U ovom se radu prvenstveno razmatra uloga upravnih sudova u kreiranju pravnih propisa. Ističe se kako tumačenje zakonskih propisa, kao i njihova kvaliteta tumačenja definira i kvalitetu sudske prakse. Autor pritom naglašava kako to nije uvijek jednostavan zadatak. Navodi kako sudska praksa nije samo pravni, već i društveni fenomen. Tako svi društveni odnosi, koji zahtijevaju intervenciju zakonodavca, mogu pružiti sudcu priliku da razradi pravila sudske prakse. Iako sudska praksa nikada ne može zamijeniti pravno pravilo, ona je svakako logičan nastavak (produžetak) pravnih pravila, pa čak i neophodni dodatak. Stoga je predmet interesa sudske prakse raznovrstan koliko je i interes pravnih pravila. Zato je doprinos upravnosudske prakse i njezina uloga jednako važna i u životu pojedinca i u javnom životu. Budući da se pravilo odražava u presudi, presuda treba što preciznije prenijeti stvarni smisao zakona i misao sudca koji taj zakon primjenjuje, a ukupnost presuda treba moći činiti skladnu cjelinu. Obrazloženje daje legitimitet odluci i ujedno je objašnjava. Autor također u tekstu analizira do kojih granica seže primjena presuda Suda Europske unije, njegova interpretativna uloga, kao i koje obveze presude Suda Europske unije postavljaju pred državu članicu i njene građane. Ujedno ukazuje kako se prema njima trebaju odnositi nacionalni upravni sudci.; This paper primarily deals with the role of administrative courts in the creation of legal regulations. How legal regulations are interpreted is emphasised as is how the quality of interpretation also defines the quality of court practice. The author emphasises that it is not always an easy task. How court practice is not a legal but also a social phenomenon is mentioned. So too are all relations that require legislative intervention. They can offer the judge the opportunity to develop rules of court practice. Even though court practice can never replace the legal rule, it is certainly a logical continuation or extension of legal rules and even an indispensable addition. Therefore, it is court practice’s subject of interest which is as varied as the subject of legal rules’ interest. That is why the contribution of administrative court practice and its role is equally as important in the life of the individual as it is in public life. Given that the rule is maintained in the judgement, the judgement should as precisely as possible express the real meaning of the law and the thought of the judge who applies that law. The totality of the judgement should comprise a harmonised whole. The explanation gives the decision legitimacy and at the same time explains it. The author also analyses the limits of the application of the judgement of the European Union Court. This includes the interpretative role as well as which obligations the European Union Court judgement sets before the member state and its citizens. At the same time, it points out how national administrative judges should behave towards them.