Judicial Review of Administration in Europe

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giacinto della Cananea ◽  
Mauro Bussani
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Core ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Core Method ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Comparative Study

This book is about judicial review of public administration. Many have regarded this as dividing European legal orders, with judicial review of administrative action in the general courts or specialized administrative courts, or with different distance from the executive. There has been considerably less comparison of the basic procedural and substantive principles. The comparative study in this book of procedural fairness and propriety in the courts reveal not only differences but also some common and connecting elements, in a ‘common core’ perspective. The book is divided into four parts. The first explains the nature and purpose of a comparison to understand the relevance and significance of commonality and diversity between the legal systems of Europe, and which considers other legal systems which are more or less distant and distinct from Europe, such as China and Latin America. The second part contains an overview of the systems of judicial review in these legal orders. The third part, which is the heart of the ‘common core’ method, contains both a set of hypothetical cases and the solutions, according to the experts of the legal systems selected for our comparison, to the cases. The fourth part serves to examine the answers in comparative terms to ascertain not so much whether a ‘common core’ exists, but how it is shaped and evolves, also in response to the influence of supranational legal orders as the European Union and the Council of Europe.

The Common Core of European Administrative Laws and the Pan-European General Principles of Good Administration

2021 ◽  
pp. 21-34
Author(s):  
Ulrich Stelkens
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Common Core ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Institute Of Public Administration ◽  
German Research ◽  
The Common

This chapter examines a research project carried out at the German Research Institute of Public Administration and the German University of Administrative Sciences Speyer. This 'Speyer project' studies the development, content, and effectiveness of the written and unwritten standards of good administration drawn up within the framework of the Council of Europe (CoE), i.e. on the basis of its Statute (SCoE) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which is a sort of 'second pillar' of the CoE. These CoE standards are called 'pan-European principles of good administration'. This 'Speyer project' can be understood as a counterpart to the project carried out by Giacinto della Cananea and Mauro Bussani on the Common Core of European Administrative Law (CoCEAL) as it has a similar objective: to ascertain whether, despite many differences between European systems of administrative law, there are some connecting elements, or a 'common core', and, if so, whether such 'connecting elements' can be formulated in legal terms rather than as generic idealities. However, the methodological approach of the 'Speyer project' clearly differs from the 'factual approach' adopted in CoCEAL.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in the European Union

2021 ◽  
pp. 47-49
Author(s):  
Matteo Gnes
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Common ◽  
Procedural Requirement ◽  
The Eu

This chapter assesses administrative procedure and judicial review in the European Union. The requirement of judicial oversight of administrative action, which results from the common constitutional traditions of the Member States of the EU, is a general principle of EU law, and it is applicable both to proceedings before the Court of justice and before national courts, when EU law is invoked before them. The EU courts carry out a generalized review on any binding acts. Although there are certain differences between acts that may be challenged according to the different remedies provided by EU law, in order to be challengeable, the acts must fulfil several conditions. The most important are: they must be binding and produce legal effects, be definitive and be taken by EU institutions in the exercise of their competencies. Article 263 TFEU provides that the acts of EU institutions may be annulled on grounds of 'lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application, or misuse of powers'. Acts or failure to act may give rise to the liability of EU institutions.

scholarly journals Current Tendencies of Judicial Review as Reflected in the New Hungarian Code of Administrative Court Procedure

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-24
Author(s):  
Krisztina F. Rozsnyai
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
Coherent System ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Legislation And Jurisprudence ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Present Understanding

The continuing expansion of judicial review of administrative actions, as seen throughout Europe, led to the engulfment of the administrative judiciary towards the end of the last century. Review within a reasonable timeframe is hard to grant for this reason: the tensions between lawfulness and efficiency are amplified. The answers given to alleviate this tension raise questions that lie at the heart of the principle of separation of powers. This article aims to present some of respective tendencies, which lead to new equilibriums in the system of checks and balances between public administration and the judiciary. To concretise these tendencies, the article analyses some relevant solutions given by the very new code on administrative court procedures, the Hungarian Act No. I of 2017. The most important elements of the regulation of procedures for judicial review of administrative action are provided in a dogmatic and a comparative perspective showing the changes of rules and/or their interpretation through the judiciary. Thus, also important challenges regarding the present understanding of the doctrine of separation of powers are emphasised. The most important elements of the new Hungarian regulation are presented in a coherent system, which also gives insight on the codificational considerations. Moreover, the legislation and jurisprudence must deal with the highlighted aspects in any national and EU legal systems alike.

The ‘Common Core’ of administrative laws in Europe: A framework for analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-250
Author(s):  
Giacinto della Cananea ◽  
Mauro Bussani
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Method ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Institutional Practices ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Common ◽  
Synchronic Comparison

This essay presents the framework for new comparative research in the field of administrative law, with a focus on the European legal area. It is divided into two parts. In Part I, we argue that some difficulties that beset the traditional uses of the comparative method are even more evident when considering the field of administrative law. Accordingly, a methodological shift is needed in more than one sense. First, instead of focusing on either similarities or differences between national legal systems, both analogies and differences must be considered. Second, legal comparison, properly intended, differs from a mere juxtaposition of national administrative laws. Third, the overemphasis on legislation is even less justified in the field of administrative law, which calls for careful attention to judicial and institutional practices. In this perspective, we briefly illustrate the methodology grounded in a factual approach that has been developed in the field of comparative private law in the last few decades and the way we are going to apply it into our research on administrative law, viewed through a procedural lens. In Part II we discuss the main pillars that characterize our research concerning administrative law: first, its goal, which is the advancement of knowledge; second, the choice to focus on administrative procedure, instead of judicial review of administrative action; third, the methodology, which combines a synchronic comparison, concerning modern legal systems, with a diachronic comparison, that is to say a retrospective on some aspects of the history of legal institutions that look particularly relevant; and fourth, the choice of the legal systems selected for comparison, including a variety of states and a non-state, the European Union.

