In this paper, the key differences between a dispute of full jurisdiction and a dispute of legality will be highlighted, as these are the two most important types of disputes that exist in the administrative judiciary of the Republic of Croatia. Assuming that these two types of disputes are correlated, their differences are manifested through three key criteria in legal theory that relate primarily to the goal of the dispute to be achieved, then to the powers of the court in litigation and in prescribing their application, with which their most significant advantages as well as disadvantages will be explained. A comparative overview of administrative adjudication in certain countries will be considered, starting with Slovenia, Italy, Germany and finally France as the most important country that uses in most cases disputes of full jurisdiction as a rule in resolving. A brief overview of the judiciary in the Republic of Croatia on the basis of the law in force before the entry into force of the new Administrative Disputes Act (2012) will be presented, on the basis of which a dispute of full jurisdiction has become the rule. Also, the preconditions that need to be met in order for such a dispute to be conducted at all will be stated, and finally, in accordance with the case law of administrative litigation, the judgments rendered in full jurisdiction and legality disputes will be analyzed. paper presented in practice.