The right of access to court is one of the key elements of the rule of law. However, it is not and cannot be an absolute right. The path to a decision on the merits is typically conditioned by the fulfilment of a number of different requirements (procedural conditions in the narrow sense and other procedural rules) that the legislation imposes on the applicant. In the words of Article 36(1) of the Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, this is a set procedure which, in the case of proceedings before an administrative court, is described in the Code of Administrative Justice. Such conditions may include payment of court fees, complying with limitation periods, rules on admissibility and standing or choosing of an appropriate type of administrative action.

The abovementioned requirements are intended to serve as legitimate and proportionate limitations on access to court, because the courts have limited capacities. These ensure that applicants can access courts in a qualified manner. Such restrictions are therefore permitted under the condition that they have a legitimate aim, are proportionate and do not impair the very essence of the right. However, that does not mean that all the restrictions are reasonable.

Some restrictions can create unintended bottlenecks in access to administrative courts. While a number of these bottlenecks may be created deliberately, in line with the function of the administrative justice system (e.g. restrictions on review by the Supreme Administrative Court, which plays a specific role), other may be more or less unintended consequences of the design of the administrative justice system (and/or application of relevant rules in case-law). Of course, access to the courts is a complex socio-legal issue, but its foundation can be considered to be the setting of the relevant procedural rules and their application.

The contribution focuses on the identifying the most significant bottlenecks in the access to courts within the Czech administrative justice system, primarily based on questionnaire survey among administrative court judges and their clerks, attorneys specialising in administrative law or academics. The aim of the contribution is to process these data for the purposes of both theoretical discussion of the concept of access to administrative courts and the future concept of the Czech administrative justice regulation, which has undergone a significant reform just twenty years ago.

A secondary question the contribution asks is aimed at is the possibility of simplifying the Czech regulation of administrative justice in the context of access to court. For example, the initiation phase of administrative court proceedings is the first stage of accessing the court that nearly always requires court activity (in the form of duty to inform and to instruct, etc.). This could be avoided by appropriate simplification and subsequently lead to shortening the length of proceedings as such.

However, it is not just a question of speeding up the proceedings. The rules governing proceedings before administrative courts should be as simple, clear and user-friendly as possible. Individuals must have a clear and practical opportunity to challenge an act affecting their rights. In this sense, the excessive complexity of the administrative justice system can also act as a bottleneck in accessing administrative courts. The greater degree of difficulty in initiating administrative court proceedings is in some cases also acknowledged by the Czech Constitutional Court, which considers that the initiation of proceedings before administrative courts is currently more difficult than in other types of judicial proceedings.

Therefore, we believe that the topic of access to administrative justice is a pressing issue, even more so when it has to deal with current crises such as the emergency pandemic regulations.

Omission can be interpreted as an infringement of administrative tasks. As a result of the development and widening of the duties of public administration, omission became a complex, multi-layer phenomenon. First of all, the 'layers' of omission will be analysed by our presentation. The omission in individual administrative cases will be examined, and later the omission of the provision of public services. The similaritirs and differences will be shown by our presentation. After the analysis of the htoretical background the legal regulation and the approach of legal regulation on the protection against omission will be shown by our presentation. The major European approaches and rules will be presented, relating to the different 'layers' of omission. Even we would like to show the different approaches of the protection against omission. It is clear, that the omission in indiviudal administrative cases can be treated by solution governed by the public law. In omission of the provision of public services can be found different solutions: because these services are related to human rights and to rights of personality and to privacy, even protection tools governed by the private law could be applied.

As the second part of the presentation, we would like to examine these characteristics by the analysis of the Hungarian legislation and legal practice. WE would like to show the general situation, the legal regulation and the legal practice based on the the practice of the administrative courts, and based on the analysis of the statistical data on administrative activities. We would like to show, that the Hungarian regulation can be interpreted as a complex, multi-layer one, which offers a complex protection against omission - not inly against the omission in individual cases, but even against omission of provision of public services. Even the individual complains and the actions of legal supervision are covered by the regulation. However, the regualtion is a complex one, we would like to show, that the legal practice is focusing mainly on the omission in individual cases. This situation is partly tranaforming, because the debureaucratrisation process, the application of the private law soultion has increased. The omission in prublic services has a different situation in Hungary. However, the new Hungarian Code of Administrative Court Procedure offers a solution governed by the public law, but the former practice has been based on the private law tools. We would like to analyse this practice, and we would like to show several factors - especially new landmark decisions of the Kúria, the Supreme Court of Hungary - by which the transformation of this model could be indicated.

The analysis will apply a multi-disciplinary methodology, mainly it will be based on the jurisprudence, because the regulation and the legal practice will be analysed. We would like to apply the comprataive method: our analysis will fpocus on the Hungarian regulation and practice, but we would ,like to exanmine the major patterns in Europe. Last but not least, we would like to apply the statistical methods as well, during the analysis of the statistical data on these omission cases.