Administrative Contracts in Serbian Law – Specificities of the New Statutory Regime

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marija Karanikić Mirić ◽  
Tatjana Jevremović Petrović
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Practical Experience ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Public Purpose ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Rules And Principles ◽  
Private Entity ◽  
Definition Of

The subject of this paper is the special legal regime for administrative contracts under the recently enacted Serbian Law on General Administrative Procedure of 2016. We offer a comprehensive analysis of the new statutory rules, and examine their relationship to the general rules and principles of Serbian contract law. In addition, we identify the main shortcomings of the new regime, especially in the context of the lack of any statutory, scholarly and judicial typology of administrative contracts in Serbia. Furthermore, we highlight the lack of references to the notions of public interest, public purpose or public needs in the statutory definition of administrative contracts. This is cause for concern, since only the need to protect the public interest could justify the new statutory provisions, which significantly improve the contractual position of a public body as a contracting party in relation to the position of a private entity as the other party in administrative contracts. There is as yet no case law pertaining to administrative contracts in Serbia. This is why we turn to practical experience in the Croatian legal system, which is sufficiently similar and historically connected to Serbia via a shared Yugoslav heritage. We also consider German and French legal models, since they traditionally serve as comparative points of reference for Serbian legal scholars, judges and law makers.

scholarly journals In the name of the public: Representatives of collective and wider interest of the public in administrative matters in Serbia

Pravni zapisi ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 504-531
Author(s):  
Jelena Jerinić
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Interested Party ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Active Approach ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Direct Indication ◽  
Administrative Procedures

Serbian Law on General Administrative Procedure (LGAP) opened a possibility for broadening the standing in administrative procedures and administrative disputes, by inclusion of subjects representing collective interests and interest of the wider public - primarily, citizen associations and similar organizations. However, by failing to regulate a series of concrete issues, the Law places the administration and the Administrative Court before a challenge, demanding from them an extensive interpretation of not only LGAP's provisions, but other legislation already recognizing such organizations as AIDS in realization of the public interest. The author analyzes relevant legislation, as well as available administrative and court caselaw in search of these answers. The lack of explicit legal provisions could be balanced by a creative approach in practice, especially by the Administrative Court. Having in mind comparative solutions, the question arises whether it is necessary to regulate this category of potential parties separately or to link it more explicitly to the already existing notion of an interested party. Instead, completely new notions have been introduced - collective interests and the wider interests of the public - which are not or not consistently defined in Serbian law. The current, not so voluminous case law, shows that the administrative bodies need a more direct indication of the rules, i.e. a more explicit definitions of these terms. However, despite the restrictive legal framework, administrative bodies should be open to understanding the specific circumstances, i.e. the motivation that an organization has when it seeks standing. In the normative sphere, one of the solutions could be to envisage the analogous application of LGAP's provisions on the interested party. Other solutions could be sought in explicitly mentioning them in the provisions on right to appeal. The current formulations of LGAP do not provide sufficient guidance to the administration and an extensive interpretation would be a great challenge for them. An active approach of the Administrative Court could show the way for the administration toward and effective application of these provisions of LGAP.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in China

2021 ◽  
pp. 44-46
Author(s):  
Xiaowei Sun
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Global Market ◽  
The State ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Administrative Litigation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Direct Applicability

This chapter focuses on administrative procedure and judicial review in China. Despite its willingness to adapt to the rules of the global market, China does not accept the direct applicability of international standards in administrative litigation. Judicial review of administration is based on a set of legislative texts and judicial interpretations by the Supreme People's Court. Among these texts, the Administrative Litigation Law regulates the judicial review of administrative acts. There are two lists in its chapter concerning the scope of judicial review: one includes the administrative acts that are open to judicial review, another the acts that are not reviewable. In any case, it is up to the courts to examine the following two combinations of criteria: the degree of the seriousness of the infringement with the definition of the state interest and that of the public interest; and the degree of procedural breach with the definition of the real impact on the rights of the plaintiff. According to Article 76 of the ALL, in the case of annulment and/or declaration of unlawfulness of an administrative act, a court may order the administration to take measures to compensate the damage inflicted on the plaintiff.

THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN PRIVATE NUISANCE: COLLECTIVES AND COMMUNITIES IN TORT

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Lee
Keyword(s):  
Significant Role ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
Scholarly Literature ◽  
The Public ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Regulatory Decisions

AbstractThe relevance of public interests in private law is at the heart of some central divides in tort scholarship. This paper argues that public interests pervade private nuisance cases. The uncertain and contested nature of public interests, and the absence in both the case law and the scholarly literature of an abstract definition of what is to count as a public interest, do not prevent these matters from playing a significant role in tort. In these circumstances, it is important to reflect on how we might set about articulating the public interest. This paper argues that administrative decisions that are intended to serve the public interest can in some cases provide a defensible vision of public interest for the purposes of private law. An examination of the process by which regulatory decisions were reached can provide indicators to assist in identifying and evaluating the strength of claimed public interests.

scholarly journals Inspection Regulation between General Procedural Codification and Field Specifics – a Case Study of Slovenia

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Polonca Kovač
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Role Model ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Comparative Methods ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
National Constitution ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Inspection, as the authoritative supervision of private liable persons to comply their activities with sector-specific laws, should ensure the full implementation of public policies. Slovenia adopted the Inspection Act (IA) in 2002, in order to conduct efficient inspection, and simultaneously guarantee the defence rights of the supervised parties pursuant to the fundamental principles of the EU, the national Constitution, and general Administrative Procedure Act. This article addresses the search for a balance between general codification and sector-related specifics as stipulated by the IA, applying normative, constitutional case law and comparative methods. Special attention is dedicated to the IA rules regarding participants, their legal protection and stages of respective proceedings. It has been concluded that the most of the IA specifics are justified in order to efficiently serve the public interest. This study reveals that the Slovene IA can represent a role model for efficient yet democratic supervision in other MS as well.

