Parties to Public-Law Proceedings and the Adversarial Principle: Mechanisms for Balancing Procedural Statuses

The article examines the relationship between the composition of parties in public-law proceedings and the adversarial principle in the context of ensuring equality of arms and procedural guarantees for participants in adjudication. It is argued that the participation of a public authority as a party or as a procedural initiator creates an inherent asymmetry in legal capacities and therefore necessitates specific mechanisms aimed at balancing procedural statuses. The study discusses major doctrinal approaches to adversariality both as a broader legal phenomenon and as a principle of adjudicatory procedure, and it outlines distinctive features of its operation across public-law types of proceedings, taking into account the protection of public interests, public safety, and procedural legal certainty. Key guarantees enabling a genuine opportunity to present one’s position and to challenge the opponent’s arguments are identified, including active judicial case management, clarity of procedural stages and consequences, restraints on abuse of procedural rights, and effective avenues for review of judicial acts. The article concludes that doctrinally articulated criteria for the limits of adversariality, differentiated by the type of public-law proceeding and the procedural stage, are required to reinforce trust in adjudication and the stability of the legal order while preserving a sound balance between the public interest and the protection of individual rights.