR.
9 Harris, D. J. (1975). The application of Article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human 
Rights to Administrative Law. The British Year Book of International Law, 47(1), pp. 157–200.
10 Lillo Lobos, R. (2022). Understanding due process in non-criminal matters: how to harmo-
nize procedural guarantees with the right to access to justice. Springer, pp. 109-155, Galič, 
A. (2017). The inconsistency of case law and the right to a fair trial, in Uzelac, A., van Rhee, C. 
(eds.) Revisiting procedural human rights. Fundamentals of civil procedure and the changing 
face of civil justice. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp. 17–51.
11 Lillo Lobos, R. (2022). Understanding due process in non-criminal matters: how to harmonize 
procedural guarantees with the right to access to justice. Springer, pp. 142-145; Helmreich, 
M. (2013). Absence of an oral hearing before the Independent Administrative Panel. Vienna 
Online Journal on International Constitutional Law, 7(4), pp. 541–546; Paužaitė-Kulvinskienė, 
J. (2016). The principle of effective legal protection in administrative law in Lithuania, in Z. 
Szente and K. Lachmayer, eds., The Principle of Effective Legal Protection in Administrative 
Law: A European Perspective. London: Routledge, pp. 190–217.
12 See for example research on the right to hear a case within a reasonable time and the right to 
public hearing during the pandemic: Paduch, A. (2021). The Right to a Fair Trial Under Article 
6 ECHR During the Covid-19 Pandemic. Central European Public Administration Review (On-
line), 19(2), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.17573/cepar.2021.2.01

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
144
Mario Rašić
a paradigm shift and a change in the nature of the legal process”.13 On the 
other hand, whilst acknowledging the positive aspects of remote hearings, 
Bilevičiūtė notes that Lithuanian legislative framework lacks complete insur-
ance of “rights to attend one’s trial, to communicate confidentially with the 
lawyer, to put questions to witnesses and to challenge evidence“ in adminis-
trative procedures.14 Concerns about insuring the right to a fair trial as guar-
anteed under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights have 
been researched regarding remotely held criminal procedures as well.15
Relevant literature on oral hearings before international tribunals demonstrat-
ed that the right to an oral hearing appears to be more restricted than before 
national tribunals, noting that zero oral hearings have been conducted before 
the International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal since 1989.16
Furthermore, authors have discussed the right to an oral hearing in terms of 
procedural fairness and social psychology, indicating that hearing people in 
person enhances procedural fairness judgments and contributes to better ac-
ceptance of court’s decisions17, while also acknowledging that the oral hear-
ings can even be a disadvantage for claimants.18
Finally, papers have discussed the use of experts and scientific evidence in the 
light of the rights to a fair trial, concluding that the right for the defendant in 
criminal cases to participate in and challenge the use of such evidence could 
be improved and that the European Court of Human Rights should have the 
competence to review admissibility and impact of such evidence.19
The first section of this paper examines the development and positive law 
within the two selected countries. Following that, the conventional frame-
work of the European Court of Human Rights shall be laid down and analysed. 
The main research part of the paper is the analysis of the most relevant cases 
13 Oliveira, A. M., Pedro, R. L. D., Correia, P. M. A. R. and Lunardi, F. C. (2023). An Overview of the 
Portuguese Electronic Jurisdictional Administrative Procedure. Laws, 12(5), 84. https://doi.
org/10.3390/laws12050084
14 Bilevičiūtė, E. (2022). Actual issues of remote court hearings in administrative procedure. Acta 
Prosperitatis, 13, pp. 7–23.
15 See Kamber, K. (2022). The Right to a Fair Online Hearing. Human Rights Law Review, 22(2). 
https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngac006, Kulesza, C. (2021). Remote Trial and Remote Deten-
tion Hearing in Light of the ECHR Standard of the Rights of the Accused. Białostockie Studia 
Prawnicze, 26(3), pp. 205–221. https://doi.org/10.15290/bsp.2021.26.03.11
16 For International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal see Treichl, C. (2019). The 
Denial of Oral Hearings by International Administrative Tribunals as a Factor for Lifting Or-
ganizational Immunity before European Courts: A(nother) Critical View. International Orga-
nizations Law Review, 16(2), 407–446. https://doi.org/10.1163/15723747-20181139 and for 
European Court of Justice Rosas, A. (2014). Oral Hearings before the European Court of Jus-
tice. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 21(4), pp. 596–610. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1023263X1402100402,
17 De Graaf, C. V. (2021). Procedural fairness: Between human rights law and social psy-
chology. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 39(1), pp. 11–29. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0924051921992749
18 Johannesson, L. (2023). Silence and Voice in Oral Hearings: Spatial, Temporal, and Relational 
Conditions for Communication in Asylum and Compulsory Care Hearings. Social & Legal Stud-
ies, 32(3), pp. 410–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/09646639221118654. The study concerned 
asylum and compulsory care hearings in Sweden.
19 Vuille, J., Lupària, L., Taroni, F. (2017). Scientific evidence and the right to a fair trial under ar-
ticle 6 ECHR. Law, Probability and Risk, 16(1), pp. 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgx001.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
145
Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes: A Comparative Analysis of  
Slovenia and Croatia
stemming from the European Court of Human Rights and national courts. Fi-
nally, the main scientific contribution of this paper is de lege ferenda sugges-
tions, which contribute to a higher level of human rights protection in the 
context of a fair trial.
2 Methodology
The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the importance and ef-
fect exercising the right to be heard, with an analysis of the current legal state 
of play in two countries: the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Slovenia. 
Although comparative research of two countries already exists,20 compara-
tive papers relating to the topic of oral hearings in administrative disputes has 
not yet been conducted. The paper deals with cases from the national courts 
and from the European Court of Human Rights, where cases deal with (po-
tential) violations of human rights or fundamental freedoms regarding the 
absence of an oral hearing in administrative procedure. The study is explora-
tory and interpretative in nature. To examine the research topic, the method 
of analysis of domestic and international legal texts was utilized. It was neces-
sary to assess the administrative procedure rules in both countries included in 
the research, as well as legal framework of the Council of Europe, in order to 
examine the issue of oral hearings in administrative disputes and identify ef-
fective solutions. Beyond Slovenia and Croatia, further country-specific prac-
tices regarding the access to justice in general21 and on the right to an oral 
hearing was also analysed for the purposes of this paper.22 In addition, empiri-
cal research using sociological research methods was conducted to analyse 
current legal solutions and case law. Data used for this research includes both 
primary and secondary data: the author analyses prior research, legislation 
and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights23 and national courts.
20 See for example an comparative analysis of an administrative appeal: Đanić Čeko, A., Kovač, 
P. (2020). COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL IN CROATIAN, SLO-
VENIAN, AND EU LAW. EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC), 4, pp. 
1065–1096. https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/11940
21 Republics of Austria, Hungary, Lithuania, and Macedonia were analysed in this respect. See: 
Lachmayer, K., Szente, Z., eds. (2016) The Principle of Effective Legal Protection in Administra-
tive Law: A European Perspective. London, Routledge.
22 On Republic of Finland’s civil and appeal procedure see: Kiesiläinen, J. (2008). Effiency and jus-
tice in procedural reforms: the rise and fall of the oral hearing, in van Rhee, C., Uzelac, A. (eds.) 
Civil justice between efficiency and quality: from Ius Commune to the CEPEJ. Intersentia, Ox-
ford, pp. 29–45, where a request by a party seems to be enough to arrange the main hearing. 
On Republic of Austria’s administrative procedures see: Helmreich, M. (2013). Absence of an 
oral hearing before the Independent Administrative Panel. Vienna Online Journal on Inter-
national Constitutional Law, 7(4), pp. 541–546. https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2013-0407, on the 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland see Gordon, A. (2013). Article 6 ECHR, 
Civil Rights, and the Enduring Role of the Common Law. European Public Law, 19(1), Mills, A. 
(2012). The Requirement of an Oral Hearing in Judicial Review Claims, Judicial Review, 17(4), 
pp. 326–329 and Samuels, A. (2005). A Right to an Oral Hearing in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings?. 
