Suchergebnisse

With development, democratization, and market reforms, corruption has become pervasive in Nepal, especially in areas where government licencing is required. Medical education is a site of considerable political and public contention, because of the nexus that links politicians, educational entrepreneurs, and the licencing of medical colleges. The case of Lokman Singh Karki, the notorious chief of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (ciaa) from 2013 to 2016 is explored, as is that of his nemesis, the campaigner for the reform of medical education, Dr Govinda KC. The ciaa was for a time converted into a prime instrument of corruption instead of being a defence against it. Different scales of reciprocity and differing moral valuations of reciprocity lie at the heart of the fierce moral debates over the rightness or wrongness of Dr KC's hunger strikes.

Abstract
With development, democratization, and market reforms, corruption has become pervasive in Nepal, especially in areas where government licencing is required. Medical education is a site of considerable political and public contention, because of the nexus that links politicians, educational entrepreneurs, and the licencing of medical colleges. The case of Lokman Singh Karki, the notorious chief of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (ciaa) from 2013 to 2016 is explored, as is that of his nemesis, the campaigner for the reform of medical education, Dr Govinda KC. The ciaa was for a time converted into a prime instrument of corruption instead of being a defence against it. Different scales of reciprocity and differing moral valuations of reciprocity lie at the heart of the fierce moral debates over the rightness or wrongness of Dr KC's hunger strikes.

It is expected that the existence of the Government Administration Law is expected to be a solution so that there is no expression of "bad suspicion" against government officials in making decisions accused of causing losses to state finances. In addition, the GA Law is expected to become a reference for government officials in making decisions so that there is no abuse of authority. These two cargoes are a small part that is regulated in the GA Law. Regarding the abuse of authority itself, there have been specific regulations derived from the Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2015 concerning Guidelines for Procedures in the Assessment of the Elements of Abuse of Authority. The problem that arises in examining the elements of abuse of power lies in the law enforcement process. The Perma Abuse of Authority states that the Court has the authority to accept, examine, and decide upon the appraisal request whether there is an abuse of authority in the Decisions and/or Actions of Government Officials before the criminal process. From the field facts, through case analysis, there are findings that government officials who submitted applications for the element of abuse of power did not heed the provisions in the Perma. In the two cases discussed, it appears that, in fact, the instrument of testing whether or not there is an element of abuse of authority is only used as an attempt to hide oneself from being ensnared from corruption. It is as if the petitioner has become a victim in the act of abuse of authority over the action or decision he has taken. However, the facts show otherwise where the applicant legally and convincingly committed a criminal act of corruption. It can be said that the use of the concept of testing the elements of abuse of authority is intended to be deviant and biased from the ideals of the concept.

The article examines the problem of differentiation of criminal responsibility for abuse of authority. It examines the criteria for differentiation of criminal responsibility for abuse committed by officials following the amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine made in 2011 by the law № 3207-VI dated April 7, 2011. The article analyses the appropriateness of criminal responsibility differentiation in examined group of crimes bearing in mind the criteria selected by Ukrainian legislators. While analyzing the changes, the author considers provisions of the United Nations Convention against Corruption and employs the method of systematic interpretation of criminal code.In this research the author concludes that the responsibility of the officials should be differentiated on the basis of the essence of functions they perform. Based on that, criminal responsibility for abuse of power, and criminal responsibility for abuse of office irrespectively of ownership forms of enterprise, institution, or organization should be established separately. ; Досліджено проблеми диференціації кримінальної відповідальності за службові зловживання, критерії диференціації кримінальної відповідальності за службові зловживання після внесення змін до КК України у 2011 році законом № 3207-VI від 07.04.2011. Проаналізовано доцільність диференціації кримінальної відповідальності досліджуваної групи злочинів за критеріями, які вибрав українській законодавець. Такий аналіз проведено, враховуючи положення Конвенції Організації Об'єднаних Націй проти корупції та використовуючи метод системного тлумачення кримінального закону.Методом узагальнення виділено найзагальніші та необхідні ознаки зловживання, які вчиняють службові особи та особи, що надають публічні послуги.Зазначено, що за своєю природою зловживання службовим становищем службовою особою публічного права та зловживання повноваженнями службовою особою приватного права мають однакову правову природу, характер та ступінь суспільної небезпеки, тому, на нашу думку, за такі зловживання має бути встановлена однакова кримінальна відповідальність. Особи, які виконують організаційно-розпорядчі або адміністративно-господарські функції і при цьому не є уповноваженими на виконання функцій держави або місцевого самоврядування, повинні нести відповідальність за зловживання повноваженнями, при цьому кримінальна відповідальність (санкція) для осіб, що виконують організаційно-розпорядчі або адміністративно-господарські функції як у підприємствах, установах, організаціях державної та комунальної форми власності та й у підприємствах, установах, організаціях приватної форми власності має бути однакова.Наголошено, що відповідальність за зловживання владою треба передбачити в іншій статті кримінального закону, оскільки зловживання владою має вищий рівень та ступінь суспільної небезпеки. Суб'єктами такого злочину є особи, які згідно зі ЗУ «Про запобігання» корупції є особами, уповноваженими на виконання функцій держави або місцевого самоврядування. Акцентовано увагу на тому, що законодавець правильно окремо встановив кримінальну відповідальність за зловживання повноваженнями особами, які надають публічні послуги і така диференціація є обґрунтованою, адже ідеться про інший вид функцій.У результаті дослідження автор підсумовує, що відповідальність службових осіб треба диференціювати за функціями, які вони виконують, відповідно доцільно окремо встановити кримінальну відповідальність за зловживання владою та окремо за зловживання повноваженнями службовою особою незалежно від виду юридичної особи.

