Grounds for the Admissibility of a Claim and Judicial Practice in Administrative Proceedings

Abstract

The institution of the admissibility of a claim constitutes one of the fundamental procedural mechanisms in administrative law, as it determines not only the possibility of judicial examination of a case but also significantly influences effective access to justice.

The present study aims to examine the significance of the criteria governing the admissibility of claims, the particularities of their application, and the existing judicial practice in this field. The research is based on an analysis of both the relevant legislative framework and judicial decisions, thereby providing a comprehensive assessment of the subject matter.

The findings demonstrate that the admissibility of a claim should not be regarded merely as a formal procedural requirement. Rather, it represents a legal instrument that substantially affects the effective realization of the right of access to justice. While this institution serves the legitimate objective of ensuring procedural economy and preventing the unnecessary use of judicial resources, judicial practice reveals considerable inconsistency in the interpretation and application of the admissibility criteria. Such inconsistency is attributable both to the evaluative nature of the applicable legal provisions and to the relatively short period of development of administrative law in Georgia.

Particular attention is devoted to the challenges associated with the interpretation of legal norms, which frequently result in divergent judicial approaches to the application of admissibility requirements and consequently undermine legal certainty and predictability. This tendency is especially evident in cases where the Supreme Court remands disputes to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration due to deficiencies in the assessment of claim admissibility.

In conclusion, the study argues that the effective functioning of the institution of claim admissibility requires greater legislative clarity, the development of consistent judicial practice, and an appropriate balance between procedural safeguards and the fundamental right of access to justice. Achieving such a balance would contribute both to the efficient administration of justice and to the effective protection of individual rights.