The Cambridge Law Journal, 64(3), pp. 523–527.
23 For a comprehensive overview see: Council of Europe (2022). Guide on Article 6 of the Europe-
an Convention on Human Rights. Right to a fair trial (civil limb). Strasbourg. At <https://www.
echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/guide_art_6_eng>, accessed 12 November 2023.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
146
Mario Rašić
3 National Legislation
For Slovenia - and Croatia also, the General Administrative Procedure Act of 
the Kingdom of Yugoslavia is the first regulation, dating back from 1930. It was 
based on the example of the Austrian regulation from 1925. Judicial review of 
administrative acts was already in force with the Act on the Council of State 
and Administrative Courts of 1921, based on the French model of administra-
tive jurisprudence. Within the next ruling regime, general principles of adminis-
trative procedure were introduced in 1946, while the Administrative Disputes 
Act was in force starting from 1952. A codified federal General Administrative 
Procedure Act was enacted in 1956, with subsequent modernizations.24
3.1 Slovenia
The General Administrative Procedure Act served as the basis of the regula-
tion in force in the independent Republic of Slovenia, which was adopted in 
1999, with several revisions. A new Administrative Dispute Act was adopted 
in 1997. Finally, a completely new Administrative Dispute Act was passed in 
2006 and came into force in 2007.25
“With regard to the significance and number of administrative procedures, 
the General Administrative Procedure Act represents one of the most impor-
tant acts in the legal system of the Republic of Slovenia. According to the re-
cords of the Ministry of Public Administration, around 10 million first-instance 
administrative decisions are issued in Slovenia every year.”26
A final administrative act can be subject to judicial review before administra-
tive courts. The procedure before administrative courts can be initiated by a 
claim after the administrative act is final. The Slovenian Constitution states 
that there is a special judicial review procedure of the legality of final indi-
vidual acts with which state authorities, local community authorities and bear-
ers of public authority decide the rights or obligations and legal interests of 
individuals and organizations, if other judicial protection is not provided by 
law for a particular matter.27
The Administrative Court in Slovenia is ruled by the Administrative Dispute 
Act and is split into 5 departments: Department for public finances; Depart-
ment for property relations; Department for protection of constitutional 
rights; Department for environment, spatial planning and construction; De-
partment for customs and other taxes. The seat of the Administrative Court 
24 Kerševan, E. (2016). The principle of effective legal protection in administrative law in Slove-
nia, in Z. Szente and K. Lachmayer, eds., The Principle of Effective Legal Protection in Adminis-
trative Law: A European Perspective. London: Routledge, pp. 266–267.
25 Kerševan, E. (2016). The principle of effective legal protection in administrative law in Slove-
nia, in Z. Szente and K. Lachmayer, eds., The Principle of Effective Legal Protection in Adminis-
trative Law: A European Perspective. London: Routledge, pp. 266–267.
26 Koprić, I. et al. (2016). Legal remedies in administrative procedures in Western Balkans. Dani-
lovgrad: Regional School of Public Administration, p. 60.
27 Article 157, Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, Official Gazette RS, nb. 33/91-I, 42/97, 
66/2000, 24/03, 69/04, 68/06, 47/13, 75/16, 92/21.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
147
Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes: A Comparative Analysis of  
Slovenia and Croatia
is in Ljubljana and deconcentrated departments in Celje, Maribor and Nova 
Gorica.28
In short, the person entitled to start the administrative dispute as a plaintiff 
can (with exceptions) only be the person who was a party or an accessory 
participant in the proceedings of issuing an administrative act, also having le-
gitimate interest in starting the proceedings before the Administrative Court. 
The administrative act can be challenged both regarding factual and legal 
issues. Finally, legal remedies (namely appeal, revision, and repeated proce-
dure) against the decisions by the Administrative Court are decided by the 
Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia. 
However, appeals against judgments of the Administrative Court are possible 
in a rather limited number of cases.29
,
30
Article 59 (paragraphs 1 to 3) of the Slovenian Administrative Dispute Act 
regulates the main topic of this paper: “The Administrative Court may issue 
a decision without holding a hearing if the facts on which the administrative 
decision is based are uncontested. Regardless of this provision, the court may 
also decide without holding a hearing, even if there is a dispute regarding the 
facts of the case between parties, in the following circumstances:
1. if, on the basis of the action, the impugned legal act and the administrative 
case files, it is apparent complainant’s request shall be granted and the ad-
ministrative act shall be annulled in line with Article 64(1) of the Act, whe-
reas no third party with opposing interest has participated in the dispute;
2. if new facts and evidence submitted by the parties in their action before 
the Administrative Court are inadmissible (in accordance with Article 52 of 
the Act) or not relevant for the decision;
3. if the parties merely propose evidence not necessary to establish disputed 
facts, in cases those can be established even without reviewing the propo-
sed evidence.
4. if the court has already decided on a dispute between the same parties on 
the same factual and legal basis
5. if the court decides only on the basis of the documents and the parties 
have agreed that the main hearing does not take place, and the court is 
not bound by the facts that were established in the process of issuing the 
administrative act.
Regardless of subsection (1), the court shall decide at a hearing if:
28 Čarni, M. and Košak, Š. (2013). A Guide to the Republic of Slovenia Legal System and Legal 
Research. At <https://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Slovenia1.html>, accessed 14 October 
2022.; Koprić, I. et al. (2016). Legal remedies in administrative procedures in Western Balkans. 
Danilovgrad: Regional School of Public Administration, p. 61.
29 Kerševan, E. (2016). The principle of effective legal protection in administrative law in Slove-
nia, in Z. Szente and K. Lachmayer, eds., The Principle of Effective Legal Protection in Adminis-
trative Law: A European Perspective. London: Routledge, pp. 266–280.
30 Administrative Dispute Act, Official Gazette RS, nb. 105/06, 107/09, 62/10, 98/11, 109/12, 
10/17, 49/23.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
148
Mario Rašić
1. it concerns a person who should have participated in the administrative 
proceedings as party or a third party and it is not a case provided for in 
subsection (2) of section 229 of the Administrative Procedure Act or a sub-
stantially identical provision of another statute governing the procedure of 
issuing the administrative act;
2. during the administrative proceedings, a party was not able to provide a 
statement on the facts relevant for the contested decision.” 31
3.2 Croatia
At the beginning of the 1990s, Croatia also took over the former federal gen-
eral administrative procedural law, however with some adaptations. After 
lengthy preparations for the new General Administrative Procedure Act, the 
first draft of the new law was prepared in 2008 and the Act finally entered 
into force in 2010 (Official Gazette HR, nb. 47/09).32 The General Adminis-
trative Procedure Act was amended only once afterwards, and the amended 
framework is in force since January 202233.
The new Croatian Administrative Disputes Act34 was adopted two years later, 
coming into force in 2012. Since then the system of administrative justice has 
been organized as a two-tier system with four administrative courts of first 
instance (Zagreb, Split, Rijeka and Osijek) and the High Administrative Court 
in Zagreb which as a rule decides on the appeals filed against first instance ad-
ministrative court decisions.35 The Administrative Dispute Act of 2010 broad-
ens the matter of the administrative dispute and ensures legal protection in 
every administrative procedure.36
The previous Administrative Dispute Act regulated in Article 34 that, as a rule, 
disputes are solved in a non-public session, while only due to the complexity 
or clarity of facts of the matter, the court may decide to hold an oral hearing. 
For the same reasons, the party may also propose an oral hearing.37 However, 
oral hearings were held quite seldom.38 This setup was not in line with the 
requirements of Article 6 of the Convention.39
31 Administrative Dispute Act, Official Gazette RS, nb. 105/06, 107/09, 62/10, 98/11, 109/12, 
10/17, 49/23 Article 59, paragraphs 1–3.
32 Koprić, I. and Đulabić, V. (2009). Modernizacija općeg upravnog postupka i javne uprave u Hr-
vatskoj (Modernisation of the General Administrative Procedure and Public Administration in 
Croatia). Zagreb: Institut za javnu upravu and Društveno veleučilište.
