Principles of Administrative Proceedings in the Practice of the Administrative Tribunal of Austria – Hungary (1876–1914)

The article is devoted to the study of the principles governing the consideration of administrative cases by public authorities and the Administrative Tribunal of the Austro-Hungarian Constitutional Monarchy.

The constitutional entrenchment of such principles as the separation of powers, popular sovereignty, parliamentarism, democracy, self-government of local communities, citizens’ rights and freedoms, judicial protection of citizens’ rights, the accountability of state authorities to citizens and the establishment of administrative courts became essential guarantees for the development of a Law-Governed State. The function of protecting citizens’ rights from administrative authorities and local self-government institutions was assigned to administrative courts. In the beginning of the twentieth century, the English and the Continental models of administrative justice functioned in Europe. The latter included the French, Prussian, and Austrian systems. A distinctive feature of the Austrian model was that it consisted of a single judicial instance – the Administrative Tribunal, whose jurisdiction extended across the entire territory of the state, its activities complied with the principle of separation of powers. The Tribunal’s decisions had the nature of a precedent.

The Administrative Tribunal functioned solely as a court of cassation, not examining cases on the merits, but only upholding or overturning the challenged decision and remanding the case for reconsideration.

The resolution of public disputes through administrative appeals and judicial protection was carried out in accordance with principles guaranteed by law: the right to judicial protection, publicity, immediacy, orality, the right to legal aid, and the binding nature of court decisions.

The understanding of legal provisions and their uniform application by executive authorities as a result of judicial consideration of the case were formalized in the legal opinions of the Tribunal. These legal opinions were regularly published by the Tribunal.

The law guaranteed the openness of administrative dispute proceedings and the equality of the parties. This principle applied to the stage of administrative procedure as well as judicial consideration.

The administrative body of the executive authority was obliged to conduct the consideration of a claim with the summons and participation of the interested parties.

Case hearings in the Tribunal were generally public and oral. In exceptional cases, for reasons of morality and public order, the Tribunal had the authority to decide on a closed hearing. In such cases, each party to the process had the right to request that three trustees be allowed to attend the session.

All evidence was submitted at the stage of administrative proceedings. The Tribunal did not accept evidence that had not been presented to the administrative authority.

The right to judicial protection arose if a citizen’s subjective public right had been violated by an administrative authority. Such a violation or restriction occurred as a result of the issuance of an administrative act by an executive body. An appellant applying to the Administrative Tribunal had to first complete the procedure of administrative appeal to the highest instance within the system of administrative authorities.

When submitting a complaint to the Tribunal, it was prohibited to introduce claims that had not been a subject of the administrative appeal or to expand the claims during the public oral hearing. Granting a claim that had not been formulated in the original application was deemed a significant violation of administrative procedure.

It was not possible to challenge legal acts in the Tribunal if a final decision that could potentially affect the rights of the parties had not yet been made by the highest instance.

The Tribunal refused to accept the appeal case for review when the higher authority, by its decision, obligated the lower administrative instance to conduct an investigation and issue the appropriate order.

The law defined the grounds for returning a complaint to the party and for refusing to initiate proceedings. Such grounds included: lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal, missing the time limit for filing the complaint, formal deficiencies in the complaint, the existence of a decision in the same matter, or absence of standing (grounds) to file the complaint.

The Tribunal referred to the grounds for the absence of standing in cases where the complainant referred only to a violation of personal interest rather than rights (and later, legal interest), or demanded exclusively the protection of public interests instead of their subjective rights.

The law guaranteed the right to legal aid during the consideration of an administrative case. This principle was ensured through the right of an attorney to sign the complaint, submit evidence, be present and represent the complainant's interests during the hearing.

According to the principle of immediacy, only those Tribunal councillors who were present throughout the oral hearing participated in the deliberation process.

The decisions were announced orally at the same session with the presentation of their most significant reasoning.