Administrative courts are usually described as institutions whose core task is to perform judicial review of acts of public administration. Through this function, they ensure that administrative authorities act within the limits established by law. At first glance, the relationship between administrative courts and the executive therefore appears relatively straightforward: courts review administrative action, while the administration must comply with their decisions.
A closer look at different legal systems, however, reveals a much more complex picture. Supreme administrative courts operate within institutional environments that vary significantly across Europe, and these differences shape both the scope of judicial control and the forms of interaction between courts and the executive.
Different State Traditions and Their Specificity
One important source of divergence lies in differing understandings of the mission of administrative courts and the key concepts of administrative law. Notions such as public administration, administrative act, legality, or even the separation of powers may be interpreted differently across legal traditions. In some systems (such as Germany), administrative courts are conceived as institutions that stand clearly outside the administration and exercise external control over it. In others (especially France), they are historically connected with the administrative apparatus itself, which raises the question of whether administrative judges merely review acts of public administration or participate more directly in its functioning, and whether they should be recruited from among former administrative officials.
Because of these conceptual differences, the seemingly simple statement that administrative courts exercise judicial review of public administration may, in practice, mean very different things across different legal systems. To illustrate this point, in some legal systems (such as Poland), the primary function of administrative adjudication is to safeguard the objective legal order (the principle of legality) by eliminating unlawful administrative acts. In others (for example, Italy), the emphasis lies on protecting individuals’ subjective rights and freedoms, often through reformatory judgments that directly determine the outcome of the administrative case. These different orientations may lead to significantly different procedural solutions and to different understandings of the role of courts within the system of state powers.
Mutual Relations between Supreme Administrative Courts and the Executive
The relationship between supreme administrative courts and the executive is most often analysed through the lens of judicial review. Courts influence the executive through their case law, which shapes the interpretation of administrative law and determines the standards according to which administrative authorities must act. In this way, judicial decisions may significantly affect administrative practice and the development of administrative law. The influence of the highest administrative courts may also be reinforced through their advisory functions. Such functions provide courts with additional tools for influencing public administration and may strengthen their authority in the eyes of administrative bodies by directly involving them in administrative processes.
At the same time, the executive may influence supreme administrative courts in several ways. This influence may concern the appointment and career paths of administrative judges, the establishment of procedural rules, or the organisation and internal administration of courts, including their financial management. Indeed, although administrative courts review acts of public administration, they themselves operate within the broader administrative framework of the state, making it difficult to maintain a strict separation between the judicial and administrative spheres. Depending on domestic arrangements, the executive may also indirectly influence administrative courts by initiating proceedings before them, thereby contributing to the realisation of their mission.
Apart from these institutional interactions, there are also two clearly problematic forms of executive influence on administrative courts: the threat of political pressure aimed at securing favourable decisions for the state and the failure to comply with court judgments. Such practices risk delegitimising administrative courts, thereby undermining both their authority and the effectiveness of judicial control over public administration.
Managing an Inevitable Relationship
Taken together, these elements demonstrate that the relationship between supreme administrative courts and the executive (whether monolithic or dual) cannot be reduced to a simple model of one-sided judicial control over administrative action. Courts shape administrative practice primarily through their case law, yet they also function within institutional environments influenced by the executive itself.
From a comparative perspective, the central challenge is therefore not to eliminate the executive’s influence on administrative courts, since this would be neither feasible nor always desirable. Rather, the task lies in designing their mutual relations in a way that limits problematic forms of influence while preserving the conditions necessary for courts to perform their role effectively. Understanding these dynamics is essential for analysing how administrative justice operates in contemporary legal systems and how it can successfully fulfil its mission.
Piotr Ostrowski – PhD candidate at the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
Ostrowski, Piotr. 2026. ‘Relations between Supreme Administrative Courts and the Executive Power: A Comparative Overview’. In Beyond Adjudication, edited by Wojciech Piątek. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 18-36.