Judicial review of administrative action is not only limited to points of law addressed in previous administrative proceedings, but must give answer to the main grounds of appeal raised by the appellants
In its Decision 23/2018, of 5 March, the Constitutional Court (CC) ruled on a constitutional claim for infringement of the fundamental right to an effective remedy and a fair trial (art. 24.1 of the Constitution). In this claim it was alleged that the Administrative District Court, which had dismissed his administrative appeal against an administrative penalty, disobeyed the doctrine of the Constitutional Court. The District Court had refused to assess one of the grounds raised by the appellant on the basis of the ‘reviewing character’ of judicial review proceedings of administrative action. Specifically, the Court had argued that this ground of appeal had not been raised within the previous administrative proceedings and therefore it was not appropriate to respond to it.
The Constitutional Court finds the constitutional claim admissible because it qualifies as a case of “special constitutional importance” according to its landmark decision number 155/2009: “the court could have manifestly refused to comply with the case law of the Constitutional Court”. The Constitutional Court grants the appeal and declares the Administrative District Court’s decision null and void for infringement of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection and a fair trial. In this regard, it reminds that this is a right which includes, also in judicial review proceedings regarding administrative action, not only the right to obtain a response to the remedies sought but also to the “principal and substantive” arguments raised by the parties.