Abstract

This article is devoted to the subject of the confluence of administrative proceedings. It should be pointed out that the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure do not regulate the issue of priority in case of concurrence of the appellate proceedings with the proceedings for annulment of a decision, as well as priority in the event of coincidence of different extraordinary proceedings. The rules for resolving cases of priority of one or the other proceedings have been shaped by judicial decisions or based on the views of doctrine in this area. It should be emphasized that this situation may occur in four different situations. Firstly, between two extraordinary procedures that are meant to remove qualified defects (i.e. the procedure of resuming the proceedings and the procedure for annulling the decision). Another situation may be the coincidence of the procedure for verifying the decision affected by a qualified defect with the procedure for verifying the correct decision or the decision affected by a non-qualified defect (e.g. the coincidence of the procedure for annulment of the decision with the repeal or change of decision procedure). The third option is the convergence of procedures of verifying correct judgments and judgments defective to an unqualified degree (e.g. the coincidence of the repeal or change of decision procedure, specified in Art. 154 of the Code of Administrative Procedure with the decision-making procedure under Art. 163 of the Code). The last option is the coincidence of the appellate procedure, initiated by a party of the proceedings filing for an ordinary remedy in the form of an appeal with the extraordinary procedure for annulment, which in exceptional situations may be used in relation to non-final decisions. The article, based on the case law of administrative courts and the position of the doctrine, indicates the rules for proceeding in the event of any of the above-mentioned situations.