33 General Administrative Procedure Act, Official Gazette HR, nb. 47/09, 110/21.
34 Administrative Disputes Act, Official Gazette HR, nb. 20/2010, 143/2012, 152/2014, 94/2016, 
29/2017, 110/21.
35 Koprić, I. et al. (2016). Legal remedies in administrative procedures in Western Balkans. Dani-
lovgrad: Regional School of Public Administration, pp. 62–63.
36 Article 3 Administrative Disputes Act, Official Gazette, nb. 20/2010, 143/2012, 152/2014, 
94/2016, 29/2017, 110/21.
37 Administrative Dispute Act, Official Gazette SFRY 4/1977, 36/1977, Official Gazette HR 
53/1991, 9/1992, 77/1992.
38 Đerđa, D. and Kryska, D. (2018). Neka rješenja upravnog spora u usporednom pravu: kako 
unaprijediti hrvatski upravni spor?. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci, 39(1), pp. 
91–126.
39 Britvić Vetma, B. (2012). Europska konvencija za zaštitu ljudskih prava (članak 6) i Zakon o upra-
vnim sporovima iz 2010. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu, 49(2), pp. 395-410. https://
hrcak.srce.hr/84239

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
149
Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes: A Comparative Analysis of  
Slovenia and Croatia
The principle of the oral hearing is provided for, as a general rule, in Article 7 
of the Croatian Administrative Dispute Act. “In an administrative dispute, the 
court shall decide in an oral, direct and public hearing. Courts may adjudicate 
in an administrative dispute without holding an oral hearing only in the cases 
laid down further in the Act”40, especially in articles 36 and 73.
“The court may resolve a dispute by a decision without holding a hearing:
1. if the respondent acknowledged the statement of claim in full;
2. in a case where the adjudication is based on a final judgment rendered in a 
model dispute 41;
3. if the court establishes that a particular decision, action or administrative 
contract is defect so that it prevents an assessment of its lawfulness;
4. if the complainant disputes only the application of law, the facts of the case 
are indisputable, and if the parties in the complaint or in the response to a 
claim do not have request for holding a hearing.
5. if the parties explicitly agree to adjudicate without holding a hearing, and the 
court finds that it is not necessary to present new evidence.” 42
“The High Administrative Court decides about the appeals at council sessions, 
without holding a discussion. If the High Administrative Court deems necessary, 
it may hold a hearing.” 43
Above regulations, indeed, represent a derogation from the oral hearing prin-
ciple as set out in Article 7 in favour of the principle of efficiency.
4 European Court of Human Rights
“The European Court of Human Rights 44 is an international court set up in 1959. 
It rules on individual or State applications alleging violations of the civil and 
political rights set out in the European Convention for the Protection of Human 
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.” 45
Since its establishment in 1959, the Court has delivered more than 24.500 
judgments.46 These are binding on the countries concerned and have led gov-
ernments to alter their legislation and administrative practice in a wide range 
40 Article 7 Administrative Disputes Act, Official Gazette, nb. 20/2010, 143/2012, 152/2014, 
94/2016, 29/2017, 110/21.
41 Model dispute solution is regulated in Article 48 of the Administrative Dispute Act. Due to the 
content limitation of this paper, the model dispute is not inspected in detail.
42 Article 36 of the Croatian Administrative Dispute Act. The 5th subparagraph was added in 
additions to the Act in 2012, as well as the wording “substantial law” was amended by deleting 
“substantial” in the 4th subparagraph. See more: Staničić, F., Britvić Vetma, B. and Horvat, B. 
(2017). Komentar Zakona u upravnim sporovima. Zagreb: Narodne novine, pp. 131–134.
43 Ibid. Article 73.
44 Also referred to as European Court, the Court or ECtHR further in the paper.
45 Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamen-
tal Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 November 1950, referred also as 
European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention further in the article.
46 European Court of Human Rights (2022). Overview 1959-2021 ECHR. Strasbourg: Council of 
Europe.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
150
Mario Rašić
of areas. The Court’s case-law makes the Convention an adaptable living in-
strument for surpassing new challenges and consolidating the rule of law and 
democracy in Europe.
4.1 Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of 
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and 
Fundamental Freedoms can be understood as a set of rights within the system 
of the European Court of Human Rights and is very important when it comes 
to the principle of effective legal protection in administrative procedures and 
disputes. “Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights provides 
that, in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, everyone is en-
titled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent 
and impartial tribunal established by law.”47 Administrative procedures are 
strongly influenced by the guarantees of the European Convention on Hu-
man Rights, especially through the procedural guarantees under the Article 
6(1) of the Convention. Although the guarantees only apply to procedures 
concerning “civil” and “criminal” matters, both fields have been subject to an 
extensive interpretation through the Court’s decisions.48
The European Court of Human Rights has held that even in relatively trivial 
cases, a party cannot generally be denied a public hearing in court procedures 
aimed at simplifying or expediting cases.49 In addition, the European Court 
of Human Rights concluded in Fischer v. Austria that, unless there are excep-
tional circumstances that justify dispensing with a hearing, the right to a pub-
lic hearing under Article 6(1) implies a right to an oral hearing at least at one 
level of jurisdiction.50
The exceptional character of the circumstances that may justify not holding 
any oral hearing in proceedings concerning a “civil” right is closely related to 
the nature of the meritum that had to be adjudicated by the competent tri-
bunal. This does not mean that refusing to hold an oral hearing may be justi-
fied only in rare cases. Such prime examples are cases where the proceedings 
concerned exclusively legal or highly technical issues.51
“There may be proceedings in which an oral hearing may not be required. For 
example, where there are no issues of credibility or contested facts which 
47 Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamen-
tal Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 November 1950, Article 6(1).
48 Breuer, M. (2016). Creating a European-wide standard of effective legal protection: The Euro-
pean Convention on Human Rights, in Z. Szente and K. Lachmayer, eds., The Principle of Effec-
tive Legal Protection in Administrative Law : A European Perspective. London: Routledge, pp. 
42–46. See more: Šarin, D. (2015). Pravo na pristup sudu u praksi Europskog suda za ljudska 
prava. Pravni vjesnik, 31(3-4), pp. 269–271.
49 Scarth v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 33745/96 (ECtHR, 22 July 1999).
50 Fischer v. Austria Application no. 16922/90 (ECtHR, 26 April 1995).
51  Cases in question are, for example SchulerZgraggen v. Switzerland, Application no. 14518/89 
(ECtHR 24 June 1993), Varela Assalino v. Portugal, Application no. 64336/01 (ECtHR 25 April 
2002) and Speil v. Austria (dec.), Application no. 42057/98 (ECtHR 5 September 2002).

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
151
Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes: A Comparative Analysis of  
Slovenia and Croatia
necessitate a hearing and the courts may fairly and reasonably decide the case 
on the basis of the parties’ submissions and other written materials.” 52
4.2 Summary of data
Data shows that a total of 964 cases were solved by the European Court of 
Human Rights which concerned breaches of Article 6 specifically in adminis-
trative proceedings. 814 of them were judged as violations of the article.53
A total of 40 cases concerning breaches of the right to oral hearing appeared 
before the European Court of Human Rights. 28 of them were concluded as 
breaches due to the absence of an oral hearing. Interestingly, 16 violations 
were found in Austria,54 5 in Sweden and one from Czech Republic, Finland, 
France, North Macedonia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey.
As for the Court’s case law regarding the Republic of Croatia, the Court decid-
ed on 18 violations of the Article 6 in administrative proceedings. However, 
there were no absence of oral hearing violations.
As for the Republic of Slovenia, six (6) cases in which violations of Article 6 
in the administrative proceedings occurred, with the only absence of an oral 
hearing breach was in the Mirovni inštitut case55. The case of Produkcija plus 
stvoritveno podjetje d.o.o. was categorized as a criminal procedure, but con-
tains principles and implications applicable within administrative disputes, 
hence it was analysed.56
5 Analysis and Discussion
5.1 Slovenian cases
This part of the paper briefly introduces and analyses the two key cases of 
breaches of the right to an oral hearing which concern the Republic of Slo-
venia before the European Court of Human Rights: Mirovni Inštitut and 
Produkcija Plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. cases.
