Administrative Act, Right to Be Heard, and Judicial Review
A citizen, Mr. Hakobyan, applied to a municipal authority for a permit to operate a small café. After two months of silence, the municipality issued a written decision refusing the permit, citing 'non-compliance with sanitary norms' without specifying which norms or providing any inspection report. Mr. Hakobyan was never invited to a hearing or asked to submit additional documents. The decision stated that it could be appealed 'within 10 days to the mayor.' The applicable administrative procedure law requires that an administrative act be reasoned (motivated) and that the affected person be heard before an adverse decision, unless a statutory exception applies. Mr. Hakobyan learned of the decision only when a friend mentioned it; he received no formal notification.
1. Identify the procedural violations in the administrative act.
Read the worked answer
Violations:
- Lack of reasoning (motivation) - Citing 'non-compliance with sanitary norms' without identifying the specific norms or attaching an inspection report fails the duty to give reasons. A reasoned act must state the factual and legal basis so the person can understand and challenge it.
- Right to be heard - Before an adverse decision, the authority must give the person an opportunity to comment. No hearing or invitation to submit documents occurred, and no exception is apparent.
- Notification defect - The act must be properly notified to the addressee; learning about it informally does not start the appeal clock. The authority's failure to notify affects when the time limit begins.
- Misstated appeal route - Limiting appeal to 'the mayor within 10 days' may misstate the actual remedies (administrative appeal and judicial review), potentially misleading the citizen.
2. Advise Mr. Hakobyan on his procedural options and the effect of the defective notification.
Read the worked answer
Options:
- Administrative appeal - He may file a complaint with the superior administrative body (or the mayor, as stated), arguing lack of reasoning and violation of the right to be heard. He should do so promptly, but note that the time limit generally runs from proper notification, which did not occur.
- Judicial review - He may challenge the act before the administrative court, seeking annulment. The court reviews legality, including procedural defects. A failure to give reasons and a breach of the right to be heard are classic grounds for annulment.
- Effect of defective notification - Because he was not formally notified, the appeal period should not be treated as expired; he should document when and how he learned of the decision.
Recommended sequence: Request a copy of the full file and the missing inspection report, file an administrative appeal, and, if unresolved, proceed to court within the lawful period counted from proper notification.
3. If the court annuls the refusal, what happens next and what should the authority do on remand?
Read the worked answer
After annulment:
- The act is removed from the legal order; the authority must re-examine the application rather than automatically grant it.
- On remand the authority must: (a) conduct any necessary inspection and document the findings; (b) give Mr. Hakobyan a genuine opportunity to be heard and to cure defects; (c) issue a reasoned decision citing specific norms and facts; and (d) notify him properly with correct appeal information.
- The authority should also respect the reasonable-time requirement - the initial two-month silence already strained it, so the re-examination should be prompt.
If, after a proper procedure, genuine sanitary non-compliance is documented, a reasoned refusal would then be lawful.