Decentralisation has been recognised as one of the key priorities of the 2014 Serbian Public Administration Reform Strategy. To that end, the Serbian Government has taken steps towards preparing a national decentralisation strategy. Serbia has a single-level and almost completely monotype structure of local government, in which towns have the same organisation of bodies, and almost identical competences as municipalities do, including some minimal exceptions for the Town of Belgrade, as the country’s capital. In the light of the ongoing discussions on decentralisation in general and, more specifically, on the reform of the local government system, the authors comment on some of the issues in the centre of that discussion, particularly those relating to the status of towns in general and the status of the capital, and provide proposals for possible overall reforms of the local government system. Consequently, these issues will be analysed from the perspective of the need to alter the current constitutional framework.

No abstract

Current territorial organisation in Serbia was basically set during the 1960s. Great demographic and economic changes were not reflected in changes of legislation on territorial organisation. Such territorial organisation is a basis for a single-level and almost completely monotype local self-government system. After providing a detailed overview of legislation on territorial organisation and local self-government in the previous two centuries, the authors analyse the current system and attempt to outline possible lines of reform of territorial organisation. These proposals are viewed as a part of efforts towards greater decentralisation and establishment of a multi-level and/or polytype local self-government.

Serbian Law on General Administrative Procedure (LGAP) opened a possibility for broadening the standing in administrative procedures and administrative disputes, by inclusion of subjects representing collective interests and interest of the wider public - primarily, citizen associations and similar organizations. However, by failing to regulate a series of concrete issues, the Law places the administration and the Administrative Court before a challenge, demanding from them an extensive interpretation of not only LGAP's provisions, but other legislation already recognizing such organizations as AIDS in realization of the public interest. The author analyzes relevant legislation, as well as available administrative and court caselaw in search of these answers. The lack of explicit legal provisions could be balanced by a creative approach in practice, especially by the Administrative Court. Having in mind comparative solutions, the question arises whether it is necessary to regulate this category of potential parties separately or to link it more explicitly to the already existing notion of an interested party. Instead, completely new notions have been introduced - collective interests and the wider interests of the public - which are not or not consistently defined in Serbian law. The current, not so voluminous case law, shows that the administrative bodies need a more direct indication of the rules, i.e. a more explicit definitions of these terms. However, despite the restrictive legal framework, administrative bodies should be open to understanding the specific circumstances, i.e. the motivation that an organization has when it seeks standing. In the normative sphere, one of the solutions could be to envisage the analogous application of LGAP's provisions on the interested party. Other solutions could be sought in explicitly mentioning them in the provisions on right to appeal. The current formulations of LGAP do not provide sufficient guidance to the administration and an extensive interpretation would be a great challenge for them. An active approach of the Administrative Court could show the way for the administration toward and effective application of these provisions of LGAP.

No abstract