Suchergebnisse

This chapter explores the procedural dimension of the process of European integration. This is a potentially vast area, both in terms of scope (given the now extremely extended substantive EU competences) and in terms of sources as it is based on both case law and harmonizing measures. It is also closely intertwined with well-established rules in national legal systems. Despite several reforms of EU competences, the enforcement of EU rights is still largely carried out by national procedures and courts, subject however to the respect of certain general limitations imposed by the Court of Justice of the European Union. In order to provide a systematization of this heterogeneous field, we analyze it through the prism of the EU Treaties and through three key features of EU procedural law: (a) the basic protections which are guaranteed within the context of EU law (b) the flexibility for national legal systems to retain their internal logic and (c) the desire to establish EU standards of procedural protection. The "classification" of the copious acquis communitaire this reveals, allows a critical view to be taken of the judicial analysis of the interests at issue to date.

We examine the diversification of administrative and procedural costs on patent stockusing a large dataset from the European Patent Office with 15,000firms for the periodbetween 1995 and 2015. The results reveal that administrative and procedural costs aresignificant forfirm-level patenting activity. However, not all administrative and proceduralcosts have equal effects. Higher administrative costs often encourage patent applicationand validation by solving the adverse selection problem and short-run opportunism, aswell as other sources of asymmetric information. The effective administration of intel-lectual property law and low-cost enforcement are found to considerably foster patentingactivity. The effects are robust for various mis-specification checks and do not disappearonce country-level research and development infrastructure proxies are controlled for. Theextreme bounds of administrative and procedural costs are computed across more than 5billion regressions, and the sizeable impact of administration on patent application andvalidation outcomes is confirmed.

"The European Union is unique amongst international organizations in that it has a highly developed and coherent system of judicial protection. The rights derived from Union law can be enforced in court, as opposed to international organizations in which enforceability is often far less certain. At the heart of the system of judicial protection in the European Union is the core principle of upholding the rule of law. Therefore, the stakes are high in the sense that the system of judicial protection in the European Union must live up to its promise in which all sorts of natural and legal persons, Member States, and Union institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies are guaranteed a route by which enforce Union law rights"--

This paper show why the standardization of administrative procedure is important for the state legal system that, in the last two decades, the administrative procedure codes were adopted in almost all of the European states. Afterwards author analyzed main driving forces for development of administrative procedural law at the level of the European Union and the Council of Europe. The most important legal sources of European administrative procedural law (basic standards, principles, recommendations and guidelines in this area) are concisely presented but it is clearly indicated that there are certain ambiguities, that these sources don't apply equally to all institutions of the Union, and that they still don't make finished, complete and forever given system that can be automatically transferred to jurisprudence of the member states and candidate countries. Moreover, often administrative process laws of the member states contain rules that are not existing in this kind of regulation at European Union level and that is why the process of adopting the first European Union general law on administrative procedure was initiated, which would further improve the standards of European administrative process in general. When it comes to the general administrative procedure of the Republic of Serbia it has been shown that in spite of the strategic orientation towards the reform of the Law on Administrative Procedure expressed in numerous strategies, our executive authorities in this area have not yet moved beyond the development of the third version of the Draft Law on General administrative Procedure which was afterward adopted by the Government as the Bill. In his final remarks the author concludes stating that the largest number of European standards of administrative process are included in the final version of the Draft, but without eliminating the shortcomings of the existing Law, and without normative adjusting to the circumstances in which the Serbian administration operates, and with unnecessary abandonment of some solutions that have proved to be right in the decades-long practice of administrative authorities.

