In short
When an administrative-court judgment is put into enforcement, the record that is read is the finality annotation. The cover of the administrative or tax court is not the cover of a civil judgment. The file number does not take the place of the annotation. This article answers which annotation is read. The rule on the remedy in a civil judgment, the opening step of a file on a judgment, and an employment judgment are not built here.
If the annotation says it has not become final, the creditor does not carry the practice on a civil cover into this file. A sentence that is carried does not change the annotation of the administrative judgment. The court name on the cover is not written in place of the annotation sentence.
The court heading is not a civil cover
The heading of the administrative court, the tax court, and the regional administrative court is separate from a civil-court cover. The creditor separates from the cover which court’s decision the paper put into enforcement is. Similarity of the cover is not assumed. An assumed similarity does not have the file opened before the annotation is read. The cover of the tax court is not the short name of the cover of the administrative court. Even if the two courts stand in the same building, the heading of the decision does not change.
The parties to the decision are read from the cover as well. The administration, or the tax office, is not written with the status of defendant in a civil file. Even if the other side is a private person, the cover is not a civil judgment if the authority that built the provision is the administrative court. The creditor does not erase the administration’s name and present the decision as a judgment between two private persons. The debtor administration does not read the provision built against it by the service practice in a civil judgment either. The place of reading is this cover’s own annotation.
That the remedy in a civil judgment does not stop enforcement of its own accord is not pasted onto this cover. The place of reading an administrative judgment is the finality annotation. If the annotation is not standing, the creditor does not borrow civil practice for this file.
The annotation, the number, and the note that the route is open
The annotation is the record that writes whether the decision became final. The file number shows the file. The number does not take the place of the annotation. A note that the remedy is open is not a finality annotation either. The note can say that an application is possible. The saying does not write that the decision became final. The annotation shows, by its own sentence, whether finality has happened.
A period is not written into this text as a number. If the period is written in the annotation or in the decision, it is read from there. If it is not written, it is not added. The place where the annotation is found is not looked for as if it were the same as the place of the stamp on a civil judgment. The place is on the administrative decision’s own page. The stamp is not treated as having written finality without an annotation sentence. The sentence is looked for in the file even without a stamp. If the two stand together, the two are read together. If one is missing, the missing piece is not assumed to have been completed.
If the annotation says it became final, the money provision is read together with this record. If there is no annotation, the cover is not left as a civil judgment that became final. If the annotation says it did not become final, the creditor does not put the price in the operative part into enforcement. The sentence that it did not become final is not erased by a guess that it will become final later.
The first cover while a higher instance is standing
If a decision of the Council of State, or of the regional administrative court, is in the file, the first-instance cover does not show the last text on its own. The finality record that is read is on the last text put into enforcement. If the higher court set aside the first-instance provision, the text put into enforcement is the own result of the decision that set it aside. If the decision that set it aside did not build a new money sentence, the money sentence at first instance does not stay standing of its own accord. If the higher court affirmed the first instance, the affirmation text and the first-instance part are read side by side. Affirmation does not add an item that is not in the first part.
If there is more than one higher decision, the result of the last authority is looked for. An interim decision is not the last text on the merits. A record of a stay of execution does not write that the money provision became final either. The creditor does not present an interim stay decision as a judgment. The debtor does not treat the first-instance cover as stayed while there is no stay record in the file. A stay is read only if it is written on the paper.
The old annotation on the first-instance copy does not run on its own if the higher court made that annotation of no effect. Which annotation is the last is separated from the date and the name of the authority. If there is no date, the creditor does not choose the last annotation.
A sentence of annulment does not give rise to a money item
The item put into enforcement is the money or compensation sentence in the provision. The administration’s carrying out of a judgment of annulment is not the same step as leaving a money item to the enforcement office. A sentence of annulment does not produce a price that is not written. If there is no money sentence, the cover does not carry a price into enforcement. The price does not come out of the finality sentence of the annotation either. The price that comes out is asked for only if it is written in the provision.
If the provision built both annulment and money, the two sentences are read separately. The sentence of annulment does not enlarge the amount of the money sentence. The money sentence is not treated as having taken back the annulled act of its own accord either. While putting the money sentence into enforcement, the creditor does not melt the sentence of annulment inside the same request. The debtor administration does not close the money sentence by saying it only carried out the annulment, if the part does not write it that way.
If the compensation sentence writes which act of the administration it arose from, that writing is read. If the part did not build a general price without showing the act, the creditor does not choose the act later. The act that is chosen is not in the provision.
Carrying out is the administration’s own work
If a provision of annulment, or of carrying out, is fulfilled by the administration’s own act, this carrying out is not the name of money proceedings in the enforcement office. The administration keeps in the file the writing that it applied the provision. If there is no writing, application is not assumed. If there is a writing, which sentence the writing meets is read. If the writing says it took back only one act, and the part also built money, the money sentence does not close with this writing.
A mediation minute is not an administrative-court judgment. The minute is in the article on enforcement of a mediation minute. A labour-court judgment is not this cover either. That judgment is in the article on enforcement of an employment claim. Opening on a judgment is in the article on how enforcement on a judgment is started. The separation of routes is in the article on the difference between enforcement on a judgment and without a judgment. These articles do not turn the finality annotation of an administrative judgment into a civil cover.
It is written from the contact record for the annotation page. The record does not add a finality that is not in the annotation. The record that is read is the annotation on the last administrative text put into enforcement.
The administration put into enforcement is the administration written on the party line in the provision. A ministry, a municipality, or another public institution can stand on the cover under separate names. The creditor does not put a subordinate unit in place of the centre if the part does not write it that way. If the debt of the centre and of the provincial unit is separated in the part, that separation is read. Similarity of title does not change the party in the annotation. If the annotation is standing on another administration’s decision, that annotation is not added to this cover.
Service of the decision and the finality annotation are separate records. Service shows that the provision reached the party. A provision that reached is not put into enforcement before the annotation says it became final. If the annotation was entered after service, what is read is the sentence of the annotation. The service document is not stapled in place of the annotation page. If there is more than one service, each party’s service is in its own record. One party’s service does not complete the other’s annotation.
If the money sentence writes that payment is to be made not to the administration but to a third person, the person to be paid is the name in the part. The creditor does not write their own name in place of this third person. If the third person is not in the request for enforcement, and the part showed that person as creditor, the request stays incomplete. The gap is not filled from the finality sentence of the annotation. If the tax court and the administrative court gave separate decisions in the same event, each decision is read with its own annotation. The finality of one does not write the annotation of the other. The two covers are not melted in a single file.
How many pages the copy of the decision is is also read from its own paper. If the last page is missing, the result on the earlier page is not presented as if there were an annotation. If the annotation stands on an intermediate page, the decision number of that page should be the same as the number of the cover. If the number differs, the annotation is not tied as belonging to this judgment. The creditor does not complete the missing page from a copy of another administrative file. The debtor does not invent an objection that is not in the file in order to treat the missing page as not final either. A gap stays a gap.
Conclusion
When an administrative-court judgment is put into enforcement, the annotation that is read is the finality annotation. The cover is not the cover of a civil judgment. If a higher-instance decision is standing, the first cover is not counted as the last text on its own. A sentence of annulment does not give rise to a money item. If a period is not in the file, it is not written. The frame sits on the enforcement and bankruptcy law page. The official basis is the text of the Administrative Procedure Act No. 2577 and the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code No. 2004.