Filing in the administrative court

An administrative court protects an individual or organization against an unlawful decision, action, or inaction of a state body. The application is generally due within six months, a prior administrative complaint is not mandatory, and the respondent is the body or official against whom relief is sought. Filing alone will not normally suspend the contested act.

In brief:

• First distinguish a public-law dispute from a civil or economic case and from administrative-offence proceedings.
• The general filing period under the Administrative Proceedings Code is six months from learning of the violation; a special law may prescribe another period.
• A complaint to a higher authority is mandatory only where legislation expressly says so. A tax authority, khokimiyat, or licensing body can generally be taken directly to court.
• Individuals and business entities ordinarily do not prepay state duty when challenging a body’s decision, action, or inaction, although the final allocation of costs depends on the outcome.
• If enforcement may cause harm before the case ends, request preliminary protection with the application, such as suspension of the act.

Updated: 05 September 2026

What the administrative court hears

An administrative court hears a public-law dispute: one party exercises public authority and the other alleges that this has infringed its rights. This follows from the jurisdiction rule (Art. 26 APC). The category includes challenges to decisions, actions, and inaction of administrative bodies, local authorities and citizens’ self-governance bodies, as well as departmental regulatory acts—the Code lists these cases (Art. 27 APC).

The applicant must show more than abstract disagreement. The act must have infringed a right, obstructed its exercise, or unlawfully imposed an obligation. These are the statutory grounds (Art. 185 APC) for an application.

The applicant may ask the court to invalidate an individual decision, declare an action or inaction unlawful, and order the body to remedy the violation. Losses causally connected with the public-law claim may be joined to it; a standalone damages claim belongs in the civil or economic court. This boundary also follows from the list of administrative cases (Art. 27 APC).

What may be challenged

The dispute may concern a written or electronic decision, refusal, direction, demand, registry entry, assessment, cancellation of a permit, administrative procedure, or physical act. Inaction arises where a body had a legal duty to decide or act but failed to do so within the prescribed time.

Common examples include:

1. a tax authority made an additional assessment, imposed a financial sanction, refused a refund, or failed to consider an application;
2. a khokimiyat adopted a land act without authority, refused an administrative service, or did not perform a duty;
3. a licensing body refused a licence, suspended it, or breached the applicable procedure;
4. a road-safety body failed to issue a document, register an application, or otherwise infringed a right through inaction;
5. a ministry or agency adopted a departmental regulatory act affecting the applicant’s rights.

For a khokimiyat land decision, the stage of the legal relationship matters. A challenge to a public act or inaction goes to the administrative court, but a dispute over a contract or a post-auction result will generally belong in the civil or economic court. The Land Disputes Plenum drew this boundary.

Further reading: khokimiyat land powers, construction, and the boundary between courts are explained in Land and construction.

Who should be the respondent

The respondent is not a registry clerk or a higher ministry added “just in case.” It is the administrative body, citizens’ self-governance body, or official against whom the requested relief is directed. This definition appears in the parties rule (Art. 40 APC).

In practice:

• when challenging a district tax inspectorate’s decision, name that inspectorate even if a regional directorate later reviewed the administrative complaint;
• for a khokim’s decision, the respondent may be the relevant khokim or khokimiyat, depending on who issued the act and against whom relief is sought;
• for a licensing refusal, name the authorized licensing body;
• for inaction of a territorial unit with no separate legal personality, name the state body of which the unit forms part;
• for a special commission’s decision, name the state body performing the functions of its working body.

The Supreme Court explained the last two rules in its Administrative Cases Plenum. Where the action of a particular official is challenged, the application identifies both the relevant legal entity and the official, following the guidance on the parties. The court can replace an improper respondent, but correct identification at filing reduces delay.

Which court receives the application

An ordinary application goes to the interdistrict administrative court at the location of the body or the official’s workplace. The territorial rule appears in the APC (Art. 32 APC). If there are several respondents in different places, the applicant may choose the location of one of them and may also seek extraterritorial venue—the Code permits both options (Art. 33 APC).

