Suchergebnisse

The article, based on a generalized analysis of various scientific approaches, formulates the author's idea of the administrative process and its relationship with some related categories. It is noted that the author denies the so-called broad concept of administrative process, and especially its managerial aspect of understanding, because the administrative process should not be associated with public administration (public administration), because the form of the latter is purely administrative procedure. In addition, the author finds erroneous the thesis that the courts are subjects of public administration as it follows from the principles of a broad interpretation of the administrative process and its structure. Support is expressed for the idea that at the present stage of state-building processes and the development of the doctrine of administrative law it is necessary to abandon the idea of administrative process as regulated by administrative-procedural norms of public administration aimed at implementing the relevant substantive branches of law in considering and resolving individual specific cases. It is seen that such a view of the administrative process not only does not meet the principles of adaptation of domestic administrative legislation to European standards, inhibits domestic administrative doctrine on its way to modernize, but also significantly confuses the essence of administrative law and administrative proceedings as mechanisms for implementation and protection of individual rights in the public sphere. It is indicated that administrative proceedings (administrative proceedings) are regulated by the norms of the CAP of Ukraine law enforcement activities of administrative courts to consider and resolve administrative disputes. ; У статті, на підставі узагальненого аналізу різноманітних наукових підходів, сформульовано авторське уявлення про адміністративний процес та його співвідношення з деякими суміжними категоріями. Зауважено, що автор заперечує так звану широку концепцію адміністративного процесу, а особливо її управлінський аспект розуміння, оскільки адміністративний процес не повинен асоціюватися із публічним адмініструванням (державним управлінням), адже формою функціонування останнього є виключно адміністративна процедура. Окрім того, автору видається хибною теза про те, що суди є суб'єктами публічного адміністрування як це витікає із засад широкого трактування адміністративного процесу та його структури. Висловлено підтримку думки про те, що варто остаточно відмовитися на сучасному етапі державотворчих процесів та розвитку доктрини адміністративного права від уявлення про адміністративний процес як врегульованої адміністративно-процесуальними нормами діяльності публічної адміністрації, спрямованої на реалізацію норм відповідних матеріальних галузей права в ході розгляду і вирішення індивідуально-конкретних справ. Вбачається, що такий погляд на адміністративний процес не тільки не відповідає засадам адаптації вітчизняного адміністративного законодавства до європейських стандартів, гальмує вітчизняну адміністративно-правову доктрину на шляху її осучаснення, але й суттєво заплутує уявлення про суть на призначення адміністративного права та адміністративного судочинства як механізмів реалізації та захисту прав особи у публічній сфері. Вказано, що адміністративне судочинство (адміністративний процес) є регламентованою нормами КАС України правозастосовчою діяльністю адміністративних судів щодо розгляду та вирішення адміністративних спорів.

In federal and state governments in the United States, administrative agencies are often given broad delegated powers to affect policy, subject only to the substantive and procedural limits contained in the Constitution and in statutes. In our legal system, the basic function of judicial review of agency action is to keep administrative agencies within the bounds set for them by these legislative and constitutional commands. It is understood that courts have no significant policy-making authority; they should not extend their own function beyond the policing of these constitutional and statutory boundaries. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Chapter 34.05 RCW, contains several types of information about judicial review. It identifies what matters are reviewable, how and where judicial review is obtained, who can seek judicial review, when review can be obtained, and what review consists of once it is secured. --Publisher's description