5.1.1 Mirovni Inštitut v. Slovenia
In this case, the applicant institute alleged that the lack of reasoning in a deci-
sion of the Administrative Court and the absence of an oral hearing before 
52 See Döry v. Sweden, Application no. 28394/95 (ECtHR 12 November 2002). Note that the case 
concerns the civil limb.
53 Data extracted from the HUDOC database website https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng, accessed 
17 September 2022. It is important to note that Committee decisions appeared on HUDOC 
only as of April 2010. Decisions concerning single judge cases are not published. Commission 
decisions prior to 1960 exist in hard copy only in the Court Archives.
54 This might be the case since Austria’s administrative dispute system regulates that the oral 
hearing is an exception, rather than a rule. See more in: Đerđa, D. (2010). Sudske odluke u up-
ravnom sporu - pozitivno i buduće pravno uređenje. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Rijeci, 31(1), 
pp. 459-460.
55 Mirovni Inštitut v. Slovenia, Application no. 32303/1 (ECtHR 13 June 2018).
56 Produkcija Plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia, Application no. 47072/15, (ECtHR 3 Jan-
uary 2019).

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
152
Mario Rašić
it amounted to a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the 
Convention.57
Mirovni inštitut is a private institute that carries out research in the field of 
social sciences. The case dates back to 2003 when the Slovenian Ministry of 
Educaton, Science and Sport (Ministry) made two calls for tenders for making 
financial awards for scientific research projects, on which the Mirovni Inštitut 
submitted a tender. The tenders were joined into one proceeding by the Min-
istry without explanation and eventually awarded to three other subjects.
Mirovni Inštitut subsequently lodged several actions against the Ministry: it 
argued, inter alia, that the evaluation procedure had been unfair because 
some of the evaluators had been biased, as shown by the fact that only those 
research programmes in which the evaluators were leaders or members of re-
search teams obtained financing. The applicant institute expressly requested 
a hearing at which witnesses could be heard with regard to the alleged proce-
dural errors in the evaluation of the programmes. Additionally, it submitted 
a letter which one of the witnesses, K., had sent to the Minister and several 
other addressees in which K. notified them of problems he had detected in 
the tender procedures in which he had participated as an evaluator.58
After the parties had exchanged a number of written submissions, the Admin-
istrative Court, without holding a hearing, dismissed the action. In its decision 
of 2 February 2011, the court gave an extensive account of the proceedings 
before the Ministry and the submissions of both parties. The reasons for the 
decision were given on a single page. Invoking section 71(2) of the Slovenian 
Administrative Dispute Act, the Administrative Court chiefly referred to the 
submissions of the Ministry. It considered, inter alia, that the Ministry had not 
acted unlawfully in joining the proceedings. No reasons were given for not 
holding a hearing. None of the evidence relied on by the applicant institute in 
their appeal was acknowledged or referred to in the court’s reasoning.59
The Inštitut lodged an appeal on points of law and complained that the Ad-
ministrative Court had not held a hearing even though the facts of the case 
had been contested, and the applicant institute had explicitly requested a 
hearing at which witnesses could be heard. It also argued that the Adminis-
trative Court had failed to address its allegations that errors had been made 
in the evaluation procedure, and complained that insufficient reasoning had 
been given for the decision. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal as inad-
missible. No reasons were given in its decision on the merits of the applicant 
institute’s complaints. Finally, the applicant institute then lodged a constitu-
tional complaint, which was dismissed as the Constitutional court found that 
it did not concern an important constitutional question or entail a violation of 
human rights with serious consequences for the applicant institute.60
57 Mirovni Inštitut v. Slovenia, Application no. 32303/1 (ECtHR 13 June 2018), paragraph §4.
58 Mirovni Inštitut v. Slovenia, Application no. 32303/1 (ECtHR 13 June 2018), paragraphs § 8-11.
59 Mirovni Inštitut v. Slovenia, Application no. 32303/1 (ECtHR 13 June 2018), paragraphs § 12-13.
60 Mirovni Inštitut v. Slovenia, Application no. 32303/1 (ECtHR 13 June 2018), paragraphs §14-17.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
153
Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes: A Comparative Analysis of  
Slovenia and Croatia
The Court ruled the application admissible, as the applicant institute clearly 
enjoyed a procedural right to the lawful and correct adjudication of the ten-
ders. Furthermore, should the tender be awarded to the applicant institute, 
the latter would have been conferred a civil right. After granting the applica-
tion admissible, the European Court of Human Rights considered the merits 
of the application.61
The Court reiterated that: “in proceedings before a court of first and only 
instance, the right to a “public hearing” within the meaning of Article 6(1) en-
tails an entitlement to an “oral hearing” unless there are exceptional circum-
stances that justify dispensing with such a hearing. In proceedings before two 
instances, at least one instance must, in general, provide such a hearing if no 
such exceptional circumstances are at hand.62 In Slovenia, the Administrative 
Court is the first judicial instance and the only one with full jurisdiction (not 
only limited to law but to factual issues).
As:
1. the facts were disputed by the parties in this case,
2. the Inštitut explicitly requested an oral hearing,
3. presenting further evidence (hearing witness K, inter alia) could have been 
relevant for the outcome of the proceedings and
4. the Administrative Court neither acknowledged the applicant institute’s 
request that a hearing be held, nor gave any reasons (or a legal basis) for 
not granting the request,
the European Court of Human Rights concluded correctly that the proceed-
ings were not fair and that, accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 
6(1) of the Convention.63
5.1.2 Produkcija Plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia
In this case, the applicant, Produkcija plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. (a private 
media company) alleged that Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention had been 
breached on account of the lack of an oral hearing, the lack of opportunity to 
be heard, and have witnesses examined on its behalf. The proceedings con-
cerned the imposition of a fine for the obstruction of an inspection and pro-
ceedings concerning a violation of competition rules.64
On 10 August 2011, the Competition Protection Office (later the Competi-
tion Protection Agency, hereinafter referred to as “Office”) initiated proceed-
ings against the applicant company following a complaint from two television 
stations that the applicant company had abused its dominant position. On 
the same day, the Office issued an order to inspect the premises, which con-
tained a warning that if the inspection was obstructed, an order imposing a 
61 Mirovni Inštitut v. Slovenia, Application no. 32303/1 (ECtHR 13 June 2018), paragraphs §28-30.
62 Fröbrich v. Germany, Application no. 23621/11, (ECtHR 16 March 2017), paragraph §34.
63 Mirovni Inštitut v. Slovenia, Application no. 32303/1 (ECtHR 13 June 2018), paragraph §45.
64 Produkcija Plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia Application no. 47072/15, (ECtHR 3 Jan-
uary 2019), paragraph §3.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
154
Mario Rašić
fine amounting up to 1% of the applicant company’s annual turnover in the 
preceding business year could be issued.65
During the inspection, the officers were apparently assaulted and asked to 
leave the premises by Mr P., who worked as a contractor for the company and 
refused to allow them to continue the inspection. According to the report, 
at 9.31 a.m., the officers left the building because they believed that the in-
spection would not be possible without police assistance. At 9.57 a.m., after 
the arrival of the police, the officers again entered the applicant company’s 
premises. At 10 a.m. Mr V. arrived. He apologized for the inconvenience and 
was willing to cooperate. At 10.45 a.m., the officers started the inspection, 
which was then carried out without any obstructive behaviour on the part of 
the applicant company. By an order of 21 February 2012 the Office fined the 
applicant company 105.000 euros (EUR), 0.2% of the company’s annual net 
turnover in the preceding year, for obstructing the inspection on 11 August 
2011. The obstruction had been Mr P.’s unwillingness to cooperate with of-
ficers and to immediately facilitate access to evidence and its preservation.66
On 22 March 2012, the applicant company brought an action and an applica-
tion for an interim measure against the above order. The applicant requested 
an oral hearing, maintaining that a direct examination of the evidence was 
required to properly establish the facts of the case. In particular, the four wit-
nesses who had been present at the premises on the day of the alleged ob-
struction would prove that the applicant company had not obstructed the 
inspection or refused to cooperate with the officers. They would also show 
that the officers had not properly introduced themselves and had tried to 
enter the premises in an aggressive manner.67
On 26 November 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant compa-
ny’s action. It noted from the outset that the applicant company was not al-
lowed to introduce new facts and evidence in the judicial review proceedings 
and that they would not be taken into consideration. The court emphasised 
that although the applicant company had contested the facts as established 
by the Office, it had not challenged the fact that the officers could not im-
mediately after their arrival at the company’s premises secure the evidence. 
