Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Switzerland

2021 ◽  
pp. 75-78
Author(s):  
Thierry Tanquerel
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights

This chapter examines administrative procedure and judicial review in Switzerland. Article 29a of the Federal Constitution (Cst.) provides that 'In a legal dispute, every person has the right to have their case determined by a judicial authority. The Confederation and the Cantons may by law preclude the determination by the courts of certain exceptional categories of case'. It is widely recognized that Article 29a Cst. grants the right of judicial review of administrative action to everyone whose rights or obligations are affected by such an action. Judicial review of administrative action is entrusted partly to courts with general jurisdiction, partly to specialized administrative courts, and partly to specific independent appellate committees. As a general principle, procedural rights are deemed 'formal rights' by the Federal Tribunal, whose violation would cause the act or the measure at stake to be quashed irrespective of its substantive merits. However, there are certain acts or measures issued by Swiss authorities which escape judicial control, when those acts or measures are primarily of a political nature. When an act is appealed before a court, the only question at stake is the validity of the act. If the court finds it unlawful for procedural or substantive reasons, it will either quash it or modify it to make it lawful.

Standards of Judicial Review of Administrative Action (1890–1910) in the Austro-Hungarian Empire

2021 ◽  
pp. 41-72
Author(s):  
Angela Ferrari Zumbini
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Affairs ◽  
Main Theme ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
Liberal Approach ◽  
The Right

This chapter argues that, if France has been the home of administrative courts, Austria has greatly contributed to the development of administrative law with regard to administrative procedure. Thanks to the Austrian Administrative Court, established in 1875, administrative law has been increasingly important in the regulation of public affairs. The chapter analyses the causes, development, and effects of these features. One main theme is, of course, the scope and purpose of judicial review of administrative action. In this respect, the chapter shows the growth of litigation and the liberal approach followed by the Court. Moreover, the role of the Court as lawmaker is examined in the light of the general principles of law that it developed. . Such principles included legality and procedural fairness, with particular regard to the right to a hearing and the duty to give reasons. Considered as a whole, they required public administrations to act reasonably rather than arbitrarily. Finally, it was judge-made law that constituted the basis for the codification of 1925.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Hungary

2021 ◽  
pp. 59-61
Author(s):  
András Zs. Varga
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
Administrative Measure ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Judicial Procedures ◽  
The Right

This chapter studies administrative procedure and judicial review in Hungary. Section (1) of Article XXVIII of the Basic Law of Hungary (the Constitution of 2011) regulates the right to a fair trial reproducing the text almost word-for-word as found in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Consequently, anyone effected by an administrative measure has the (constitutional) right to judicial review. Section (7) guarantees the right to legal remedy against decisions of the courts, the public administration, or other authorities that infringe their rights or demonstrable interests. The two regulations are effective even separately, but their combined effect is that the judicial review of administrative action is an incontestable constitutional right. Administrative courts decide on the legality of the administrative action from the point of view of substantive and procedural administrative law, the judicial review is regulated by Act I of 2017 on the Code on Judicial Review of Administrative Actions, while a lawsuit for damages is heard by the ordinary court in a civil law procedure regulated by Act CXXX of 2016 of the Code of Civil Judicial Procedures.

Constitutional Principles and Judicial Remedies in Switzerland

2020 ◽  
pp. 77-79
Author(s):  
Thierry Tanquerel
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Administrative Authority ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Federal Level ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Civil Court ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
Judicial Remedies ◽  
Federal Structure

In Switzerland, the law concerning the liability in tort of public authorities is complex, due to the federal structure of government, and it is still evolving. Until twenty years or so ago, the Federal Constitution had no such thing as a general principle of damages liability, but such liability has been governed by statute since 1958. Now Article 146 of the Federal Constitution of 1999 provides that the ‘Confederation shall be liable for damage or loss unlawfully caused by its organs in the exercise of official activities.’ This provision solidifies the liability of all bodies discharging public functions and powers on behalf of the Confederation, but it is cantonal law that governs the liability of cantons and municipalities. There is thus a potentiality for differentiation, though actually all cantons regulate public liability along the lines of Article 146. There is, however, a mixture of commonality and diversity concerning administrative procedure. There is still another element of differentiation concerning judicial review, because in some cantons (and on the federal level) the claim for damages must be brought to an administrative authority, while in others it must be brought to an administrative or to a civil court.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Spain

2021 ◽  
pp. 72-74
Author(s):  
Oriol Mir
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Fully Integrated ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Spanish Constitution ◽  
Administrative Jurisdiction ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection

This chapter discusses administrative procedure and judicial review in Spain. The Spanish Constitution of 1978 (CE) devotes two central provisions to judicial review of administrative action. Article 106(1) CE, located in Part IV on government and administration, establishes that 'The Courts control the power to issue regulations and to ensure that the rule of law prevails in administrative action, as well as to ensure that the latter is subordinated to the ends which justify it'. On the other hand, Article 24(1) CE enshrines the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, which also includes protection against administrative action: 'Every person has the right to obtain the effective protection of the judges and the courts in the exercise of his or her legitimate rights and interests, and in no case may he go undefended'. Judicial review is usually performed by specific courts fully integrated into the judiciary, the so-called jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa (administrative jurisdiction), competent to review administrative action subject to Spanish administrative law.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Ukraine

2021 ◽  
pp. 79-81
Author(s):  
Halyna Dovhan
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Act ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
The Right

This chapter evaluates administrative procedure and judicial review in Ukraine. The Constitution of Ukraine provides that 'Administrative courts function in order to protect the rights, freedoms, and interests of a person in the sphere of public relations'. According to the Code of Administrative Proceedings (CAP), all persons have the right to bring a case before the administrative court if they consider that their rights, freedoms, or legal interests have been infringed by the decision, action, or inaction of the empowered authority. While the Constitution states that the jurisdiction of courts covers any legal dispute, the CAP entrusts administrative courts with jurisdiction over all public-law disputes. Absent a law on administrative procedure or administrative acts, in such cases the courts use the provisions of the special law that regulates the concrete sphere. They examine the administrative act or measure from the viewpoint of its conformity with the criteria set forth in the CAP. If the court finds that there has been a breach of fundamental standards of administrative propriety and fairness, it is entitled to quash the contested act or measure and also to award damages.

The Principles Governing Public Authority Liability in Poland

2020 ◽  
pp. 66-68
Author(s):  
Marek Wierzbowski ◽  
Marek Grzywacz ◽  
Joanna Róg Dyrda ◽  
Katarzyna Ziółkowska
Keyword(s):  
General Principle ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The State ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
General Terms ◽  
Administrative Procedures ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Polish Law ◽  
The Right

Before 1989, Polish courts in some cases affirmed the liability of the State on the basis of existing legislative provisions. After 1989, the Constitution admits administrative liability in very general terms, because everyone shall have the right to be awarded damages for any harm done by administrative action contrary to the law. The more detailed provisions of the Civil Code implement such general principle. More generally, the liability of administrative authorities is regarded as being subject to private law standards. However, in some cases illegality per se will not suffice for liability. This is the case, in particular, for administrative acts that are characterized by real discretion. Moreover, administrative procedures are regulated by parliamentary legislation. Another particular feature of Polish law is that, to prove the unlawfulness of the action taken by administrative authorities, on both procedural and substantive grounds, claimants must bring an action before administrative courts.

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'.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Germany

2021 ◽  
pp. 53-58
Author(s):  
Lilly Weidemann
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Protective Effects ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Federal Statute ◽  
The Right ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Subjective Rights

This chapter explores administrative procedure and judicial review in Germany. The German Basic Law contains a guarantee of access to justice. According to section 40(1) of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (CACP), recourse to the administrative courts shall be available in all public-law disputes of a non-constitutional nature insofar as the disputes are not explicitly allocated to another court by a federal statute. German administrative court procedure generally aims to protect subjective rights. In general, all measures taken by a public authority are subject to review by courts. This principle forms an essential part of the fundamental rights constitutionally guaranteed. Thus, no measure by the public administration is excluded from this guarantee. The infringement of a procedural provision with protective effects does not necessarily lead to the right of the applicant to have the decision quashed. This usually requires the infringement of a right of the appellant resulting from substantive law. Damages cannot be claimed within the same (administrative) court proceeding that aims to quash an administrative decision.

scholarly journals THE RIGHT TO ORAL HEARING IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PUBLIC SERVANTS: A MALAYSIAN PERSPECTIVE

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zukiferee Ibrahim ◽  
Abdul Majid Tahir Mohamed
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Public Servants ◽  
Constitutional Protection ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
Liberal Approach ◽  
The Right ◽  
Malaysian Government

The decisions of disciplinary authorities in disciplinary proceedings continue to be judicially reviewed on the grounds of their failure to grant an oral hearing to affected public servants albeit there is a well-established principle by the Privy Council in Najar Singh’s case since 1976. Such failure may implicate the deliverance of justice, and affect the reputation and goodwill of the Malaysian government as the major employer in the nation. The constitutional protection of a reasonable opportunity of being heard to public servants under Article 135(2) in the case of dismissal and reduction of rank should be interpreted in the light of the fundamental right to life as enshrined in the Federal Constitution. The purpose of this article is to examine the approaches of the court in determining the right to an oral hearing in disciplinary proceedings against public servants; and whether the administrative decisions of the disciplinary authorities should be subject to judicial review or not. This paper forwarded a submission that the court should adopt a liberal approach in determining the right to an oral hearing in disciplinary proceedings against public servants.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document