[ad_1]
July 31, 2018 | 14:59 | FOCUS News Agency
Sofia. President Rumen Radev returned for a further discussion on the Act amending and supplementing the Code of Administrative Procedure (CPA), challenging 16 of its provisions, announced the press secretary of the Chief of Staff. State . The head of state believes that the regulation departs from fundamental constitutional principles and distorts the principles and traditional achievements of administrative law. The intensity of the protection of the rights of citizens and legal persons with regard to acts issued by the position of authority and demanding obedience will be reduced. These provisions will undermine the role of administrative justice in the defense of the ordinary person against unlawful acts and arbitrariness of the administration.
The head of state disagrees with the provisions on rules of jurisdiction, in camera hearings, the drastic increase of charges in cbadation and the abolition of the proceedings in cbadation in a number of special laws.
The President stresses that the content of the right to defense has been interpreted on several occasions by the European Court of Human Rights, which admits that the state should not put legal and practical obstacles to its exercise . By creating an unclear generic jurisdiction, increasing court costs with an accepted local jurisdiction, providing for an unjustified draconian increase in cbadation fees, and abolishing the cbadation in special laws, the contested provisions of the APA provide these barriers.
These provisions will reduce the ability of administrative justice to be one of the key factors in ensuring balance and control between government authorities and the rule of law. This jeopardizes the legal and democratic nature of the modern state.
FOCUS News Agency publishes the full text of the reasons for the veto without editorial intervention:
Reasons for the return of a new discussion in the National Assembly of the provisions of the law of amendment and of complement to the Administrative Code, adopted by the 44th National Assembly of July 25, 2018.
Dear members,
I support the need to improve the Code of Administrative Procedure (CPA), as the deficit of justice is most clearly felt in the relations between citizens and legal entities with state organs. The adoption of the Law on the Amendment and Complement of the Administrative Procedure Code (ADP) has made concrete implementation of e-government and e-justice, the administrative contract and the protection against the actions possible. and unjustified omissions from the administration. However, I can not agree with separate provisions of APC CPAs, which distort the constitution of fundamental constitutional principles, distort the traditional principles and achievements of the administrative process, and ultimately reduce the intensity of protection. rights of citizens and legal persons. on the acts issued by the position of authority and demanding obedience.
As head of state, I am guided by the fact that judicial review of executive acts is a particularly important projection of the principle of separation of powers, constructive structure of the system of guarantees of the Rule of law and democracy. That is why I am obliged to oppose any attempt to legislate, which weakens the ability of administrative justice to be the defender of the ordinary person against the unlawful acts and the arbitrariness of the authorities of the state.
1. The rules of jurisdiction must be very clear so that the applicants know which court to address and to avoid conflicts of jurisdiction between the courts. The ADP adopted by the APC Competency Regulation does not fully meet these requirements.
The addition made in § 28 of Art. 132, para. 2, item 2 APC creates problems with generic jurisdiction. On the one hand, the acts of the Council of Ministers, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers and Ministers, which the Supreme Administrative Court (SCC) considers to be the first instance, are not clearly identified. By Decision No. 8 of 2018, the Constitutional Court clarified the meaning of Art. 125, para. 2 of the Constitution, but this does not replace the necessary legal framework. On the other hand, the expression "in the cases provided for by law" gives the impression of a second hypothesis, except for the rule according to which acts of the Council of Ministers, the Prime Minister, vice -First ministers and ministers are considered the first instance by the CSC. This goes beyond the interpretation of the Constitutional Court. The competence in generic jurisdiction creates legal uncertainty and can lead to multiple disputes.
With Article 29, point 1 of the Amendment and Amendment Act, the principle of local jurisdiction in challenging individual administrative acts is amended. As a criterion for determining the competent administrative jurisdiction, the permanent address of the complainant must be indicated. The rules of local jurisdiction should ensure both the link between the case and the area of the court concerned and the appropriate accessibility of this court to both parties. The adopted bylaw does not take into account the hypothesis of people having a current address different from the permanent address that could pose a problem for them and for the administrations whose seat is different from the permanent address of the complainant. In these cases, both parties will be obliged to go to the administrative court in whose jurisdiction the complainant's permanent address is located. In the simultaneous examination of cases before the various administrative jurisdictions, state authorities will have to question their own procedural representatives around the world. This will increase the costs to governments that will be directly or indirectly at the expense of taxpayers. In addition, the change may result in the postponement of proceedings contrary to the principle of speed and procedural economy proclaimed in the art. 11 from the APC. There is no financial estimate for this change, made by a proposal between the first and the second vote of the bill. The justification for a more balanced burden for administrative tribunals should not be at the expense of increasing the cost of access to justice. For these reasons, I believe that the new local jurisdiction does not provide sufficient guarantees for easier, faster and cheaper access to justice.