According to the Supreme Court, the applicant company had merely argued 
that the above-described acts had not constituted an obstruction of the in-
spection. In the Supreme Court’s opinion, this was not a question of fact but 
purely of law. The only important fact was that the authorised persons could 
not immediately start securing the evidence. Finally, the applicant institute 
then lodged a constitutional complaint, which was not accepted, as the Con-
stitutional Court found that it did not concern an important constitutional 
65 Produkcija Plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia Application no. 47072/15, (ECtHR 3 Jan-
uary 2019), paragraphs §6-7.
66 Produkcija Plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia Application no. 47072/15, (ECtHR 3 Jan-
uary 2019), paragraphs §8-10.
67 Produkcija Plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia Application no. 47072/15, (ECtHR 3 Jan-
uary 2019), paragraph §11.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
155
Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes: A Comparative Analysis of  
Slovenia and Croatia
question or entail a violation of human rights with serious consequences for 
the applicant institute.68
In the proceedings related to the determination of a violation of competition 
rules (supervision proceedings), on 24 April 2013 the Agency decided that 
the applicant company had been abusing its dominant position. It refused to 
hold a hearing on the grounds that it was not necessary to hear the witnesses 
proposed by the applicant company, and that the applicant company had suf-
ficient opportunity to present its case in writing.69
On 24 May 2013, the applicant company filed an action against the Agency’s 
infringement decision, asserting that the Agency had violated its right to ad-
versarial proceedings and to defend itself. It also urged the Supreme Court 
to examine the proposed witnesses at an oral hearing. On 3 December 2013, 
the Supreme Court dismissed the action. It held that the examination of the 
witnesses proposed by the applicant was unnecessary. This was because the 
facts of the case had already been fully established by the Agency, which had 
provided logical and convincing reasons for each of the central issues in dis-
pute. Consequently, it refused to hold a hearing. Subsequently, the Constitu-
tional Court also rejected the appeal.70
The Court reiterated that an oral, and public, hearing constitutes a fundamen-
tal principle enshrined in Article 6(1) and that it is particularly important in 
the criminal context, where an accused has an entitlement to have his case 
“heard”, with the opportunity, inter alia, to give evidence in his own defence, 
hear the evidence against him, and examine and cross-examine the witness-
es. The Court also reflected on the fact that, despite the applicant company 
expressly requesting that a hearing be held, the Supreme Court neither ac-
knowledged the request nor gave any reasons for not granting it. That is even 
more necessary as the Supreme Court was the first and only tribunal to exam-
ine the applicant company’s case, and as such, it was required under Article 
6(1) of the Convention to examine not only the legal aspects of the case but 
also to review the facts (full jurisdiction) on which the applicant company’s 
punishment was based and which the applicant company disputed.71
Conclusively, the European Court of Human Rights found that the applicant 
company was deprived of a right to have the factual aspects of the adminis-
trative decision issued against it reviewed by the tribunal with full jurisdiction 
and that the Article 6(1) of the Convention had been violated.72
68 Produkcija Plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia Application no. 47072/15, (ECtHR 3 Jan-
uary 2019), paragraphs §12-15.
69 Produkcija Plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia Application no. 47072/15, (ECtHR 3 Jan-
uary 2019), paragraphs §17-18.
70 Produkcija Plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia Application no. 47072/15, (ECtHR 3 Jan-
uary 2019), paragraphs §19-21.
71 Produkcija Plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia Application no. 47072/15, (ECtHR 3 Jan-
uary 2019), paragraphs §53-58, Žuber, B., Lovšin, Š. (2019). Judicial dialogue in the light of 
protocol no. 16 to the European Convention on Human Rights. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta 
Sveučilišta u Rijeci, vol. 40 (2), pp. 914–915.
72 Produkcija Plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia Application no. 47072/15, (ECtHR 3 Jan-
uary 2019), paragraphs §59–60, Žuber, B., Lovšin, Š. (2019). Judicial dialogue in the light of 

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
156
Mario Rašić
After analysing both cases, it is evident that the applicant received somewhat 
unsatisfactory remuneration despite the decision of the European Court of 
Human Rights decided in favour of their application. The main reason is that 
the Slovenian Administrative Dispute Act does not envisage in its Article 96 
(Renewal of the procedure) that renewal is possible if, following a final judg-
ment of the European Court of Human Rights, it was decided on a violation 
of fundamental human right or freedom in a way different from the judg-
ment of the court. The Croatian Administrative Dispute Act foresees the ex-
act wording as ground for renewal of the procedure73. Therefore, it would be 
useful if the Slovenian Administrative Dispute Act were amended to provide 
this option to applicants whose rights have been found violated before the 
European Court of Human Rights.
5.2 Croatian cases
The Republic of Croatia did not have any administrative proceedings that in-
volved a breach of the right to an oral hearing, as outlined in the Article 6(1) 
of the Convention. There was a case relating to civil law matters in which the 
right to an oral hearing had been violated.74 However, civil and criminal mat-
ters fall beyond the scope of this this paper.
In a case that appeared in second instance at the High Administrative Court, 
the applicant was awarded a right to an oral hearing which was denied at the 
Administrative Court level. The Administrative Court was erred in applying 
the provision of the Article 36(4) of the Administrative Dispute Act, as the 
Court deemed that the complainant contested only the application of sub-
stantive law, the facts of the case were indisputable, and neither party in the 
complaint nor in the response to the claim had requested holding a hearing. 
In the concrete case regarding health security rights, the applicant requested 
the reference of an expert to be provided as evidence. Therefore, the High 
Administrative Court rightly decided that the Article 36(4) had been wrong-
fully invoked by the first instance court.75
In a case before the Constitutional Court, the applicant was granted invalidity 
pension due to illness. However, the applicant considered herself healthy and 
therefore contested the administrative decision, the Administrative Court in 
Rijeka’s decision as a judicial body of first instance, and the High Administrative 
Court’s decision which also confirmed the invalidity pension. The applicant dis-
puted the expert’s opinion and the medical documentation. As the applicant 
contested facts, she expected that a hearing in front of the court would be 
held, what she also noted in the appeal on the Administrative Court’s decision. 
The applicant argued in the appeal that there were no legal terms to invoke 
Article 36(4) of the Administrative Dispute Act since the facts of the case were 
protocol no. 16 to the European Convention on Human Rights. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta 
Sveučilišta u Rijeci, vol. 40 (2), pp. 914–915.
73 Article 76 of Croatian Administrative Disputes Act, Official Gazette HR, nb. 20/2010, 143/2012, 
152/2014, 94/2016, 29/2017, 110/21.
