scholarly journals Problemy związane z definicją lasu w polskim systemie prawnym

2019 ◽  
pp. 71-91
Author(s):  
Jędrzej Bujny ◽  
Tymoteusz Mądry
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Vast Number ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Data Binding ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
Normative Value ◽  
Potential Use

The article touches upon the controversies around the defi nition of a forest contained in the provision of Article 3 of the Act of 28 September 1991 on forests, present in the doctrine as well as in judicial decisions in administrative law. The interpretation of the above provision is analysed and the views presented in the doctrine and the judicial rulings, which sometimes include contradicting arguments, are examined. In the fi rst part of the article individual elements of the defi nition of a forest have been identifi ed and the diffi culties with their interpretation that have led to the emergence of a vast number of judicial decisions and rulings delivered by administrative courts as well as the Supreme Court have been presented. The second part contains deliberations on the importance of the data included in the land and buildings register and their potential use for the classifi cation of land as a forest on the grounds of concrete administrative proceedings, including these on tax matters. In this context the normative value of the provisions of the Act of 17 May 1989: Geodetic and Cartographic Law and individual tax laws making these data binding and applicable has been examined as well. Also this latter issue generates frequently diverging opinions expressed by administrative courts. The last part of the paper contains de lege lata and de lege ferenda postulates intended to reconcile the presented controversies connected with the classifi cation of individual land as forest. The authors hope that implementation of these postulates will contribute to the unifi cation of the judiciary opinions regarding the concept of a forest and consequently will help to eliminate the existing doubts.

Ustalenie właściwości organu administracji publicznej w zakresie prowadzenia egzekucji obowiązkowych szczepień ochronnych i występowania z wnioskiem o ukaranie za uchylanie się od tego obowiązku

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (70) ◽  
pp. 33-49
Author(s):  
Sebastian Czechowicz
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
The State ◽  
The Public ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Preventive Vaccination ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Legislative Changes

The article is devoted to determine the authority competent to carry out the execution of the obligation to vaccinate, as well as the authority competent to apply for punishment of those who persistently evade preventive vaccinations on the basis of the Code of Misdemeanours in Poland. After analysing the competencies of the public administration bodies and comparing them with the judicial decisions of the administrative courts and the Supreme Court issued in cases involving mandatory preventive vaccination, which present an inconsistent line of jurisprudence, the author concludes that the enforcement body is the province governor. However, it is necessary to postulate legislative changes, primarily in the area of the possible transfer of competencies from the province governor to the State Sanitary Inspection.

scholarly journals Reforming administrative justice in Ukraine at the present stage

Legal Ukraine ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 6-9
Author(s):  
Sergiy Stogun
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Local Courts ◽  
European Standards ◽  
Administrative Proceedings

The article considers an important problem – the creation of an autonomous system of administrative courts as a means and an opportunity to unload local general courts by refusing to consider administrative cases in these courts. The role and place of each judicial link in the system of administrative legal proceedings is determined. The main issue is to regulate the effectiveness of the lawsuit. The problem of the effectiveness of the lawsuit has been repeatedly considered in the works of Ukrainian scientists, but the effectiveness parameters are still not clearly defined. The issue of judicial jurisdictions (administrative, economic and general) is also subject to justification and a clearer delineation. The practice of consideration by general district courts of administrative cases or the so-called public law disputes raises many questions. That is, we are talking about the functioning of common courts of the first link at the same time as criminal, civil and administrative. The author makes a proposal to establish on the basis of district administrative courts in each regional center of appeal. At the same time, the local courts should be the newly created inter-district courts, the jurisdiction of which should extend to at least 3 adjacent regions. The article argues the feasibility of reforming the Supreme Court as a cassation instance. The proposal of the parliamentarians to reduce the Supreme Court by 100 judicial units before a real reform of administrative proceedings will not result. We do not see what the composition of the Cassation Administrative Court will be, what its procedural powers will be, and the like. However, by signing an association agreement with the EU, Ukraine has committed itself to adapt its legislation to the level of European standards, including in terms of legislation on the judicial system, legal proceedings and the status of judges. And above all, this concerns compliance with the requirements of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms regarding the independence and impartiality of the court.

