The court has the right, on its own initiative, before the start of the case consideration, to essentially separate the claims, separating one or several combined claims into an independent proceeding to ensure the fulfillment of the tasks of administrative proceedings, i.e., in particular, for the timely resolution by the court of disputes in the field of public legal relations in order to effectively protect the rights, freedoms and interests of natural persons from violations by the subjects of authority. However, such separation is possible only if each of the separate claims can be subject to consideration in the court that separated the claims. This was emphasized by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court when considering case No. 9901/285/21 .
Article 20 of the Civil Code, which establishes the rules for demarcating the subject jurisdiction of administrative courts, defines the list of cases that are subject to local general courts as administrative, and cases that are subject to district administrative courts.
According to the rules of the first part of Article 172 of the Civil Procedure Code, several claims related to each other by the basis of origin or submitted evidence, the main and derivative claims can be combined in one claim. At the same time, the fifth part of this article establishes that it is not allowed to combine several claims in one proceeding, for which the law determines the exclusive jurisdiction of different courts.
Clause 6 of the fourth part of Article 169 of the Civil Code stipulates that the statement of claim shall be returned to the plaintiff if the rules for combining claims are violated (except for cases in which there are grounds for applying the provisions of Article 172 of this Code).
According to the sixth part of Article 172 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court has the right, at the request of a party to the case or on its own initiative, to separate the claims in substance before the start of the case proceedings, by separating one or more combined claims into separate proceedings, if this will contribute to the performance of the task of administrative proceedings.
Therefore, the determining condition for separation of claims is the fact that such separation will contribute to the performance of the task of administrative proceedings.
The specified prescription is aimed at ensuring that the subject of legal relations can exercise the right to legal protection in compliance with the principles of administrative proceedings and specific circumstances.
The task of administrative proceedings is the fair, impartial and timely resolution of disputes by the court in the field of public-legal relations in order to effectively protect the rights, freedoms and interests of natural persons, the rights and interests of legal entities from violations by subjects of authority (part one of Article 2 of the Civil Code ).
This corresponds to the prescription of the second paragraph of the sixth part of Article 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code, according to which the consideration of claims separated into separate proceedings is carried out by the judge who made the decision to separate the claims.
KAS imperatively regulates the issue of jurisdiction of administrative cases, establishing certain categories of cases that are subject to consideration by the Supreme Court as a court of first instance and are not subject to consideration by other administrative courts in the event of combining in a lawsuit claims that, although related to each other, but their consideration assigned to the jurisdiction of other administrative courts as courts of first instance.
Since the plaintiff combined in the statement of claim the requirements for which the law defines the exclusive jurisdiction of different courts, the conclusion of the Administrative Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court about the existence of the prerequisites for the return of the statement of claim of PERSON_1, defined by point 6 of the fourth part of Article 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is correct. The arguments given in the appeal do not refute this conclusion.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court states that, according to the principle of legal certainty, the plaintiff must know the consequences of his combining several claims, for which the law defines the exclusive jurisdiction of various courts, for which the Administrative Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court in such a combination is not a court established by law