2. I do not agree with the amendment to the art. 217, para. 2 APC on closed hearings in cbadation. The publicity of hearings is an essential principle of judicial activity that the constitutional legislator has explicitly proclaimed in the art. 121, para. 3. This principle is laid down in all procedural laws (Article 12 of the CPA, Article 11 of the CCP, Article 20 of the CCP), as well as in Art. 5, para. 2 of the Judicial System Act. The right of any person to publicly examine his case is explicitly stated in the art. 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in Art. 6, para. (1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). The principle of publicizing judicial hearings has a twofold meaning. On the one hand, it is a guarantee of a fair trial in which the parties have the right not only to participate personally, but also to be protected from harm. Administration of justice in the dark without public observation. On the other hand, this principle is a guarantee for the realization of the right of citizens to receive and disseminate the information provided in the art. 41, para. 1 of the Constitution and Art. 10, para. 1 of the CPVO.
Indeed, Art. 121, para. 3 of the Constitution allows by law to schedule closed sessions. However, this possibility is an exception to the principle of advertising and should be used proportionately when it is necessary to protect another constitutional value. By having the case dismissed by a panel of three members of the Supreme Administrative Court sitting in open court, depending on the opinion of the judge or the express request of the parties, the amended provision of the. art. 217, para. 2, ex. The third and fourth CPAs do advertise an empirical rule.
3. The fees provided for in § 57 of the cbadation proceedings substantially limit the procedural possibilities of total protection of citizens and legal persons against unlawful acts of the administration. There is no doubt that the type and amount of legal costs are part of the guarantees of access to justice. I admit that current legal costs need to be discounted, but the increase in simple fees in cbadation is drastic (14 times for natural and legal persons and 74 for non-profit legal persons) and does not correspond not to the economic situation and income in Bulgaria. The importers of the bill only report the expected increase in revenue in the budget of the Supreme Administrative Court and administrative courts. However, there is no clear mechanism for defining new dimensions and an badysis of the financial impact of the higher fees introduced for citizens, businesses and budgetary organizations, as these can also be cashmakers. There are no arguments and why, for example, companies providing water, heat, electricity, gas, telecommunication services will pay a fee. simple in the same way as citizens and non-profit legal entities. The increase in simple fees will be a practical obstacle to the exercise of procedural rights of a significant portion of citizens and legal persons. Even the reduced fees on the pension, health and social insurance funds have been increased 5 times compared to the current one.
The introduction of proportional taxes for "identifiable material interest" in cbadation proceedings in administrative cases does not take into account the specificity of these cases. In the area of administrative justice, the direct protection of the lawfulness violated in the implementation of the government, and not the material interest, is a priority. Legality is not a service that a state of law confers on citizens, but a prerequisite for its existence. In this sense, the introduction of proportional fees, which are typical of civil justice, is incompatible with administrative justice, where disputes relate to the illegal performance of the government. Therefore, proportional fees can not be a principle in APC cbadation proceedings. Their application, particularly in the absence of a legal definition of the concept of "identifiable material interest", will result in legal uncertainty and conflicting jurisprudence. Therefore, I also contest the introduction of proportional taxes in the Code of Procedure for Social and Tax Insurance (§ 79, point 4) and in the Environmental Protection Act (§ 111). ) with APC APL. The amendment to the law on the protection of the environment is particularly worrying when the amount of the appeal fee in cbadation for the decision on the badessment of the impact on the environment. environment is entirely left to the discretion of the court. The introduction of a proportional fee will make these procedures inaccessible, which does not correspond to the art. 9 of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.
With APA, APC for the first time amount of court fees is determined by law. This approach does not take into account the dynamics inherent in the amount of income-related fees. This is the reason why fees for judicial proceedings in administrative and civil matters must be stipulated in the tariff of the Council of Ministers. Determining them by Articles 57, 61 and 67 of the Supreme Administrative Court (APC) Act deprives citizens and legal persons of the possibility of contesting the amount of these rights, as they are when they are regulated. by an act of the Council of Ministers. Since the amount of the fees in the cbadation procedure (not only administrative but also civil) represents 50% of the amount of the taxes in first instance, those determined by § 57 can be an argument in favor of a substantial increase taxes and at first instance.
The introduction of proportional taxes, as well as the drastic increase of simple fees in cbadation, are at odds with the nature and purpose of administrative justice – ensuring the protection of the citizen or the weaker legal person against illegal acts of the administration. The requirement of the art. 60, para. 1 of the Constitution, fees are in line with citizens' income, which limits the right of defense under art. 56 of the Constitution. The amount of fees set may be an obstacle for a significant number of citizens and legal entities and the very nature of the rights of the defense will be compromised. In this sense, the adopted law is also problematic with regard to art. 6, para. 1 of the CPVO.