A departmental regulatory act of a ministry, state committee, or agency is a special case. The Supreme Court hears that challenge at first instance under the special venue rule (Art. 30 APC). An individual decision of the same agency does not become regulatory merely because of its author: ask whether the instrument lays down generally binding rules for an indefinite group.

What filing period applies

The general filing period is six months from when the interested person learned of the infringement. A challenge to the decision, action, or inaction of a state enforcement officer is due within ten days. The court may reinstate a period missed for a valid reason; all three rules are in the filing-period rule (Art. 186 APC).

Time runs from the day after the applicant learned of the infringement, obstruction, or unlawfully imposed obligation. Missing the period does not justify returning the application: the court accepts the case, examines the reasons, and, if it refuses reinstatement, dismisses the claim on the merits. The Administrative Cases Plenum explains this approach.

In a tax dispute, an administrative complaint to a higher authority neither pauses nor restarts the six-month court period: time is calculated from the lower tax authority’s decision. The Tax Disputes Plenum expressly identifies this risk. Plan the administrative and judicial tracks together instead of waiting for a response until the final day.

Is a pre-court complaint mandatory

The general rule is that an applicant may go directly to court or first complain to a higher body. Failure to use that prior complaint is not a ground to refuse the court application; a mandatory pre-court route exists only where a special law expressly creates it. This is the central Supreme Court guidance.

If the general administrative route is chosen, the complaint is filed through the body that adopted the act. It must forward the complaint and case file to the competent higher body within three working days under the forwarding rule (Art. 63 of the Law). The complaint is generally due within thirty days under the general filing rule (Art. 64 of the Law). The higher body has thirty working days to decide, and failure to decide in time opens the court route (Art. 67 of the Law). Following the administrative decision, the Law allows thirty calendar days to go to court unless a special provision says otherwise—the later filing period (Art. 69 of the Law) is separate.

Before filing, check the sector-specific law and the administrative act itself, which should state the appeal procedure and period. If a special rule requires prior resort to a specified body or commission, attach the complaint, proof of filing, and the response or evidence that the decision period expired.

Tax, khokimiyat, and licensing bodies

The Tax Code permits a choice between the higher tax authority and the court and imposes no general mandatory administrative stage. At the same time, it automatically suspends the contested decision, additional tax assessments, and financial sanctions. The taxpayer must notify the lower body and attach proof of the complaint—the Code sets this procedure (Art. 231 Tax Code). An administrative complaint against a tax-audit or field-inspection decision is filed through the deciding body within one month under the special rule (Art. 232 Tax Code).

Further reading: choosing the addressee, preparing documents, and review of a tax complaint are covered in Tax authority appeals.

Licensing legislation expressly preserves the right to go directly to court. An alternative complaint to the higher body or appeals board is generally due within thirty days under the special complaint rule (Art. 58 of the Law). It is decided within fifteen working days. Registration usually suspends the decision, except a decision suspending a licence, permit, or activity under the notification procedure—the exception is statutory (Art. 60 of the Law).

Further reading: licence types and the grounds for refusal and suspension are collected in Activities requiring a licence.

A traffic fine follows another route

Not every dispute with the traffic authority is an administrative-court case. A decision in road administrative-offence proceedings is challenged under the Code of Administrative Liability, not Chapter 23 APC. The Supreme Court Plenum draws that line.

A non-judicial decision may be appealed to a higher body or to the district or city criminal court, either through the deciding body or directly to the court. No state duty is payable under the special appeal procedure (Art. 315 CAL). The period is ten days from receipt of a copy and may be reinstated for a valid reason under the reinstatement rule (Art. 316 CAL).

A timely complaint normally suspends enforcement until review, except administrative arrest and a fine collected at the place of the offence—the Code lists these exceptions (Art. 318 CAL). But where a road-safety body fails to answer an application, issue a required document, or performs another public-law omission outside offence proceedings, the general administrative-court route may apply.