In a State governed by the rule of law and respect for institutions, the power is never absolute, but rather a limited one. In that order, when public officials exceed their authority and attributions, the legal system should have a reaction.In the present article, the author realizes an explanation and an analysis about the abuse of authority crime. According to national and international doctrine, and Peruvian jurisprudence, the author presents how to understand the legal right protected, the objective and subjective tipicity, the active and passive subjects, as well as the sanction in this crime. ; En un Estado democrático de Derecho, el poder nunca es absoluto, sino más bien limitado. En ese sentido, cuando los funcionarios públicos se exceden en sus funciones o atribuciones, corresponde una reacción de parte del ordenamiento.En el presente artículo, el autor realiza una explicación y un análisis sobre el delito de abuso de autoridad. De acuerdo a la doctrina nacional e internacional, y a la jurisprudencia peruana, el autor señala cómo entender el bien jurídico que se protege, la tipicidad objetiva y subjetiva, los sujetos activo y pasivo, así como la pena en este delito.

Dalam UUAP (Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan), penyalahgunaan wewenang merupakan genus yang terdiri dari tiga spesies yang berbeda-beda yakni (1) melampaui wewenang; (2) mencampur-adukan wewenang; (3) bertindak sewenang-wenang. UUAP tidak menjelaskan pengertian penyalahgunaan wewenang, ia hanya mengkualifikasi ke tiga jenis spesies penyalahgunaan wewenang sebagaimana disebut di atas. Dikaitkan dengan kewenangan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara (Peratun) dalam menguji penyalahgunaan wewenang vide pasal 21 UUAP haruslah dilihat dalam konteks yang terbatas yakni semata dalam aspek pengujian penyalahgunaan wewenang yang menimbulkan kerugian keuangan negara. Pengujian penyalahgunaan wewenang dalam aspek bersifat parsial dan sangat terbatas jika dibandingkan dengan luasnya ruang lingkup dan kompleksitas pengertian penyalahgunaan wewenang dalam hukum administrasi.In the UUAP (Government Administration Law), abuse of authority is a genus consisting of three different species, namely (1) acting beyond authority; (2) mixing up authority; (3) acting arbitrarily. The UUAP does not clarify the definition of abuse of authority; it only classifies it into the three types of abuse of authority as mentioned above. When associated with the authority of the Administrative Court in examining abuse of authority pursuant to Article 21 of the UUAP, it must be seen in a limited context, namely only in the aspect of examination of abuse of authority that results in state financial losses. Examination of abuse of authority in this aspect is partial and very limited compared to the extent of the scope and complexity of the notion of abuse of authority in administrative law.

The absolute authority of the State Administrative Court in examining, deciding and resolving State Administrative Disputes is based on objects in the form of decisions and / or actions regulated in the State Administrative Court Law (PERATUN Law) and the Government Administration Law (AP Law). In Decision Number: 25 / G / 2015 / PTUN-MDN, the Prosecutor's Request for Information is placed as the object of the request for abuse of authority. Based on these facts, normative legal research is carried out which aims to examine and analyze cases (case approach) with the statute approach and other regulations related to legal issues regarding how the limits of abuse of power are the absolute competence of the State Administrative Court and what is the position. Request for a statement from the Attorney General's Office in investigating corruption cases in the Procedural Law of the State Administrative Court. The conclusion of the research results is that the limit of abuse of power which is the absolute competence of the State Administrative Court is a decision and / or action as normalized in the Administrative Law and the Government Administration Law. The absence of procedural norms on abuse of authority in the Administrative Court Law makes Judges and Lawyers inaccurate in determining the legal basis for placing the Prosecutor's Request for Information as an object in the application for abuse of power when case Number : 25 / G / 2015 / PTUN-MDN is rolling in the Medan State Administrative Court . The norm vacancy is filled by Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2015 which limits the absolute competence of the State Administrative Court in applications for abuse of power after the results of the Supervision of Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus and prior to criminal proceedings. The Prosecutor's Request for Information issued based on the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) cannot be placed as an object based on the norms of Article 2 letter d of Law Number 9 of 2004, so the author advises ...

