When analyzing data on the efficiency of the Administrative Court as the second instance in
election dispute resolution, it can be concluded that the perception of citizens reflects their
general attitude toward the dispute resolution process, as the results obtained indicate a
strong correlation with the results obtained in the previous question, regarding the efficiency
of the REC. Namely, 53% of citizens say that the Administrative Court is efficient in election
dispute resolution (as with the REC, the prevailing attitude is that it is mostly efficient), while
21% of citizens consider the Administrative Court inefficient. The difference when compared
to the REC is a higher percentage of citizens who do not have an opinion, but this is expected
because the level of interaction between citizens and the REC is much higher, as is the media
visibility of the REC as a central institution in the conduct of the elections.
Citizens between 30 and 39 years of age are more critical to the work of the Administrative
Court, and a similar trend was observed in the REC’s efficiency assessment Similarities exist
also when it comes to the perception of the work of the Administrative Court and the
assessment of the citizens in terms of the direction that Serbia is taking and their standard of
living – citizens who say Serbia is going in a bad direction or that their lives are
intolerable/hardly tolerable are also more critical – but the gaps are smaller when compared
with REC.
Chart 4.3.8.4. Administrative Court Efficiency (in %)
6
26
15
Not efficient at all
Mostly inefficient
Mostly efficient
Completely efficient
13
40
DNK, Cannot tell
Political influence is a key reason for inefficiency in resolving election disputes by the
Administrative Court, as stated by 61% of respondents which is, again, consistent with how
REC efficiency is perceived. However, the percentage of citizens who say that the main reason
for the inefficiency of the Administrative Court is the lack of will to react is 35%, which is
higher if compared to the REC. All the other reasons are negligible in this case.
67