What to write and attach

The application identifies the court, applicant and respondent with their addresses, the facts, evidence, legal grounds, requested relief, and attachments. The general particulars (Art. 128 APC) are listed in the Code. A challenge to a public body must additionally give the name of the body or official, details of the decision or the date and place of the action or inaction, the infringed right, conflicting legal rules, and precise relief—the special particulars (Art. 187 APC).

The usual attachments are:

1. the contested act, notice of it, or evidence of inaction;
2. documents proving the infringement and when the applicant learned of it;
3. proof that copies of the application were sent to the parties;
4. payment documents for duty and postal costs, or identification of the exemption;
5. a power of attorney or other evidence of the signatory’s authority;
6. the pre-court complaint and response if that route was mandatory or used;
7. a separate motion to reinstate time or grant preliminary protection, where needed.

The attachment rule (Art. 130 APC) contains the core list. Absence of the contested decision is not by itself a reason to return the application: the court may obtain it, as the Supreme Court Plenum explains. The application and attachments may be filed electronically (Art. 5 APC); retain the system’s delivery confirmation.

Who must prove what

The administrative body must prove the legality of its contested decision, action, or inaction. The applicant must participate in gathering evidence and separately prove the amount of any claimed loss. The burden-of-proof rule (Art. 67 APC) allocates responsibility this way.

The body must submit its administrative case file, and the court may request further evidence on a motion or on its own initiative under the evidence-production rule (Art. 68 APC). Despite the body’s burden, attach the full chronology: the original request, proof of receipt, response, envelope or electronic notice, correspondence, inspection records, registry extracts, and evidence of the decision’s consequences.

State duty and court costs

The statutory rate for an ordinary challenge to a decision, action, or inaction is 0.7 BRV for an individual and 10 BRV for a legal entity or individual entrepreneur. For a departmental regulatory act the rates are 5 and 20 BRV respectively—the schedule of rates.

However, individuals and business entities challenging a state body’s decision, action, or inaction that infringes their rights are exempt from prepayment. The exemption also covers non-profit non-governmental organizations and certain other applicants under the statutory exemption (Art. 10 of the Law). Costs do not disappear: if a business loses all or part of the case, duty is collected in proportion to the rejected part; if an individual or small business succeeds, it may be recovered from the respondent. The Court Costs Plenum explains the allocation.

Example. For a non-exempt company, the basic rate on an ordinary challenge is ten BRV: 440.000 × 10 = 4.400.000. A business entity disputing an act affecting its business will generally not transfer that amount when filing, but the court may collect it if the claim is dismissed in full. The court fixes postal costs up to 44.000 under the postal-cost rule (Art. 113 APC). A state-duty exemption does not remove litigation expenses. The court may defer or allow instalments based on financial circumstances, but cannot arbitrarily waive or reduce the statutory rate; the Plenum also explains this.

How to suspend the contested act

Filing the application ordinarily does not suspend the body’s decision. The court grants preliminary protection if there is a clear risk of infringement or if protection would become impossible or difficult without the measure—the grounds are in the APC (Art. 92 APC).

The applicant may ask the court to prohibit specified conduct, stop a sale of property, or suspend all or part of the contested act. The measure must correspond to the claim—the Code lists the options (Art. 93 APC). The motion should identify the precise measure and urgent risk, connect the risk to enforcement, and attach proof. It may be included with the application or filed after proceedings begin under the motion rule (Art. 94 APC).

If submitted with the main application, the motion is decided when the case is accepted; in a hearing it is decided immediately, and otherwise no later than the next day under the decision-time rule (Art. 95 APC). The order is enforceable immediately (Art. 97 APC).