The absolute authority of the State Administrative Court in examining, deciding and resolving State Administrative Disputes is based on objects in the form of decisions and / or actions regulated in the State Administrative Court Law (PERATUN Law) and the Government Administration Law (AP Law). In Decision Number: 25 / G / 2015 / PTUN-MDN, the Prosecutor's Request for Information is placed as the object of the request for abuse of authority. Based on these facts, normative legal research is carried out which aims to examine and analyze cases (case approach) with the statute approach and other regulations related to legal issues regarding how the limits of abuse of power are the absolute competence of the State Administrative Court and what is the position. Request for a statement from the Attorney General's Office in investigating corruption cases in the Procedural Law of the State Administrative Court. The conclusion of the research results is that the limit of abuse of power which is the absolute competence of the State Administrative Court is a decision and / or action as normalized in the Administrative Law and the Government Administration Law. The absence of procedural norms on abuse of authority in the Administrative Court Law makes Judges and Lawyers inaccurate in determining the legal basis for placing the Prosecutor's Request for Information as an object in the application for abuse of power when case Number : 25 / G / 2015 / PTUN-MDN is rolling in the Medan State Administrative Court . The norm vacancy is filled by Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2015 which limits the absolute competence of the State Administrative Court in applications for abuse of power after the results of the Supervision of Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus and prior to criminal proceedings. The Prosecutor's Request for Information issued based on the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) cannot be placed as an object based on the norms of Article 2 letter d of Law Number 9 of 2004, so the author advises the President and / or the House of Representatives to design amendments to the Administrative Law so that it is harmonious with the new norms presented by the Government Administration Law and it is hoped that Judges and Lawyers as law enforcers and justice carry out the norms of the Law ethically so that they do not get lost in determining the object of the application for abuse of power.

Abstract: Allegation of abuse of authority that committed by public officials is an object to should be examined with the specialty principle (specialialiteit beginsel), because the deviation from this principle would impact to abuse of authority (detournement de pouvoir). In this context, the allegation of abuse of authority is a domain of administrative law (administrative penal law) so that the authority to examine the presence or absence of the element of abuse of authority is absolute competence of administrative court. The application of this mechanism in line with the principle of ultimum remidiun in the application of criminal law. The application of a criminal sanction must be applied as a final sanction after the civil or administrative sanctions. In order to give opportunity for the public to give correction, corrections (No Criminal Penalty before adminsitrative Correction is implemented). Government Administration Act is a response to the polemic of the object of dispute the allegation of abuse of authority that always be drawn directly into the realm of criminal law. Keyword : abuse of authority, administrative law, administrative court Abstrak: Dugaan terjadinya penyalahgunaan wewenang yang dilakukan oleh pejabat pemerintahan merupakan objek yang harus diuji dengan asas spesialitas (specialialiteit beginsel), karena penyimpangan terhadap asas ini akan melahirkan penyalahgunaan wewenang (detournement de pouvoir). Pada konteks ini, maka dugaan penyalahgunaan wewenang merupakan domain hukum administrasi (administratif penal law ) sehingga wewenang untuk memeriksa ada atau tidak adanya unsur penyalahgunaan wewenang merupakan kompetensi absolut peradilam administrasi (Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara). Penerapan mekanisme ini selaras dengan asas ultimum remidiun dalam penerapan hukum pidana, di mana keberadaan pengaturan sanksi pidana harus diletakkan dan diposisikan sebagai sanksi terakhir setalah sanksi perdata maupun sanksi administratif tidak berdaya sebagai upaya memberikan ruang bagi masyarakat luas akan upaya perbaikan, koreksi, dan upaya lainnya sebelum pemidanaan diberikan (No Criminal Penalty before Adminsitrative Correction is implemented). Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan merupakan jawaban terhadap polemik seputar objek sengketa dugaan penyalahgunaan wewenang yang selama ini langsung ditarik ke ranah hukum pidana padahal sebuah kebijakan tidaklah dapat dikriminalisasi. DOI:10.15408/jch.v2i1.1844