74 Adžić v. Croatia, Application no. 19601/16 (ECtHR 02 August 2019)
75 High Administrative Court of the Republic of Croatia, case Usž-1927/15-8, 30 November 2016.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
157
Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes: A Comparative Analysis of  
Slovenia and Croatia
not indisputable. The High Administrative Court argued that the applicant did 
not provide any new evidence necessary to determine the facts on which her 
assumptions were based on. Therefore, and also since neither party requested 
an oral hearing (the applicant merely “expected” one at the Administrative 
Court level, only what she composed in writing), there was indeed a legal basis 
to adjudicate without a hearing. Subsequently, the Court rejected the claims 
of the applicant. The Constitutional Court agreed with the former decisions 
on the grounds that the applicant had failed to propose any evidence for the 
courts to assess and also did not explicitly request a hearing.76
In a recent case, the Constitutional Court reiterated the principle when the 
dispute concerns only a legal issue, and not factual matters that are undis-
puted, the administrative courts do not violate any human rights or the Con-
stitution by not holding an oral hearing, referring to Article 36(4) of the Ad-
ministrative Dispute Act.77
Also, Croatia envisaged that the court of first instance shall provide an oral 
hearing and may only exceptionally deny it within its rights set by law. At the 
High Administrative Court’s level, the oral hearing is an exception, but still 
allowed if the Court deems it necessary. The solution is in par with the vision 
of the ECtHR and an oral hearing is very likely to occur at the first instance un-
less it is clearly not required, if one of the reasons outlined in Article 36 of the 
Administrative Dispute Act is applicable. 78
A potential issue may arise in procedures where it is not envisaged to file a 
complaint at the administrative court level, but directly before the High Ad-
ministrative Court (similar situation is with the Slovenian Supreme Court) as a 
body of first (and only) judicial instance authorised to resolve the administra-
tive dispute. Such a procedure is the public procurement procedure, where 
the entire process may remain without an oral hearing prior to the dispute be-
fore the High Administrative Court following a complaint against the decision 
of the State Commission for Supervision of Public Procurement Procedures 
(DKOM)
 
79, because, as mentioned supra, the High Administrative Court holds 
oral hearings only if it deems it necessary.80
76 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, case U-III-357/2017, 25 April 2018.
77 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, case U-III/4581/2016, 29 March 2018.
78 Britvić Vetma considers this requirement fulfilled within the current Croatian legislative 
framework. Britvić Vetma, B. (2012). Europska konvencija za zaštitu ljudskih prava (članak 
6) i Zakon o upravnim sporovima iz 2010. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu, 49(2), 
pp. 405-406. https://hrcak.srce.hr/84239. See also Döry v. Sweden, Application no. 28394/95 
(ECtHR 12 November 2002).
79 The Croatian State Commission for Supervision of Public Procurement Procedures may opt 
not to hold an oral hearing, even when there is a plea for an oral hearing made by either of the 
parties involved. Article 427 in relation to Article 434 of the Public Procurement Act, Official 
Gazette HR n. 120/16, 114/22.
80 Article 73(3) of the Croatian Administrative Disputes Act, Official Gazette HR, nb. 20/2010, 
143/2012, 152/2014, 94/2016, 29/2017, 110/21.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
158
Mario Rašić
6 Conclusion
As some authors assert that “administrative law is a concretised constitutional 
law”81, effective legal protection becomes a necessity, especially for parties, 
which are hierarchically in a subordinate position.
Despite administrative courts in Croatia and Slovenia may, within their scope 
of authorities, use their discretion given by law when deciding not to enable 
oral hearings before the court, procedural justice and equality of arms should 
prevail, even when there is no obvious need for oral hearings, if one of the 
parties requests appearing in front of the court. Also, in administrative cases 
within the general administrative procedure, the parties are in principle in an 
unfair hierarchical relationship. Enabling oral hearings should be emphasized 
especially during administrative disputes, as the asymmetry of parties in ad-
ministrative procedures prior to the administrative dispute could still be pre-
sent without an oral hearing.
Regarding de lege ferenda, it should reiterated that the right to be heard is a 
fundamental procedural right. Subjects not allowed an oral hearing, as a vital 
instrument of the whole concept of a right to a fair trial, need to be provided 
with improved protective rights to avoid cases of illegal absence of an oral 
hearing from occurring and procedural rights in view of reopening the case 
where a severe violation has been found,
Subjects are entitled to an oral hearing to resolve a dispute of any substance 
between themselves and the state. At the very least, appellants should have 
an opportunity to be heard, to understand the process and have confidence 
in the fairness of the process as a whole. Therefore, in most cases, administra-
tive procedures and disputes should require an oral hearing before at least 
one instance. Additionally, hearings before the first instance administrative 
court would almost always ensure the right to a fair trial.
Accordingly, to ensure that oral hearings are not arbitrarily refused, they 
should be obligatory unless the parties agree to waive their right. It should 
be mandated that an administrative court of full jurisdiction must hold an oral 
hearing upon request from a party, whether explicit or implied. Based on the 
conducted analysis, both Slovenian and Croatian legal frameworks should con-
sider including provisions allowing for oral hearings before the first instance 
if requested so by any party submitting or disputing evidence and facts or 
contesting legal or procedural matters, unless the parties waive their right in 
writing. This would ensure respecting Article 6(1) of the Convention in almost 
every case, and would also be in line with practices from the United Kingdom 
in relation to procedures before final tribunals of full jurisdiction, where the 
legislative framework in principle “contemplates that agreement is required 
to proceed without an oral hearing whenever there is a decision which would 
constitute the end of the case”.82 Another example is the Hungarian General 
81 Werner, F. (1959). Verwaltungsrecht als konkretisiertes Verfassungsrecht. Deutsches Verwal-
tungsblatt, vol. 74, pp. 527–533.
82 Mills, A. (2012). The Requirement of an Oral Hearing in Judicial Review Claims, Judicial Review, 
17(4), pp. 326–329, DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2012.11426747.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
159
Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes: A Comparative Analysis of  
Slovenia and Croatia
Rules of Administrative Procedures and Services which grants the parties with 
a right to be heard without exceptions.83
The literature review showed the tendency towards narrowing down the 
right to an oral hearing84 and the focus seems to be switching on ensuring a 
fair trial within a reasonable time. Some authors also indicate that oral hear-
ings could sometimes be difficult to organize and would result in prolonged 
adjudication or higher expenses.85 This finding is contrary to other studies 
which have shown that both very quick and very lenient judicial decision mak-
ing processes produce more uncertainty for both the parties and the general 
public, with “timely” being the preferred outcome.86
To take into account both arguments, a reasonable approach to tackle this 
issue for both legal frameworks would be to regulate that administrative 
courts should provide a detailed justification in writing as to why they have 
dispensed with an oral hearing despite one of the parties requested it. Such a 
provision would have prevented the Mirovni Inštitut case from being brought 
before the European Court of Human Rights. The same requirement could 
also be extended to respective general administrative procedures.
Another consideration could be to allow lex specialis to determine any spe-
cial types of shortened or emergency procedures87 where oral hearings could 
be dispensed with due to the protection of public interest.88 For this recom-
mendation, authorities could add a similar safeguard as found in Article 24(4) 
of the Austrian Federal Act on Proceedings of Administrative Courts which 
explicitly requires that dispensing with a hearing in spite of a party’s request 
must not be contrary to Article 6(1) of the Convention and Article 47 of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.89
Finally, for the Republic of Slovenia, in relations to reopening the case where 
a severe violation has been found, better protection on the national level in 
83 Gárdos-Orosz, F. and Temesi, I. (2016). The principle of effective legal protection in Hungarian 
administrative law, in Z. Szente and K. Lachmayer, eds., The Principle of Effective Legal Protec-
tion in Administrative Law : A European Perspective. London: Routledge, p. 165.
84 For example in the Republic of Austria, Helmreich, M. (2013). Absence of an oral hearing be-
fore the Independent Administrative Panel. Vienna Online Journal on International Constitu-
tional Law, 7(4), pp. 543–546. On the decision level of the ECtHR, see Lillo Lobos, R. (2022). 
Understanding due process in non-criminal matters: how to harmonize procedural guarantees 
with the right to access to justice. Springer, p. 143.
85 Samuels, A. (2005). A Right to an Oral Hearing in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings?. The Cambridge 
Law Journal, 64(3), pp. 523–527. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4500818.
86 Valkeapaa, A., Seppala, T. (2014). Speed of Decision-Making as a Procedural Justice Principle. 
Social Justice Research, 27. p. 305; Outlaw, R. et al. (2019). How Fair versus How Long: An 
Integrative Theory-Based Examination of Procedural Justice and Procedural Timeliness. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 72(3), pp. 361–386.