PERSINGGUNGAN KEWENANGAN MENGADILI PENYALAHGUNAAN DISKRESI ANTARA PENGADILAN TUN DAN PENGADILAN TIPIKOR / INTERCEPTION OF JUSTICE AUTHORITY OF DISCRETION ABUSE BETWEEN ADMINISTRATION COURT AND CORRUPTION COURTS

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 213
Author(s):  
Budi Suhariyanto
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
State Finance ◽  
The Law ◽  
To Receive

Diskresi sebagai wewenang bebas, keberadaannya rentan akan disalahgunakan. Penyalahgunaan diskresi yang berimplikasi merugikan keuangan negara dapat dituntutkan pertanggungjawabannya secara hukum administrasi maupun hukum pidana. Mengingat selama ini peraturan perundang-undangan tentang pemberantasan tindak pidana korupsi tidak merumuskan secara rinci yang dimaksudkan unsur menyalahgunakan kewenangan maka para hakim menggunakan konsep penyalahgunaan wewenang dari hukum administrasi. Problema muncul saat diberlakukannya Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 dimana telah memicu persinggungan dalam hal kewenangan mengadili penyalahgunaan wewenang (termasuk diskresi) antara Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dengan Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Pada perkembangannya, persinggungan kewenangan mengadili tersebut ditegaskan oleh Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 4 Tahun 2015 bahwa PTUN berwenang menerima, memeriksa, dan memutus permohonan penilaian ada atau tidak ada penyalahgunaan wewenang (termasuk diskresi) dalam Keputusan dan/atau Tindakan Pejabat Pemerintahan sebelum adanya proses pidana. Sehubungan tidak dijelaskan tentang definisi dan batasan proses pidana yang dimaksud, maka timbul penafsiran yang berbeda. Perlu diadakan kesepakatan bersama dan dituangkan dalam regulasi tentang tapal batas persinggungan yang jelas tanpa meniadakan kewenangan pengujian penyalahgunaan wewenang diskresi pada Pengadilan TUN.Discretion as free authority is vulnerable to being misused. The abuse of discretion implicating the state finance may be prosecuted by both administrative and criminal law. In view of the fact that the law on corruption eradication does not formulate in detail the intended element of authority abuse, the judges use the concept of authority abuse from administrative law. Problems arise when the enactment of Law No. 30 of 2014 triggered an interception in terms of justice/ adjudicate authority on authority abuse (including discretion) between the Administrative Court and Corruption Court. In its development, the interception of justice authority is affirmed by Regulation of the Supreme Court Number 4 of 2015 that the Administrative Court has the authority to receive, examine and decide upon the appeal there is or there is no misuse of authority in the Decision and / or Action of Government Officials prior to the criminal process. That is, shortly before the commencement of the criminal process then that's when the authority of PTUN decides to judge the misuse of authority over the case. In this context, Perma No. 4 of 2015 has imposed restrictions on the authority of the TUN Court in prosecuting the abuse of discretionary authority.

scholarly journals Informal networks and judicial decisions: Insights from the Supreme Court of the Philippines, 1986–2015

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 616-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Björn Dressel ◽  
Tomoo Inoue
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Influence ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Informal Networks ◽  
Significant Evidence ◽  
Presidential Appointments ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Supreme Court

To what extent do informal networks shape the decisions of the Supreme Court of the Philippines? Though often raised in the Philippines, this question has never been studied empirically. To answer it, we constructed a set of social network variables to assess how informal ties, based on university connections and work affiliations, may have influenced the court’s decisions between 1986 and 2015 in 47 politically high-profile cases. Providing statistically significant evidence for the effects of political influence (presidential appointments) and hierarchical pressure (the vote of the Chief Justice) on related networks, our analysis suggests a continuing tension on the Supreme Court bench between professionalism and informality. Because the findings advance both theoretical and empirical understanding of larger issues at the intersection of courts and society throughout the region, we recommend more attention to the role of judicial networks, external to the courts as well as within them.

scholarly journals LAWSUIT IN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT AFTER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS BASED ON PERMA NO. 6 OF 2018

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 458
Author(s):  
Muhammad Adiguna Bimasakti
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
Government Administration ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Administrative Proceedings

The enactment of Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration very much changes the paradigm of the proceedings in the State Administrative Court. One of the fundamental things is about administrative proceedings as pre-litigation proceedings. Under Article 75 of Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration, citizens who feel disadvantaged by a Government’s Decision or Action can file an administrative proceedings, and then file a lawsuit in the Administrative Court. Regarding this regulation, two interpretations arise regarding the obligation of administrative proceedings as pre-litigation proceedings. One party argues that the administrative proceedings as pre-litigation proceedings must be carried out before filing a lawsuit in the Court, and the other argues this is not mandatory. For a period of four years, the interpretation of the obligation of administrative proceedings as a pre-litigation proceedings in Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration is floating in the realm of discourse. It was only on December 4th, 2018 that the Supreme Court issued a Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) No. 6 of 2018 concerning Guidelines for Resolving Disputes Regarding Government Administration After Administrative Proceedings, finally the Supreme Court dictates that administrative proceedings as a pre-litigation proceedings is a must. However, the PERMA does not regulate fundamental things regarding lawsuit after administrative proceedings, namely, who will be seated as the defendant, and what is the object of the lawsuit. In addition, there are also a number of things that needed to be reviewed regarding the arrangements in the PERMA, such as regarding the deadline for a lawsuit in the Court.

