(PLO)- The head of the agency with the obligation to execute judgments, if he lacks responsibility in directing, inspecting and urging the execution of administrative judgments, must also bear disciplinary responsibility.
The 2013 Constitution stipulates that the court is a judicial authority, exercising judicial power. When adjudicating, the court in the name of the state power to make a judgment on the correctness of the act. That is why, once the judgments and decisions of the court take effect, they must be guaranteed to be enforced. However, the current administrative judgment enforcement is too difficult.
 |
| An administrative trial was held online by the People’s Court of Binh Duong province recently to hear the case that the Chairman of the People’s Committee of this province was sued by the people. Photo: LE ANH |
Stemming from the function of state management (execution – administration), administrative agencies (CQHCs) are the subjects most exposed to individuals and organizations. It is very easy to see that a person born, during his life may never contact the legislature or the judiciary, but cannot fail to establish a relationship with the CQHC. Then, as a natural tendency, administrative disputes are also likely to arise.
To settle these disputes, the State establishes various methods. If before 1996, the settlement of administrative disputes was only done by way of complaints through administrative procedures. judicial custom.
According to the Law on Administrative Procedures, the first-instance court’s judgment will take legal effect if it is not appealed or protested against; The appellate judgment takes legal effect from the date of its pronouncement. When the judgment takes legal effect, relevant agencies, organizations and individuals must strictly abide by it.
However, according to statistics, in the three years of 2017, 2018, 2019, the total number of court judgments and decisions subject to administrative judgment enforcement monitoring (THAHC) was 1,052, of which there were only 713 judgments. implemented and directed by the People’s Committees and chairpersons of the People’s Committees at all levels, reaching the rate of 68%. Figures for the first 10 months of 2020 are 693 judgments, of which 230 have been completed, and 463 remain to be executed. Although the number of executed administrative judgments has increased over the years, the ratio of completed judgments to the total number of executions tends to decrease and especially reaches a low rate of less than 50% in recent years. 2018, 2019. Among the unfinished judgments, there are many outstanding judgments that have lasted for many years.
The main cause of the delay in administrative clearance was determined to be the lack of a specialized agency in organizing the implementation. Currently, administrative enforcement is carried out according to the “self-execution” mechanism of the judgment debtor. Due to the “self-execution” mechanism, inertia and ignoring became common.
However, if we keep relying on this reason as an excuse, when will the issue of state power control be effectively implemented, when will the court become an agency with the right to outline the activities of the state agencies? administrative authorities against abuse of power, arbitrarily. With the current Party leadership mechanism in our country and the unification of state power, it is time to consider the responsibilities of the head of the agency responsible for administrative enforcement and the immediate superior of the head. the agency must enforce judgment in case it does not urge the implementation of administrative enforcement.
The courts themselves have the power to pronounce judgments, but administrative judgments cannot be enforced by the courts because they do not have a enforcement apparatus. The civil enforcement agency is assigned the task of monitoring administrative enforcement, but this is perhaps a difficult task because this agency does not have a relationship in terms of personnel and organization with the agency that is responsible for administrative enforcement. Meanwhile, the responsibility of the non-commissioned subject, if any, is the type of disciplinary responsibility carried out by the head or immediate superior – who has the right to appoint or approve. Therefore, if the head or his immediate superiors are apathetic, irresponsible, and not drastic in administrative enforcement, no matter how progressive the legal regulations are, it is unlikely to become a tool. effectively promote THAHC.
In the context that the Law on Cadres and Public Officials and the Law on Public Employees were last amended and supplemented in 2019, the provisions of Decree 71/2016 on disciplining non-commissioned persons also need to be revised. These amendments should aim to bring disciplinary responsibility to both the head and the immediate superior of the head of the agency that has administrative enforcement obligations but does not comply. Accordingly, the head and the immediate superior of the head of the agency responsible for judgment enforcement, if he is irresponsible in directing, inspecting and urging administrative enforcement, must also bear disciplinary responsibility. Only then, the effectiveness and quality of THAHC will have positive prospects.
Dr. CAO VU MINH – University of Economics and Law (National University of Ho Chi Minh City)