The Imperative Character of the Administrative Conflict in Kosovo

This paper aims to show the importance of the institution of administrative conflict in the \ntrue and qualitative protection of the rights and interests of the parties. The control of the legality of \ncertain administrative acts by the judiciary is an indisputable fact that provides not only objective \nprotection, but also subjective protection of the violated rights and interests of the parties. The parties \nrequest protection or intervention of the judiciary for the realization of their rights in various areas \nsuch as: denationalization, administrative contracts, concession, electoral process, minor offenses, \npension rights, disability insurance, customs rights and tax procedures, property rights (eg \nprivatization of construction land, transformation of construction land), and other rights provided by \nlaw. This judicial intervention enables the realization of a right violated by the final administrative \nact. Given the fact that the basic condition for initiating an administrative court procedure or \nadministrative dispute is the existence of a final administrative act, the path to the realization of that \nright or correction of the wrong is long and complicated. According to the legal provisions in Kosovo, \nwhere judicial protection is not realized by specialized administrative courts such as the \nAdministrative Courts of the countries of the region, the legal protection of the subjectively violated \nnorm passes through several institutions as well: before the second instance institution after a \ncomplaint in administrative appeal procedure, before the Basic Court (administrative department), \nbefore the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court as the last instance which acts on the basis of \nextraordinary legal remedies.. Passing through these institutions complicates the realization of the \nright of the party and does not guarantee the de facto realization of the legal rights of the parties.. As a \nrule, always after the end of administrative disputes we do not have a meritorious placement of \njudicial bodies in full jurisdiction, but the "won" case is returned to the administrative authorities and \nthe administrative procedure begins again! To prove what we said above, we will try to answer the \nfollowing questions: Does the court decision provide a guarantee for the acquisition of a violated right \nfor the party, or return to administrative reconsideration? How is the principle of compulsory court \ndecision applied? How to strike a balance between the decisions made and their execution?