Column. Administrative justice reform: urgent issues
Experts Isa Khamedov and Igor Tsai write in their new article about the current issues of the reform of an important institution of administrative law...
In their new article, experts Isa Khamedov and Igor Tsai write about topical issues of the reform of an important institution of administrative law — administrative justice, its central element — administrative proceedings, as well as the draft law on judicial community bodies.
In 2017, by Presidential Decree No.UP-4966, administrative courts were established in Uzbekistan for the first time in history. Initially, their competence was ambiguously defined: in addition to public law disputes, cases of administrative offenses were also assigned to the jurisdiction of the new courts, which does not correspond to the modern doctrine of administrative justice. By 2021, the administrative courts were reformed: cases of administrative offenses were excluded from their jurisdiction and transferred to the jurisdiction of the criminal courts. Administrative courts began to consider only public law disputes. With the adoption of the Code of Administrative Procedure (CaaS) in 2018, an independent procedural form for the consideration of such disputes appeared. Thus, technically, the reform of administrative justice according to the German model was carried out: a modern system of administrative courts and administrative proceedings appeared in Uzbekistan. This was considered as the most important step in ensuring the protection of the constitutional rights of citizens and business entities from illegal decisions and actions of administrative authorities.
The procedural form of administrative proceedings was not perfect from the very beginning. KOAs had a number of significant drawbacks. In particular, it did not have a central concept of an administrative act, and instead of the principle of the "active role of the court" characteristic of the administrative process, the principle of competition inherent in the civil process was consolidated. The main drawback of the new administrative legislation was that its two main laws, the ZAP and the Code of Administrative Offences, were not systematized and did not agree on key concepts, principles and institutions.
In April 2023, important changes and additions were made to the Administrative Code: the principle of the "active role of the court", or the inquisitorial principle, which is key to the administrative process, was consolidated, the institution of a settlement agreement was introduced, and the powers of the administrative court to impose judicial fines on officials of administrative bodies and other public bodies in case of non-enforcement of a judicial act were defined.. These changes have brought the administrative court closer to the modern doctrinal standard of administrative justice. However, significant shortcomings remain in the administrative procedure, which must be eliminated for the full implementation of the reform.
In January 2025, by Presidential Decree No.PP-33 "On additional measures to introduce modern mechanisms for judicial protection of the rights of citizens and business entities", the Concept for Improving Legislation on Administrative Proceedings was approved and an Interdepartmental Commission was formed, which has been working on a draft of a new version of the Administrative Code for almost five months. The success of this development is largely determined by the extent to which it will be based on the modern doctrine of administrative justice. In this regard, we consider it necessary to highlight a number of fundamental doctrinal issues for this reform.
Doctrinal issues of reform
Administrative justice is an organizational and legal mechanism characteristic of a rule-of-law state, designed to resolve administrative disputes in a judicial (quasi-judicial) and pre-trial manner in order to protect the rights of interested persons from the unlawful influence of administrative and legal activities of administrative bodies. Administrative disputes are understood as public law disputes that arise between interested parties and administrative authorities. Practically, we are talking about all public law disputes that have no constitutional significance.
As a rule, administrative justice presupposes the existence of special bodies designed to exercise jurisdiction over administrative disputes. These may be specialized courts, structures in courts of general jurisdiction, or tribunals (quasi-judicial bodies). Another essential element is a special procedural form, i.e. a special judicial or quasi—judicial procedure for resolving administrative disputes. In a narrow sense, administrative justice covers only the judicial mechanism for the consideration of administrative disputes, or administrative proceedings. Broadly speaking, administrative justice encompasses the entire range of institutions designed to resolve administrative disputes, including the system of pre-trial administrative appeals.