The purpose of the scientific article is to research the problems that arise during the application of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the administrative judicial procedure and to outline ways to solve them.The scientific approaches to the legal nature of the European Court of Human Rights are analyzed. The main problems that arise in the application of the case law of the ECHR during the consideration and resolution of cases in administrative courts are related to the inaccessibility of the ECHR decisions against other states due to lack of translations, different understanding of the legal nature of the ECHR decisions both among scientists and among practitioners, the lack of an appropriate level of legal culture and skills in applying the ECHR practice among judges are identified. The author of the article came to the conclusion that the solution of these problems requires the need of urgent action by the state, in particular, the creation of a special register of officially translated decisions of the European Court, raising awareness of the use of the ECHR practice by the higher courts, further optimization of the administrative procedural legislation, which will make it possible to achieve progressive changes in the application of decisions of the ECHR in the administrative judicial procedure of Ukraine. ; Метою наукової статті є дослідження проблем, що виникають під час застосування рішень Європейського суду з прав людини в адміністративному судочинстві, та визначення способів їх вирішення.У статті проаналізовано наукові підходи вчених щодо правового типу рішень ЄСПЛ. Визначено, що основні проблеми, які виникають під час застосування практики ЄСПЛ у процесі розгляду та вирішення справ в адміністративних судах пов'язані з недоступністю рішень ЄСПЛ, ухвалених проти інших держав, через відсутність їхніх перекладів, неодна- ковим розумінням правового типу рішень ЄСПЛ як серед науковців, так і серед практичних працівників, відсутністю належного рівня правової культури та навичок застосування практики ЄСПЛ серед суддів. Автор статті дійшов висновку, що вирішення зазначених проблем потребує невідкладних заходів з боку держави, зокрема створення спеціального реєстру офіційно перекладених рішень Європейського суду, проведення роз'яснювальної роботи щодо використання практики ЄСПЛ з боку вищих судових інстанцій, подальшої оптимізації адміністративно-процесуального законодавства, що дозволить досягти прогре- сивних змін у застосуванні рішень ЄСПЛ в адміністративному судочинстві України.

Tax procedures consist of a series of actions geared towards securing tax collection in conformity with the rule of law. The exercise of powers by tax authorities in the framework of tax procedures is subject to review and judicial appeals that provide legal remedies for the effective protection of the rights of the affected persons, i.e. the taxpayers. For this reason, this book supports a unitary study of tax procedures that reflects the inextricable links between their administrative and judicial phases. The comparative analysis reveals best practices and common core principles shared by the various countries. However, it also reveals inconsistencies, disparities (especially for cross-border situations, which currently lack the jurisdiction of a single judicial instance) and critical areas arising in the practice of tax procedures. Based on such premises, this book questions the validity of the principle of national procedural autonomy in tax matters across the European Union and promotes the establishment of a common framework for tax procedures that enhances tax procedures in domestic and cross-border situations. In the preliminary stage of this 3-year research activity, a working group of renowned academics helped the editor finalize the scope of the project. The systematic approach of this book towards tax procedures is a comprehensive doctrinal analysis of all relevant issues in the light of comparative, international and EU law. The three core parts of the book contain the general reports, topical reports and national reports, respectively. ; 2019-20

Legal scholars view administrative law as alternately shaped by concerns for procedural integrity and issues of political control, and therefore as consisting of largely conflicting rules. But they have overlooked that the Court may be elaborating administrative law, and more particularly, administrative procedures, for a political purpose - to ensure that agency action roughly tracks legislative preferences. Thus, rather than vacillating between procedures and politics, the Court may be striving to negotiate two sorts of politics: congressional control, exercised through administrative procedures, and presidential control, vindicated by presumptive judicial deference. Positive political theorists, meanwhile, have appreciated that administrative procedures can assist Congress in monitoring agencies. But they have not applied their theory to actual administrative law, and their assumptions about judicial behavior cannot predict such law. This Article combines the insights of legal scholars and positive political theorists to offer a better descriptive account and normative defense of the seminal administrative law cases. It shows that the Court has recognized a political use for administrative procedures, as positive political theorists might expect. It contends, however, that to truly understand administrative law, we must see the Court in a way more familiar to legal academics, as sincerely interested in producing acceptable rules for agency decisionmaking. The Court has claimed a role in mediating the strategic needs of both political branches for control of agency action. In so doing, the Court has matched the practical way that agencies operate with a normative theory about how they should operate in the democratic structure.

In Dutch law unilateral termination of labour contracts usually is only possible with the prior permission of the Director of the District Labour Office. The functions of this administrative procedure have shifted considerably over time: originally an instrument of labour market policy, it is now predominantly oriented to prevention of dismissal without reasonable grounds. Some critics claim that this shift urges for abolishing this administrative procedure and leaving the matter to the judiciary competent in civil law disputes. Constitutionally sound as this position may be, its consequences would severely threaten realisation of the principle of 'no dismissal but on reasonable grounds'.Results of empirical research into the Labour Office procedure and into the Lower Court procedure of "dissolution for important reasons" are presented to found this evaluative conclusion. Attention is paid to the discretion of dismissal officers and to the informal way of handling cases in the Lower Court. As a preliminary dispute processing institution, the Labour Office procedure is in tune with the comparatively large contribution of informal procedures to Dutch justice.