scholarly journals The Service of Documents in Administrative Procedural Law – A Comparative Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-131
Author(s):  
Ines Golob
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Comparative Research ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Uniform Manner ◽  
Administrative Proceedings

This article presents a comparative and empirical analysis of the service or the delivery of documents in procedures, as the key procedural action to constitute legal effects in legal relationships. In Slovenia, service is largely defined by the three main procedural laws – the General Administrative Procedure Act, the Criminal Procedure Act, and the Contentious Civil Procedure Act. These relate to different types and specifics of relationships; for instance, in administrative proceedings, the public interest prevails over private ones. The presented research, applying predominantly normative and comparative methods and analysis of case law, aims to show the importance of the specificity of the different areas and of the rules of service in different proceedings. The results of the research suggest that in certain cases service should be regulated in a uniform manner. Yet the specific aims of various legal relations require individual solutions. Thus, the article opens up grounds for future comparative research and practical regulatory improvements.

Uniform Defamation Laws in Australia: Moving towards a More ‘Reasonable’ Privilege?

2011 ◽  
Vol 138 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-20
Author(s):  
Rhonda Breit
Keyword(s):  
Mass Media ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
The Public

A new uniform defamation regime now operates in Australia. This article canvasses the Uniform Defamation Laws (UDLs), focusing on the defence of qualified privilege and its capacity to protect mass media publications in the public interest. Drawing on case law and analysis of the key approaches to statutory privilege, the article evaluates the current approach to statutory qualified privilege. Taking account of observations in O'Hara v Sims (2008, 2009) about the operation of qualified privilege, it questions whether the UDL statutory qualified privilege will ultimately censor publications in the public interest and restrict the application of the qualified privilege defence.

Silence with caution: The right to silence in police investigations in Belgium

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442110283
Author(s):  
Ashlee Beazley ◽  
Fien Gilleir ◽  
Michele Panzavolta ◽  
Joëlle Rozie ◽  
Miet Vanderhallen
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Public ◽  
Digital Devices ◽  
Police Investigations ◽  
Right To Silence ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

This article is about the right to remain silent within Belgium. Although the right has always been considered applicable, both the courts and parliament have historically demonstrated a disinclination to define or engage with this. The right to silence is now formally recognised in the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure, albeit with the classic distinction between those who are not (yet) accused of a crime and those who are formal suspects: while all enjoy the right not to incriminate themselves, only formal suspects in Belgium enjoy the explicit right to remain silent. Accordingly, whilst no one may be obliged to assist with their own conviction or be forced to co-operate with the authorities, it remains unclear how far the right not to cooperate effectively stretches. The case law seems to be moving, albeit slowly, in the direction of confining this right within narrower borders, particularly by excluding its applicability with regard to the unlocking and decryption of digital devices. This is not, however, the only idiosyncrasy concerning the right to silence in Belgium. Among those also addressed in this article are: the lack of caution on the right to remain silent given to arrested persons immediately following their deprivation of liberty (an absence striking for its apparent breach of Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information in criminal proceedings); the possible inducement to breach the right to silence via the discretionary powers of the public prosecutor to offer a reduction or mitigation in sentence; the obscurity surrounding the definition of ‘interrogation’ and the consequences of this on both the caution and the obtaining of statements; and the extent to which judges can draw adverse inferences from the right to silence. The question remains: is the right to silence currently protected enough?

Article 19 Notification obligation regarding rectification or erasure of personal data or restriction of processing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gloria González Fuster
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Historical Research ◽  
Information Communication ◽  
The Public ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Data Subject

Article 4(9) (Definition of ‘recipient’); Article 12 (Transparent information, communication and modalities for the exercise of the rights of the data subject); Article 16 (Right to rectification), Article 17(1) (Right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’)); Article 18 (Right to restriction of processing); Article 58(2)(g) (Powers of supervisory authorities); Article 89(3) (Safeguards and derogations relating to processing for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes).

Part 3: Intercollegiate communication

2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 116-117
Author(s):  
Andrew Montgomery
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Professional Associations ◽  
The Public ◽  
Moral Standards ◽  
Definition Of

The commonly used definition of a professional is someone who is educated and trained to a standard that has certain strict codes of both ethical and moral responsibility and is often applied to someone working in the public interest for the good of society. The agreed relevant professional associations lay down ethical and moral standards.

Situation Ethics and Incremental Reform of American Health Delivery Systems

1996 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-172
Author(s):  
Joseph C. D'Oronzio
Keyword(s):  
Moral Theory ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Special Situation ◽  
Ethical Problems ◽  
Rule By Law ◽  
Health Delivery ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Rules And Principles ◽  
Four Square ◽  
The 1960S

The classic formulation of situation ethics in the 1960s was the result of the contention that the deductive application of general rules and principles in ethics was inherently flawed by the uniqueness of every situation. Quite often, ethical problems are problems precisely because existing rules do not apply four square to the singular situation at hand. There is a need, the argument ran, to assert the primacy of the special situation and to formulate a resolution of the unsettling circumstances appropriately attuned to it. Situation ethics is, in a sense, a moral theory equivalent to case law in a legal system devoid of rule by law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document