The paper analyzes the normative regulation of the procedural administrative decision institute, which was introduced into the Serbian administrative process as a novelty by the General Administrative Procedure Act (GAPA) in 2016. The paper aims to addresses three research questions: to determine the legislator's goal in regulating this insitute, to identify in which situations such a decision has to be made, and to establish how effective that type of decision is. At the beginning of the paper, the author focuses on the concept of effectiveness, including different, mutually opposed, approaches to defining that notion. The author points out the conceptual misunderstanding between efficiency and effectiveness, and their unjustified equalization. The main goal of introducing the institute of procedural administrative decision is the aspiration for greater protection of parties' procedural rights. The analysis of the text of the General Administrative Procedure Act has yielded seventeen basic types of procedural administrative decisions: a decision on rejecting the party's request, a decision not to allow alteration of the party's request, a decision on suspending the procedure, a decision on termination of the procedure, a decision on imposing a fine, decision on request, a decision on execution, a decision on securing the execution, a decision on appointing a temporary representative, a decision on denying representation to a quack lawyer for unlicenced practice of law, a decision on proposal for restitution, a decision on bearing preliminary procedure costs, a decision on exemption from procedure costs, a decision on payment of costs resulting from the absence or unjustified denial of testimony, a decision on compensation for damage to the holder, a decision on the proposal for providing evidence, and a decision on ordering an interim measure. The author concludes that the institute of procedural administrative decision can negatively affect the effectiveness of administrative proceedings due to the possibility of its unnecessary extension.

The article deals with the problem of defining the concept, legal nature and procedural features of the administrative procedural form. The author considers the concept of administrative proceedings in a broad sense, including both the activities of courts of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts. The fundamental difference between private law and public law relations is shown, the idea of the need to transform administrative proceedings is substantiated, taking into account the specifics of the public law to be protected and the peculiarities of regulating public law relations. The problem of independence and impartiality of the court considering the public law conflict is posed, the way of its solution is proposed. Substantiated proposals for improving the judicial protection of public rights, which are based on public, state interests.

Describes and explains the substantive and procedural nature of 3 local authorities' exercise of discretionary powers in the housing benefit scheme. Focuses on the extent to which administrative practices conform to legislative requirement, on the prescriptive influence of councillors over the administrative process and on the appellate role of the quasi-judicial housing benefit review board. (Abstract amended)

The article discusses the concept of procedural administrative transparency and aims to investigate the extent to which the legal provisions of Law no. 52/2003 on transparency in decision-making are actually implemented by the local administrations from the rural communities in the Transylvania region, Romania. The main research questions are: Where are the weaknesses in the implementation of Law no. 52/2003 in the rural settings in Romania? Why do they occur? What could be changed to alleviate these weaknesses? Based on a mixed method approach – surveys followed by direct observation and informal interviews – we determined that the implementation of procedural transparency requirements is low and in many cases local public authorities comply only 'for the record' with the provisions of the law. The main challenge with regard to implementation is the existence of universal provisions for all local public authorities, irrespective of their administrative capacity, existing cultural and social characteristics of public participation and communication in rural communities as well as the relationship between central and local tiers of the government. In conclusion, the authors argue that the implementation level of these requirements could be enhanced by their inclusion in a general procedural administrative law. Points for practitioners Very often, countries from Eastern Europe adopt state-of-the-art legislation which is then difficult to implement due to factors such as limited administrative capacity at the local level coupled with differences between urban and rural areas, resistance to change within the bureaucratic machinery, passiveness on behalf of the citizens, etc. In 2003, Romania adopted the law on transparency in the decision-making process of public authorities in an attempt to create a more open, transparent, accountable, and predictable government. Since its adoption, studies conducted by NGOs have proved that the implementation level is relatively low. This research assesses how the legal provisions of Law no. 52/2003 are implemented in the rural areas of Transylvania, one of the most significant regions of the country from an economic and cultural standpoint. Based on their findings, the authors argue that implementation in rural areas could be enhanced provided that local authorities are given more discretion with regard to how to implement certain provisions (flexibility in the choice of policy tools); and more discretion should be complemented by increased sanctions for non-compliance and their enforcement. These two goals can be achieved by including the procedural transparency requirements in a general administrative procedure law/administrative code.