87 Gordon indicates that national security seems to be the main justification for limiting the right 
to a hearing in the United Kingdom. See: Gordon, A. (2013). Article 6 ECHR, Civil Rights, and 
the Enduring Role of the Common Law. European Public Law, 19(1), pp. 75–96.
88 Szente, Z. (2016). The principle of effective legal protection in administrative law – a com-
parison, in in Z. Szente and K. Lachmayer, eds., The Principle of Effective Legal Protection in 
Administrative Law: A European Perspective. London: Routledge, pp. 356–393.
89 Article 24(4) of the Austrian Federal Act on Proceedings of Administrative Courts (Origi-
nal version: Federal Law Gazette I No. 33/2013, as amended by: Federal Law Gazette I No. 
109/2021). It is worth noting that the concrete provision can be applied only if an oral discus-
sion would not further clarify the legal matter.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
160
Mario Rašić
which cases such as Mirovni Inštitut and Produkcija plus may fully enjoy the 
rights as given in the Article 15(4) of the Slovenian Constitution (which ex-
pressly guarantees the right to obtain redress for any violation of human 
rights and fundamental freedoms) may be provided if the Slovenian Admin-
istrative Dispute Act added the clause for applying for renewal in situations 
when in a final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights it was de-
cided on a violation of fundamental human right or freedom in a way differ-
ent from the judgment of the court – as the Croatian Administrative Disputes 
Act regulates.
However, the de lege ferenda proposal for broadening the obligation for oral 
hearings in administrative law should not be assessed as a separate element, 
but also taking into account its public policy implications in the context of the 
overall reform of the judicial system. Although international organizations 
clarify that the “European Administrative Space” encompasses the right a 
hearing in administrative decision making procedures90, extending the right to 
a hearing and obliging authorities to justify each dispense of that right could 
add another layer of formalization of the procedures and affect their overall 
length. This could be seen as contrary to the conclusions of some authors that 
administrative proceedings should use the simplest available (preferably digi-
tal) solutions in to conclude files within reasonable time.91 This could, in turn, 
ultimately lead to a less positive perception of the public administrations and 
judiciary in the eyes of the general public. However, assessed literature and 
cases show that omitting the right to an oral hearing, especially without pro-
viding written justification, could ultimately lead to more detrimental – and 
longer – outcomes. The social and public policy impact assessment of adding 
de lege ferenda provisions is an issue that was not addressed in this paper, but 
could pose an important topic for further research.
The information and views set out in this article are those of the author and do 
not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Institution.
90 OECD (1999). European Principles for Public Administration. SIGMA Papers, 27. Paris.
91 Rozczynski, B. (2022). Simplification and Electronisation of Administrative Procedure in the 
Visegrad Group Countries – a Sociological and Legal Approach. Central European Public Ad-
ministration Review, 20(2), pp. 123-146. https://doi.org/10.17573/cepar.2022.2.06

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
161
Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes: A Comparative Analysis of  
Slovenia and Croatia
References
Administrative Dispute Act, Official Gazette SFRY 4/1977, 36/1977, Official 
Gazette HR 53/1991, 9/1992, 77/1992.
Administrative Dispute Act, Official Gazette RS, nb. 105/06, 107/09, 62/10, 
98/11, 109/12, 10/17, 49/23.
Administrative Disputes Act, Official Gazette HR, nb. 20/2010, 143/2012, 
152/2014, 94/2016, 29/2017, 110/21.
Adžić v. Croatia, Application no. 19601/16 (ECtHR 02 August 2019).
Austrian Federal Act on Proceedings of Administrative Courts (Original version: 
Federal Law Gazette I No. 33/2013, as amended by: Federal Law Gazette I No. 
109/2021).
Bilevičiūtė, E. (2022). Actual issues of remote court hearings in administrative 
procedure. Acta Prosperitatis, 13, pp. 7–23.
Borraccetti, M. (2011). Fair Trial, Due Process and Rights of Defence in the EU 
Legal Order, in Giacomo, D. (ed.) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Ius 
Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, 8, Springer, Dordrecht.
Breuer, M. (2016). Creating a European-wide standard of effective legal 
protection: The European Convention on Human Rights. In Z. Szente and K. 
Lachmayer, eds., The Principle of Effective Legal Protection in Administrative 
Law : A European Perspective. London: Routledge.
Britvić Vetma, B. (2012). Europska konvencija za zaštitu ljudskih prava (članak 6) 
i Zakon o upravnim sporovima iz 2010. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u 
Splitu, 49(2), pp. 395–410.
Čarni, M. and Košak, Š. (2013). A Guide to the Republic of Slovenia Legal System 
and Legal Research. At <https://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Slovenia1.
html>, accessed 14 October 2022.
Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, Official Gazette RS, nb. 33/91-I, 42/97, 
66/2000, 24/03, 69/04, 68/06, 47/13, 75/16, 92/21.
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, case U-III/4581/2016, 29 March 
2018.
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, case U-III-357/2017, 25 April 2018.
Correia, S. (2011). Administrative Due or Fair Process: Different Paths in the 
Evolutionary Formation of a Global Principle and of a Global Right, in G. 
Anthony et al., eds., Values in Global Administrative Law, Hart Publishing, 
Oxford, pp. 313-362. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781472560889.ch-014.
Council of Europe (2022). Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on 
Human Rights. Right to a fair trial (civil limb). Strasbourg. At <https://www.echr 
.coe.int/documents/d/echr/guide_art_6_eng>, accessed 12 November 2023.
Council of Europe (prepared by: Roagna, I.) (2018). The right to trial within 
reasonable time under Article 6 ECHR.
Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights 
and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 
November 1950.
Đanić Čeko, A. and Kovač, P. (2020). Comparative Analysis of an Administrative 
Appeal in Croatian, Slovenian, and EU Law. EU and Comparative Law Issues 
and Challenges Series (ECLIC), 4, pp. 1065–1096. https://doi.org/10.25234/
eclic/11940.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
162
Mario Rašić
De Graaf, C. V. (2021). Procedural fairness: Between human rights law and 
social psychology. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 39(1), pp. 11–29. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0924051921992749.
Đerđa, D. (2010). Sudske odluke u upravnom sporu – pozitivno i buduće pravno 
uređenje. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Rijeci, 31(1), pp. 445–473. https://hr 
cak.srce.hr/53572.
Đerđa, D. and Kryska, D. (2018). Neka rješenja upravnog spora u usporednom 
pravu: kako unaprijediti hrvatski upravni spor?. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta 
Sveučilišta u Rijeci, 39(1), pp. 91–126. https://doi.org/10.30925/zpfsr.39.1.3.
Döry v. Sweden, Application no. 28394/95 (ECtHR 12 November 2002).
European Court of Human Rights (2022). Overview 1959-2021 ECHR. Strasbourg: 
Council of Europe.
European Court of Human Rights, HUDOC database website. At <https://hudoc.
echr.coe.int/eng>, accessed 17 September 2022.
Fischer v. Austria Application no. 16922/90 (ECtHR, 26 April 1995).
Fröbrich v. Germany, Application no. 23621/11, (ECtHR 16 March 2017).
Galič, A. (2017). The inconsistency of case law and the right to a fair trial, 
in Uzelac, A., van Rhee, C., eds., Revisiting procedural human rights. 
Fundamentals of civil procedure and the changing face of civil justice. 
Intersentia, Cambridge, pp. 17–51.
Gárdos-Orosz, F. and Temesi, I. (2016). The principle of effective legal protection 
in Hungarian administrative law. In Z. Szente and K. Lachmayer, eds., The 
Principle of Effective Legal Protection in Administrative Law: A European 
Perspective. London: Routledge, pp. 158–173.
Gerards, J. H. and Glas, L. R. (2017). Access to justice in the European Convention 
on Human Rights system. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 35(1), pp. 
11–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0924051917693988.
Guran, M. (2019). Short considerations on the scope of the right to a fair trial 
provided by art. 6 of the ECHR – the concept of “criminal charge”. Law review 
(Romania), 2, pp. 157–165.