scholarly journals Some psychological impacts on judging in criminal cases within the Supreme Court of Cassation of the Republic of Serbia

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-28
Author(s):  
Dragutin Avramović
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Psychological Impacts ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Media Pressure

Following hypothesis of Andrew Watson, American professor of Psychiatry and Law, the author analyses certain psychological impacts on behavior of judges and examines the relationship between their idiosyncrasies and their judicial decisions. The survey encompasses the judges of Criminal Department of the Supreme Court of Cassation of the Republic of Serbia and, also, for comparative reasons, the judges of Criminal Department of the First Basic Court in Belgrade. Considering the main issues there is no great discrepancy between answers given by the judges of the Supreme Court and those of the Basic Court. Most responses of the Serbian judges deviate from Watson's conclusions, namely: they do not admit that they feel frustrated due to heavy caseloads, the significant majority of judges are reluctant to acknowledge their prejudices and influence of biases on their ruling, the significant majority of judges are not burdened with the idea of possible misuse of their discretion, they nearly unanimously deny that public opinion and media pressure affect their rulings, etc. Generally, the judges in Serbia are not willing to admit that they cannot always overcome their own subjectivities.

Directions of development of administrative courts’ jurisprudence in real property cases in 2020: Selected Aspects (Part I)

2021 ◽  
Vol I (I) ◽  
pp. 109-133
Author(s):  
Anna Dalkowska ◽  
Karol Rzęsiewicz
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Capital City ◽  
Official Journal ◽  
Real Property ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Administrative Proceedings

Jurisprudence of administrative courts on various aspects of real property law is extensive and multi- faceted. The main bulk of cases concerns real properties which are subject to the reprivatisation process that, in the absence of final solutions to re-privatisation predicaments and the multi-faceted effects of the Decree of 26 October 1945 on the Ownership and Use of Land Within the Boundaries of the Capital City of Warszawa, hereinafter referred to as the “Warsaw Decree” (promulgated in the official journal “Dziennik Ustaw” of 21 November 1945, No 50, item 279), which remains in force for over seventy years, are often the subject of judicial review of administrative decisions. Administrative court rulings play a significant role in real property cases and set the directions for future decisions by public administration bodies. The analysis of judicial rulings in real property cases will be limited to selected problems, which, given differing interpretations, are the cause of discrepancies in judicial decisions in administrative courts. This paper, which is the first part of the study, covers jurisprudence on the premise of death of a party during administrative proceedings, which has an impact on the potential invalidity of a decision and its ex tunc effects as well as the status of a party in real property proceedings.

EL INFORME DE LA COMISIÓN DE CALIFICACIÓN. (SEGUNDA ANULACIÓN DE OTRO NOMBRAMIENTO DEL CGPJ)

2010 ◽  
pp. 567-586
Author(s):  
JUAN IGARTUA SALAVERRIA
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Supreme Court

Una vez más aparecen las ambivalencias que minan la eficacia de la doctrina que, con bastantes quiebros (esa es la verdad), viene sentando el TS en torno a a motivación de los nombramientos discrecionales. En esta ocasión, no sólo se evidencia un distinto entendimiento de aquélla en resoluciones (administrativas) del CGPJ y (judiciales) de la Sala 3.ª sino ¿lo que es peor¿ en el propio seno de esta última. Berriz ere elkarren aurka dauden interpretazioak ageri dira, izendapen diskrezionalen motibazioaren inguruan Auzitegi Gorena ezartzen ari den dotrinaren eraginkortasunaren kaltetan; egia izanik ere, dotrina ezarri, gorabehera askorekin ezartzen ari dela. Oraingoan, agerikoa da interpretazio desberdinak egiten direla Botere Judizialaren Kontseilu Nagusiaren administrazio-ebazpenen eta Hirugarren Aretoaren ebazpen judizialen bitartez. Baina, are okerrago, azken aretoaren baitan ere interpretazio ezberdinak egiten dira, eta hori are txarragoa da. Once again we see the ambivalences that undermine the efficacy of the doctrine that, with quite a lot of swayings (that is true) has been established by the Supreme Court regarding the reasoning of discretional appointments. This time, not only a different understanding to the (administrative) decisions by the CGPJ and the (judicial) decisions by the Third Chamber are seen but also ¿what is worse¿ within the same latter chamber.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document