Area: Javna uprava
Competent authority: MNZ
EZU URL: .nan
Initiative ID: 51
Initiative accepted and completed: '2012-10-08'
Initiative classified in EZU: .nan
Initiative forwarded in response: '2012-10-02'
Initiative published: '2012-10-02'
Initiative submitted: '2012-10-02'
Response from the competent authority: In order to reduce administrative burdens and
  to make the procedure cheaper, you have proposed by e-mail of 02.10.2012 (addressed
  to the portal - 25 %) to amend Article 66(2) and Article 129 of the General Administrative
  Procedure Act (GAPA). As a reason, you cite the case where the client did not attach
  the necessary supporting documents to the application, and the application was therefore
  rejected. However, when submitting a new application, the party had to attach again
  the evidence that it had already submitted in the previous procedure, because the
  ZUP does not provide that it can only refer to them or that the authority must return
  them to the party after the decision becomes final.Once again, we welcome your thoughts
  on possible procedural changes, which do not require legislative intervention. Although
  the ZUP does not explicitly provide that the authority must take into account relevant
  evidence already submitted in the previous or other proceedings in any new proceedings,
  this is self-evident. Article 175 of the ZUP provides that the authority must, of
  its own motion, obtain evidence held by another state authority, a self-governing
  local authority or a holder of public authority, which implies not only an obligation
  to obtain evidence held in its records of documentary material, but also other evidence
  held by other authorities. The legal reasoning of "a maiori ad minus", or reasoning
  from the greater to the lesser, already fully covers such situations, and we are
  convinced that this is how the authorities operate. If you have different information
  or specific experiences, please let us know. Of course, in such cases, the parties
  are expected to draw the attention of the authority to such evidence or to refer
  to it in the (new) application, as the burden of proof is on the party alleging
  the existence of a certain fact.We would like to point out that the conduct of the
  authority in the evidentiary procedure should be distinguished from the conduct
  of the formal examination of the application, especially if the mandatory elements
  of the application are further specified by sectoral regulations. However, it is
  also the case that the authority does not require the submission of documents or
  mandatory elements of the application if the party indicates that it has submitted
  them in the context of an administrative case of the same type or another administrative
  case which is pending or has already been (finally and/or finally) concluded. If
  such document or component meets the requirements in the new procedure, the authority
  will in no case call for supplementation, nor can it reject the application as incomplete.As
  regards the return of documents after the final rejection decision, it is considered
  that the party may request the originals and we see no objection in principle (which
  should be laid down in a sectoral regulation) for the authority not to return them,
  as such documentation is not part of the permanent or archival material. Since the
  above is not subject to administrative procedure, there is no reason to supplement
  the ZUP with administrative obligations of this kind, which fall more within the
  scope of dealing with documentary material. However, we do not see any need to regulate
  this in this respect, given the possibility for the parties to apply to the authority
  at their discretion.
Text file: 51.txt
Title: Proposal to amend and supplement the provisions of Articles 66 and 129 of the
  General Administrative Procedure Act
URL: https://www.stopbirokraciji.gov.si/pobuda/?st=51