Harris, D. J. (1975). The application of Article 6 (1) of the European Convention 
on Human Rights to Administrative Law. The British Year Book of 
International Law, 47(1), pp. 157–200.
Helmreich, M. (2013). Absence of an oral hearing before the Independent 
Administrative Panel. Vienna Online Journal on International Constitutional 
Law, 7(4), pp. 541–546. https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2013-0407.
High Administrative Court of the Republic of Croatia, case Usž-1927/15-8, 30 
November 2016.
Hirvela, P. and Heikkila, S. (2021). Right to a fair trial: a practical guide to the 
Article 6 case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Intersentia.
Ilić, I., and Knežević, S. (2020). Scope of Article 6 of the European Convention 
on Human Rights - Contribution of the European Court of Human 
Rights Practice. Balkan Social Science Review, 16, pp. 39–55. https://doi.
org/10.46763/BSSR2016039I.
Johannesson, L. (2023). Silence and Voice in Oral Hearings: Spatial, Temporal, 
and Relational Conditions for Communication in Asylum and Compulsory 
Care Hearings. Social & Legal Studies, 32(3), pp. 399–419. https://doi.
org/10.1177/09646639221118654.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
163
Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes: A Comparative Analysis of  
Slovenia and Croatia
Kamber, K. (2022). The Right to a Fair Online Hearing. Human Rights Law Review, 
22(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngac006.
Kerševan, E. (2016). The principle of effective legal protection in administrative 
law in Slovenia. In Z. Szente and K. Lachmayer, eds., The Principle of Effective 
Legal Protection in Administrative Law: A European Perspective. London: 
Routledge, pp. 266–280.
Kiesiläinen, J. (2008). Effiency and justice in procedural reforms: the rise and 
fall of the oral hearing. In van Rhee, C., Uzelac, A. (eds.) Civil justice between 
efficiency and quality: from Ius Commune to the CEPEJ. Intersentia, Oxford, 
pp. 29–45.
Koprić, I. and Đulabić, V. (2009). Modernizacija općeg upravnog postupka i javne 
uprave u Hrvatskoj (Modernisation of the General Administrative Procedure 
and Public Administration in Croatia). Zagreb: Institut za javnu upravu and 
Društveno veleučilište.
Koprić, I. et al. (2016). Legal remedies in administrative procedures in Western 
Balkans. Danilovgrad: Regional School of Public Administration.
Kulesza, C. (2021). Remote Trial and Remote Detention Hearing in Light of the 
ECHR Standard of the Rights of the Accused. Białostockie Studia Prawnicze, 
26(3), pp. 205–221. https://doi.org/10.15290/bsp.2021.26.03.11.
Langford, I. (2009). Fair Trial: The History of an Idea. Journal of Human Rights. 
8(1), pp. 37-52, DOI: 10.1080/14754830902765857.
Law on General Administrative Procedure, Official Gazette HR, nb. 47/09, 110/21.
Lillo Lobos, R. (2022). Understanding due process in non-criminal matters: how 
to harmonize procedural guarantees with the right to access to justice. 
Springer.
Mills, A. (2012). The Requirement of an Oral Hearing in Judicial Review Claims, 
Judicial Review, 17(4), pp. 326–329, DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2012.11426747.
Milošević, M. and Knežević Bojović, A. (2018). Trial within Reasonable Time in 
EU Acquis and Serbian Law. EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges 
Series (ECLIC), 1, pp. 447–470. https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/6540.
Mirovni Inštitut v. Slovenia, Application no. 32303/1 (ECtHR 13 June 2018).
OECD (1999). European Principles for Public Administration. SIGMA Papers, 27. 
Paris.
Oliveira, A. M. et al. (2023). An Overview of the Portuguese Electronic 
Jurisdictional Administrative Procedure. Laws, 12(5), 84. https://doi.
org/10.3390/laws12050084.
Outlaw, R. et al. (2019). How Fair versus How Long: An Integrative Theory-Based 
Examination of Procedural Justice and Procedural Timeliness. Personnel 
Psychology, 72(3), pp. 361–391.
Paduch, A. (2021). The Right to a Fair Trial Under Article 6 ECHR During the 
Covid-19 Pandemic. Central European Public Administration Review (Online), 
19(2), pp. 7–25. https://doi.org/10.17573/cepar.2021.2.01
Paužaitė-Kulvinskienė, J. (2016). The principle of effective legal protection in 
administrative law in Lithuania, in Z. Szente and K. Lachmayer, eds., The 
Principle of Effective Legal Protection in Administrative Law: A European 
Perspective. London: Routledge, pp. 190–217.
Produkcija Plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia Application no. 47072/15, 
(ECtHR 3 January 2019).
Public Procurement Act, Official Gazette HR, nb. 120/16, 114/22.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 2/2023
164
Mario Rašić
Rosas, A. (2014). Oral Hearings before the European Court of Justice. Maastricht 
Journal of European and Comparative Law, 21(4), 596–610. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1023263X1402100402.
Rozczynski, B. (2022). Simplification and Electronisation of Administrative 
Procedure in the Visegrad Group Countries – a Sociological and Legal 
Approach. Central European Public Administration Review, 20(2), pp. 123–
146. https://doi.org/10.17573/cepar.2022.2.06.
Samuels, A. (2005). A Right to an Oral Hearing in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings?. 
The Cambridge Law Journal, 64(3), pp. 523–527.
Šarin, D. (2015). Pravo na pristup sudu u praksi Europskog suda za ljudska prava. 
Pravni vjesnik, 31(3-4), 269–296. https://hrcak.srce.hr/155994.
Scarth v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 33745/96 (ECtHR, 22 July 1999).
SchulerZgraggen v. Switzerland, Application no. 14518/89 (ECtHR 24 June 1993).
Speil v. Austria (dec.), Application no. 42057/98 (ECtHR 5 September 2002).
Staničić, F., Britvić Vetma, B. and Horvat, B. (2017). Komentar Zakona u upravnim 
sporovima. Zagreb: Narodne novine.
Szente, Z. (2016). The principle of effective legal protection in administrative law 
– a comparison, in Z. Szente and K. Lachmayer, eds., The Principle of Effective 
Legal Protection in Administrative Law: A European Perspective. London: 
Routledge, pp. 356–393.
Szente, Z. and Lachmayer, K. (eds.) (2016). The principle of effective legal 
protection in administrative law: A European perspective. London: Routledge.
Treichl, C. (2019). The Denial of Oral Hearings by International Administrative 
Tribunals as a Factor for Lifting Organizational Immunity before European 
Courts: A(nother) Critical View. International Organizations Law Review, 
16(2), 407–446. https://doi.org/10.1163/15723747-20181139.
Uzelac, A. (2004). Vladavina prava i pravosudni sustav: Sporost pravosuđa kao 
prepreka pridruživanju, in Ott. K. (ed.), Pridruživanje Hrvatske Europskoj Uniji, 
Izazovi institucionalnih prilagodbi, 2, pp. 99–123.
Valkeapaa, A. and Seppala, T. (2014). Speed of Decision-Making as a Procedural 
Justice Principle. Social Justice Research, 27. p. 305–321.
Varela Assalino v. Portugal, Application no. 64336/01 (ECtHR 25 April 2002).
Vuille, J., Lupària, L. and Taroni, F. (2017). Scientific evidence and the right to 
a fair trial under article 6 ECHR. Law, Probability and Risk, 16(1), pp. 55–68. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgx001.
Werner, F. (1959). Verwaltungsrecht als konkretisiertes Verfassungsrecht. 
Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt, 74, pp. 527–533.
Zendeli, E. (2013). The Challenges of the Implementation of Paragraph of Article 
of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 
in the Judicial System of the Republic of Macedonia. Journal of Politics and 
Law, 6(2), pp. 193–201.
Zrvandyan, A. (2016). Casebook on European fair trial standards in administrative 
justice. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Žuber, B. and Lovšin, Š. (2019). Judicial dialogue in the light of protocol no. 16 
to the European Convention on Human Rights. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta 
Sveučilišta u Rijeci, 40 (2), pp. 899–925.