by Georges Langrod « Maître de recherches », French National Centre for Scientific Research, Full Professor at the University of the Saar The legal aspect of administrative procedure is traditionally neglected by the Science of administrative Law. Considered as a technical problem, it is left to administrative scientists only. The whole legal operation preceding the administrative decision remains outside the sphere of scientific analysis, thereby impoverishing our knowledge of the administrative phenomenon. On the one hand the specialist in administrative law respects to a surprising degree the tradition that administrative law regulates the aims of administrative action, but leaves the ways leading to accomplishment of these aims solely to administrative technicians. On the other hand, the specialist in Public Administration sees only the essential contradiction between the strict bounds of restrictive legal precept and the necessary elasticity of administrative action. He defends the latter and is therefore prima facie opposed to the former. Although the Administration should be as unhampered as possible in order to be effective in everyday life, the « Rechtsstaat » — with its characteristic curtailment of « Le Roy le veult » — is founded also on the active participation of cujus res agitur in administrative disputes. This participation assures at the same time an important control of administrative action by the citizen. It constitutes one of the victories of political democracy over the unbridled licence of « royal pleasure ». Political expediency can no longer be considered as the only motivation of all administrative action. Nevertheless it should not be undervalued: a balance must be sought between the legal, technical and political aspects of this action, the political aspect being accepted in its widest sence. The process of « juridicalisation » of Administration through administrative Law — extended even to administrative procedure — must be constantly scrutinized with a view to controlling the effects of old mental habits and conservative approach to Public Administration and to administrative management. Professor Langrod examines, in all its aspects, the generally underestimated but important problem of « purely administrative » procedure, i.e. of non-contentious disputes within the frame of administrative action. He discusses the different approaches of the traditional doctrine to this problem and its frequent lack of comprehension in this field. Having weighed the consequences of the traditional application of procedural theory and process rules to justice alone, the author goes on to examine — by methods of comparison — the present-day solutions to the problem. These solutions are grouped under three principal headings: — administrative systems with well-developed administrative Law but without any « processual » approach, such as those existing in France and Germany. This approach is reserved only for the administrative courts («juridiction administrative», «Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit»). Everything which happens within the framework of « pure » Administration is left, almost entirely, to the discretion of internal rules, under the subsequent judicial control of legality; — « mixed » systems, or half-way solutions, i.e. mainly the Anglo-Saxon doctrine of « quasi-judicial » functions, presupposing the existence of a dispute between equal parties, before the Administration. The procedural rights of these parties, accorded by law or by practice, differentiate this type of procedure from the « purely » administrative activity. Thus appear in England the so-called « administrative tribunals » which are not judicial courts, but administrative authorities with a particular process, resulting from the fundamentals of fair play in administrative action. To this group belong also the administrative systems of Spain, Portugal, Latin America, Italy and Sweden, where — if not always the legislature and practice — at least the doctrine of administrative Law and the jurisprudence in administrative matters frequently accept a procedural point of view for the administrative action; — systems comprising a complete « processual » sector of administrative Law doctrine and a legislative codification of legal procedure of Public Administration. This is the case in Austria and three other countries of Central-Eastern Europe where in the years 1925-1930 « codes of administrative procedure » appeared, and are still obligatory. In spite of changes after 1945 in countries now under Communist regime, in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the great Austrian model remains unchanged. The United States of America, owing to the A.P.A. 1946, are found in the same group, because of their global approach to this problem of administrative dispute, based on the classical « due process » doctrine and on the application of the « audi alteram partem » formula (through adjudication, hearing, notice, examiners corps, etc.). Professor Langrod's study comprises administrative dispute considered as an integral part of a « general legal procedure », constituting in theory a « processual » uniformity, regardless of the sector of Law to which it applies. Thus procedural approach ceases to be a monopoly of justice as it was for centuries, and has to be extended to all official actions concerning parties' interests or rights. The author endeavours finally to formulate some general principles of administrative legal procedure, based on empirical comparative experience. After having examined and summarized these principles, he concludes that the great process of « juridicalization » of Public Administration has generally desirable effects. It brings about more social outlook, the true democratization of Administration owing to the active and « organized » co-operation between authorities and parties) and the fact that — if well conceived and balanced — legal rules tend not to hamper, but rather to guide the processes of litigation, to the true interests of legal security and administrative efficiency.