Abstract
This thesis treats about the regulation of legal actions in the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure with emphasis on problems related to the choice of the correct legal action type (against a decision, for protection against inaction and for protection against unlawful interference) in borderline cases in which is difficult to determine a form of administrative activity. The main goal is to analyze if it is possible to construct a universal type of administrative legal action, or at least to propose a solution that will make different types of administrative legal actions more permeable.
The first part deals with key procedural institutes that are common to all types of actions. In particular it is the concept of public right, which is the basis of active standing to bring an action, and all other legal regulation derives from it. This also includes the issue of suspensory effect and interim measures, as well as incidental review of measures of a general nature. The issue of an administrative action in the public interest, which is only related to an action against a decision, cannot be neglected, although other activities of the administration may also detriment the public interest. In the second part, the thesis deals with the very "inside" of administrative legal actions in order to answer the question whether three separate types of actions can be unified into one. Emphasis is placed on case law issues with the choice of the type of action, the deadline for filing a lawsuit, the conditions of the proceedings, the decision of the regional court and issues related to the cassation complaint proceedings. In the third part, the system of several administrative actions is compared with a "single" administrative action based on the théorie de l´acte attaquable. Swiss legislation is analyzed as an example. In her case, a single complaint to the administrative court is lodged against the decision or against inaction. The unlawful intervention of the administration is "transformed" into a decision by submitting an application for protection against unlawful interference before the administrative authority, and subsequently it is possible to file a complaint with the administrative court. The public law complaint to the Supreme Court is not cassation, but reformative. The earlier used concept of cassation was found to be impractical.
It is concluded that the variety forms of public administration activities do not allow the emergence of a single type of action, and therefore it is necessary to reduce the differences between types of action by the possibility of changing the action type in proceedings before the regional court and changing the cassation complaint to a reform complaint. At the same time, other sub-topics are proposed for changes in legislation or further academicals research.