Judicial Review of Administrative Action: Europe and Latin America

2021 ◽  
pp. 316-325
Author(s):  
Mario P. Chiti
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Latin America ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
General Part

This chapter provides a comparison of the discipline of judicial review of administrative action in Latin America and in Europe. In terms of judicial review in Latin America, international organizations did not exercise an 'integrative influence' as the Council of Europe and the European Union did in Europe. It may be said that the relative homogeneity of the systems of judicial review in Latin America is mainly the result of the cultural polity formed by many states resulting from the disintegration of the Spanish and Portuguese domains. The chapter then considers the main points of the general part of Professor Brewer-Carias's report on the discipline of judicial review of administrative action in Latin America, which shows a situation very similar to the European one. These include the nature of judicial review; administrative procedure and judicial review; procedural infringements; administrative appeals; monism and dualism; and judicial proceedings.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Lithuania

2021 ◽  
pp. 69-71
Author(s):  
Agnė Andrijauskaitė
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
General Rule ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
The Law ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Administrative Proceedings

This chapter reviews administrative procedure and judicial review in Lithuania. The introduction of administrative justice into the Lithuanian legal system happened against the backdrop of Lithuania's 'unflinching' desire to join the European Union and was meant to strengthen the protection of individual rights and administrative accountability. Two cornerstone acts in this regard, the Law on Public Administration and the Law on Administrative Proceedings (APA), were adopted in 1999. Administrative courts were also established in the same year. Article 3 (1) APA spells out the general rule that administrative courts settle disputes arising in the domain of the public administration. All the acts and measures excluded from the competence of administrative courts are listed in Article 18 APA, which establishes the so-called negative competence of administrative courts. Meanwhile, Article 91 (1) (3) APA provides that the impugned administrative decision may be quashed if 'essential procedural rules intended to ensure objective and reasonable adoption of an administrative decision were breached'.

Part V Judicial Review before the Court of Justice of the European Union, 3 Decentralized Judicial Review and Enforcement of EU State Aid Rules

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kreuschitz Viktor ◽  
Nehl Hanns Peter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Common Market ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Common

This chapter assesses the enforcement of EU State aid rules. The Commission is not the only authority involved in the monitoring of State aid. As regards the supervision of Member States' compliance with their obligations under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, the national courts also have an important role to play. The implementation of that system of control is a matter for both the Commission and the national courts, their respective roles being complementary but separate. Whilst assessment of the compatibility of aid measures with the common market falls within the exclusive competence of the Commission, subject to review by the Courts of the European Union, it is for national courts to ensure the safeguarding, until the final decision of the Commission, of the rights of individuals faced with a possible breach by State authorities of the prohibition laid down by Article 108(3) TFEU.

scholarly journals Comparative Study of Civil Procedure in Common Law and Civil Law Systems

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 267
Author(s):  
Nader Ghanbari ◽  
Hassan Mohseni ◽  
Dawood Nassiran
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Specific Method ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Separate Branch ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Comparative Study

Comparing the legal systems is a specific method in which due to its important function is considered as a separate branch in law. None of the branches in law can place its knowledge merely on ideas and findings within the national borders. Several basic objections have been given regarding the definition and purpose of comparative study in civil procedure. In addition there are specific problems regarding studying practically the similar systems in a legal system like differences in purpose, definition and concept. In different legal systems like civil law and common law systems in which there is a divergence, even the judicial system`s organs and judges` appointment and judicial formalism are different, which add to the problems of the comparative study. Reviewing these differences could lead to a better understanding of these legal systems and recognizing the common principles in making use of each other`s findings considering these differences and indicate the obstacles of comparative study in this regard.

scholarly journals Role of the Philosophy of Law in the process of unifying the legal systems of the members of the European Union in the context of the Common Framework of Reference Project v

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (68) ◽  
pp. 463-475
Author(s):  
Fursa Svitlana Yaroslavivna ◽  
Kukhniuk Dmitriy Vladimirovich ◽  
Bondar Iryna Vadymivna ◽  
Maliarchuk Liubov Sergiivna ◽  
Derii Olena Olexsandrivna
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The State ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Philosophy Of Law ◽  
Strategic Direction ◽  
Common Framework ◽  
The Common

The study discusses the role of the philosophy of law in the process of unifying legal systems through the prism of the principles of the Draft Common Framework of Reference in Europe. The application of the philosophy of law in unification processes is also a necessary condition for the implementation of these processes about human rights and the sovereign interests of the State, which implements the unification of the legal order. Hence, the issue of European integration determines the strategic direction of the state, and this leads to the unification of law. The study aims to identify the role of the philosophy of law in the processes of unifying the legal systems of the European Union and its importance in the use of principles in these processes, justifying the need to use the philosophy of law in any process of transformation. It is concluded that the philosophy of law is a bridge harmonized with the legal sphere of operation of both individual states and supranational associations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document