4. As in any other case, I have expressed my position, the right to appeal in first instance before the CPA and the right of appeal in cbadation in their unit constitute the right to administrative justice. The appeal in cbadation is part of the right of defense, which is no longer against the vicious administrative act, but against the illegal judgment. The abolition of the court of cbadation in judicial proceedings, which are already at two speeds, undoubtedly weakens the protection of the rights of citizens and legal persons concerned. This does not correspond to the right of defense (Article 56 of the Constitution) and the right to judicial protection of citizens and legal persons at all stages of the process (Article 122 (1) of the Constitution).
4.1. Limiting the right of defense to one court can only be justified if it is necessary to balance it with another constitutional value. With some of the transitional and final provisions of the PCA APC, this balance is violated. Moreover, the absence of a second instance of cbadation would endanger the rights recognized by the Constitution, which is unacceptable.
This is the case of § 113, point 5, b. "B" exp. last on Art. 75, para. 9 of the Underground Natural Resources Act. The provision of a single court in disputes concerning the forced expropriation of private property for the purpose of exploration and extraction of underground natural resources and the abolition of the property. Forced expropriation does not guarantee a reliable protection of property rights required by art. 17, para. 1 of the Constitution. The unconstitutionality of the first instance decision regarding the performance of the obligation of exploration and exploration license holders or dealers may be an obstacle to taking all measures needed to repair the damage to the ground. This is incompatible with the State's duty to ensure the preservation of the environment (Article 15 of the Constitution) and to guarantee citizens the right to a healthy and favorable environment (Article 55 of the Constitution). Constitution).
Article 114, paragraph 3, of the APA APC excludes the cbadation body to challenge the refusal to provide legal badistance by the National Legal Aid Bureau. This does not guarantee the provision and provision of effective legal badistance and is inconsistent with the nature of the right of defense as a fundamental right of citizens under s. 56 of the Constitution.
I am also opposed to the incompatibility of the first instance decisions on temporary incapacity for work and re-employment, maternity, unemployment (Article 124 (2) of the ABS Law) and social benefits. (Article 130). These are always cases that affect people in difficulty. A rule of law, which is also a social state, must fully guarantee the protection of their rights, especially when these rights are recognized and guaranteed in the art. 47, para. 2 and Art. 51, para. 1 and 2 of the Constitution. The case-by-case procedure, introduced by Article 133 of the Family Allowances for Children Act, does not correspond to the State's obligation to help parents to raise and to educate their children under the art. 47, para. 1 of the Constitution.
With the cessation of the appeal in cbadation of judgments relating to the access to public information (§ 125, point 3), the guarantees of the right to information, which are not unfounded as basis of all other rights, are diminished. In addition to constitutional recognition, this right is part of the rights of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 11), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 10) and the International Covenant on Civil Rights. and policies (Article 19). The importance of the right to information, which is part of the rights of communication, has also been taken into account by the Constitutional Court. According to Decision No. 7 of 1996, this right is at the heart of the democratic process and contributes to the control of the activities of state authorities.
4.2. Освен намаляване интензитета на защитата на накърнени права на граждани и юридически лица, премахването на касационната инстанция има и друго измерение. Когато първоинстанционното съдебно решение е в полза на жалбоподателя, държавният орган ще бъде лишен от възможността да го оспорва. Така липсата на касационна инстанция ограничава адекватната защита на обществения интерес, който държавните органи са длъжни да отстояват. В тази връзка не съм съгласен с направените с § 109, т. 1, 2 и 3 ЗИД АПК промени, които изключват касационната инстанция по много важни въпроси, свързани със земеделските земи. Промяната по изключение на предназначението на земеделските земи следва да преминава пред всички фази на съдебния контрол. То а а а а.. Отпадането на касационната инстанция при промяна на предназначението на земеделски земи не съответства на предвидената в чл. 21 от Конституцията особена закрила на земята, която закрила несъмнено включва и контрола за законност, когато се променя по изключение предназначението на земеделските земи.
Не подкрепям предвиденото в § 79, т. 3 ЗИД АПК ограничаване на съдебния контрол според размера на установени с ревизионен акт публични задължения. В областта на данъчното и осигурителното право е необходима по-висока степен на защита както на частния, така и на обществения интерес, независимо от размера на публичното вземане. Предвидената едноинстанционност ще ограничи пълноценната защита на голям брой физически и юридичически лица. Тя с……………………………………………….. Няма да има механизъм за оспорване на това решение, респ. за събиране на публичните вземания, изключени от касация единствено поради своя размер.
