U radu se kritičkom analizom izmjena regulacije i provedbe Zakona o općem upravnom postupku (ZUP) razmatraju teorijski i praktični aspekti instituta šutnje uprave u Republici Sloveniji. Prema većinskom modelu koji je na snazi u različitim zemljama, i u Sloveniji šutnja uprave predstavlja temelj za fikciju negativne odluke čime stranka napušta stanje pendencije te može ostvariti pravnu zaštitu kao da je njezin zahtjev odbijen. No pod utjecajem trendova u pogledu veće učinkovitosti u upravnim stvarima te kako bi se izbjeglo nerazumno dugo rješavanje, sve se češće uvodi fikcija pozitivne odluke. Uzimajući u obzir teorijsko - dogmatske aspekte uz istraživanje implementacije šutnje uprave u slovenskoj regulaciji te upravnoj i sudskoj praksi, autorica rada na temelju hipoteze da takva fikcija u općem zakonu zbog potrebe za meritornom zaštitom javnog interesa donosi više opasnosti nego koristi, prikazuje ograničenost zahvata takve vrste na upravnopravnom području.Critically analysing the regulations of the Law on General Administrative Disputes (LGAD) and its application in practice, the author in the article examines theoretical and practical aspects of the institute of administrative silence in the Republic of Slovenia. According to the majority model which has been in force in different countries, the administrative silence in Slovenia also presents a legal ground for a fictive, negative administrative act according to which a party is not in a pending state anymore and is entitled to legal protection as if the request has been denied. However, due to a strong influence of trends to increase efficiency in administrative matters as well as efforts to avoid unreasonably long proceedings until an administrative act is passed, a fiction that administration’s silence amounts to a positive decision is introduced more often. Having in mind the theoretical and dogmatic aspects of the research on implementation of administration’s silence in Slovenian regulations and administrative and court practice, the author of the article presents a hypothesis that the above mentioned fiction under the general law has stronger negative than positive consequences due to a need for meritorious protection of the public interest. She presents limitations correlated to legal actions of such kind within the legal administrative field