There are automatic exceptions. Registration of an ordinary administrative complaint with the body generally suspends the act’s effect and enforcement under the general suspension rule (Art. 70 of the Law). A tax complaint to the higher authority or court suspends the decision and collection under the tax suspension rule (Art. 231 Tax Code). An administrative licensing complaint also normally suspends the decision, except suspension of a licence, permit, or notified activity—the exception is statutory (Art. 60 of the Law).

The opposite special rule applies to a departmental regulatory act: the application itself does not suspend the instrument under the regulatory-act rule (Art. 180 APC).

What happens after filing

The court reviews the application and prepares the case. In a dispute with an administrative body, a preliminary hearing must occur within twenty days to clarify the relief, parties, defects, and evidence under the preliminary-hearing rule (Art. 140¹ APC). Participation by the responsible official or the body’s representative is mandatory, and unexcused absence may attract a court fine under the attendance rule (Art. 148¹ APC).

Proceedings should generally conclude within one month after the preparation order. In a rare case, the court chair may extend the period by no more than one further month under the hearing-period rule (Art. 141 APC).

If the application succeeds, the court invalidates the decision or declares the action or inaction unlawful, orders the body to remedy the violation, and usually requires it to report compliance within one month. The judgment takes effect after one month if no appeal is lodged—the Code defines these consequences (Art. 189 APC). For a departmental regulatory act, an invalidity judgment takes effect upon adoption and the invalid instrument may no longer be applied under the regulatory-act rule (Art. 182 APC).

What changed in 2026

• Plenum Resolution No. 19 of 3 July 2026 confirmed that preliminary protection is unavailable before proceedings begin. If requested with the main application it is decided on acceptance; a later motion is decided no later than the next day.
• The same resolution requires the court to verify automatic suspension prescribed by law, including in a tax dispute, and where necessary suspend the act on its own initiative—the guidance in paragraph 29.
• Decree UP-175 of 27 August 2026 introduced a presumption in favour of the entrepreneur in business disputes: the state body proves legality, justification, and proportionality, and irreducible doubt is resolved for the business.
• Where the court orders reconsideration of a decision concerning an entrepreneur, its legal position is binding, the business’s position cannot be worsened, and reconsideration must be completed within thirty days. UP-175 also establishes these rules.

What to check before filing

1. The dispute arises from a public decision, action, or inaction, rather than a contract or an administrative-offence decision.
2. The applicant, respondent, and territorial venue are correctly identified.
3. The six-month or special period has not expired; if it has, a reinstatement motion is ready.
4. The sector-specific law has been checked for a mandatory pre-court complaint.
5. The relief asks to invalidate a decision, declare an action or inaction unlawful, and impose a specific duty to remedy the violation.
6. The act, chronology, proof of the date received, service of copies, and signatory authority are attached.
7. The state-duty exemption and postal costs have been determined.
8. If enforcement creates an urgent risk, an evidenced motion for preliminary protection is attached.

Frequently asked questions

May I go directly to the administrative court?

Yes, as a general rule. A prior complaint to a higher body is mandatory only where a special law expressly requires one. Tax and licensing legislation expressly allow a court application as an alternative to the administrative complaint.

Who is the respondent against a tax decision?

It is usually the tax authority that adopted the contested decision or failed to act. If the regional directorate only reviewed an administrative complaint, it does not replace the lower body as respondent to the original decision. A separate claim against the directorate needs its own act or inaction.

Does the application suspend a khokimiyat decision?

Not automatically unless a special law provides otherwise. Ask for preliminary protection with the application, identify the precise measure, and prove what harm would occur before the case ends without suspension.

Must state duty be paid in advance?

Individuals and business entities in an ordinary challenge to a body’s decision, action, or inaction that infringes their rights are exempt from prepayment. The exemption does not automatically cover every category, including departmental regulatory acts and litigation expenses, and final recovery depends on the outcome.

Where is a traffic fine challenged?

A road administrative-offence decision is challenged not in the administrative court but before the higher body or the district or city criminal court. A non-judicial decision has a ten-day period from receipt of the copy, and no state duty is charged.