5. Не мога да подмина начина, по който ЗИД АПК беше приет. Между двете гласувания на законопроекта значителна част от постъпилите предложения на самите на законопроекта. Без да оспорвам възможността да се правят предложения по приетия на първо гласуване законопроект, следва да се има предвид, че Конституционният съд в Решение № 8 от 2010 г. посочва, че вносителят на законопроекта няма право да прави предложения върху своя собствен законопроект. Освен това повече от половината от преходните и заключителните разпоредби са предложени почти една година след изтичане на определения от самото Народното събрание срок за предложения между първо и второ гласуване. По този начин не само се удължава срокът за предложения, но и се постига ефект, при който народните представители не са равнопоставени. Съгласно чл. 83, al. 5, т. 2 от Правилника за организацията и дейността на Народното събрание такива предложения могат да правят не всички народни представители, а само членовете на комисията, която е водеща по законопроекта. Така, без необходимата публичност и без възможност за реакция на засегнатите лица, бяха приети няколко разпоредби, срещу които имам възражения, включително и по съществото на направените промени.
Считам, че създаденият с § 124, т. 1 ЗИД АПК чл. 69% Кодекса за социалното осигуряване (КСО) е неприемлив. Пенсиите за осигурителен стаж и възраст от държавното обществено осигуряване се отпускат при настъпване на осигурителния риск "старост" и при условие, че лицето има определения от закона осигурителен стаж. За всички осигурени лица е въведено изискване за определена минимална възраст, след навършването на която може да бъде отпусната пенсия. С чл. 69g, като изключение от прогласения в чл. 3, т. 3 от КСО принцип на равнопоставеност на осигурените лица, се предвижда придобиване на право на пенсия в пълен размер от съдии, прокурори и следователи без изискване за възраст. Необяснимо е защо правилото на чл. 69 ще се прилага само за магистрати, които ĸъм 31 деĸeмвpи 2018 г. имaт пoнe 35 гoдини oбщ юpидичecĸи cтaж, oт ĸoитo пoнe двe тpeти ocигypитeлeн cтaж в opгaнитe нa cъдeбнaтa влacт, но не и за магистрати, за които тези изисквания ще са налице след тази дата. Това прави разпоредбата проблематична с оглед на чл. 6, al. 2 от Конституцията.
Разпоредбата на § 148, т. 1 ЗИД АПК, с която се създава чл.123а в Закона за садебната власт, е нецелесъобразна. Командироването на съдия от ВАС или от административните съдилища и то за срок 1 година, за да наблюдава практиката на Съда на Европейския съюз, на Общия съд на Европейския съюз и на Европейския съд по правата на човека, е несъвместимо със способите, по които те информират за дейността си. На обициалните сайтове и на трите съдилища има достатъчно и своевременна информация за техните решения, която е достъпна за всички магистрати. Няма никаква финансова обосновка колко ще струва прилагането на тази разпоредба, предвид това, че седалищата на тези съдилища са в Люксембург и в Страсбург. След като се увеличават драстично таксите на гражданите и организациите, за да се подпомогне бюджетът на съдебната власт, е недопустимо неефективното му разходване.
Съдържанието на правото на защита многократно е тълкувано от Европейския съд за правата на човека, който приема, че държавата не трябва да поставя правни и практически пречки пред неговото упражняване. Като създават неясна родова подсъдност, увеличават разходите за правосъдие с приетата местна подсъдност, предвиждат необосновано драстично увеличаване на таксите в касационното производство и премахват касационната инстанция в специални закони, част от разпоредбите в ЗИД АПК поставят именно такива пречки. Тези разпоредби ще намалят способността на административното правосъдие да бъде сред основните фактори, които гарантират баланса и контрола между властите в държавното управление и върховенството на закона. Така е застрашен правовият и демократичен характер на съвременната държава.
Уважаеми народни представители,
Воз основа на изложените мотиви упражнявам правото си по чл. 101, al. 1 от Конституцията на Република България да върна за ново обсъждане § 28, § 29, т. 1, § 55 относно чл. 217, al. 2, изр. трето и четвърто и ал. 4, § 57, § 61, § 67, § 79, т. 3 and 4, § 109, т. 1, 2 and 3, § 111, § 113, т. 5, б. "Б" относно чл. 75, al. 9, изр. последно, § 114, т. 3, § 124, § 125, т. 3, § 130, § 133 и § 148, т. 1 от Закона за изменение и допълнение на Административнопроцесуалния кодекс, приет на 25 юли 2018 г.
Отвори в нов прозорец
[ad_2]
Source link
