GOHAR AVAGYAN

PhD student at the Chair of Civil Procedure at YSU Faculty of Law

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2023.4-9-43

Annotation.

One of the effective methods stipulated by the legislation, which ensures the implementation of judicial decisions, is by establishing a distinct mechanism for securing rights during administrative proceedings. This mechanism, referred to as “preliminary protection of rights,” operates separately from the method used to secure claims. The latter method is applicable only to three specific types of claims and does not extend to dispute claims. Notably, this study focuses on the suspension of administrative acts as a unique form of preliminary protection. It sheds light on the distinctions between this suspension and the general claim securing process. Furthermore, it underscores legislative strategies, identifies legal gaps in the current framework, and suggests legal remedies. The research explores the differences between suspending the execution of an administrative act and suspending its operation. It emphasizes the necessity of empowering courts to employ protective measures while investigating the factual context of a case, guided by terms such as “significant damage,” “reasonable doubt,” and “ impossibility of rights protection.” The interpretation of these terms forms the foundation for suspending administrative acts. The investigation delves into varying interpretations of the term “impossibility” and advocates for uniformity in its application. It also delves into instances where immediate execution of administrative acts is mandated, both as a legal requirement and as a rationale for their swift execution by administrative bodies. This analysis considers the interplay between public and private interests in these scenarios. In this pursuit, the study draws insights from international practices, as well as domestic legislative and judicial experiences. It pinpoints legal gaps and introduces potential legal remedies within this framework.

PDF