Ultra Vires Promise in the Legitimate Expectation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prasad Janananda
2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 262-270
Author(s):  
Michael Fordham

2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 144-148
Author(s):  
David Pievsky

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Rúbia Mendonça Lôbo De Carvalho ◽  
Andressa Guimarães Freire

<p>Os atos, condutas e comportamentos do Poder Público gozam de presunção de legitimidade, gerando, em diversas situações, expectativas nos indivíduos. Pode o Estado, no uso de suas prorrogativas, violar aquelas expectativas, causando efeitos negativos à ordem econômica, por despertarem desconfiança e instabilidade nas relações com o Poder Público. Delimitada a ênfase do presente trabalho à função administrativa do Estado, visou-se compreender o princípio da proteção da confiança como instrumento de tutela da expectativa legítima do indivíduo, por impor limites à Administração Pública na anulação de atos administrativos. Nessa situação, viu-se que referido princípio pode conflitar com a legalidade e a autotutela, sendo o caso de se buscar um juízo de ponderação, que resultará na manutenção do ato ou na sua anulação, esta podendo ser com efeitos <em>ex tunc</em>, com efeitos <em>ex nunc</em> ou com a modulação temporal dos efeitos para um determinado momento futuro.</p><p> </p><p>The acts, practices and behaviors of the Public Power in the exercise of legitimation, can generate, in several situations, expectations in individuals. The Estate, in use of its prerogatives, can breach expectations, generating a negative economic response, lack of confidence and instability in its relations. Thus, the principle of protection defends the preservations of these state acts, which effects extend in time, giving the individual an expectation of continuity, even if they are illegal or unconstitutional. Delimiting the emphasis of the present work on the administrative function of the State, it was intended to understand the principle of the protection of trust as an instrument to protect the legitimate expectation of the individual, for imposing limits to the Public Administration in the annulment of administrative acts. In this situation, it was seen that this principle may conflict with legality and self-assessment, being the case of seeking a weighing judgment, which will result in the maintenance of the act or its annulment, this being possible with the temporal modulation of the effects for a certain future moment.</p><p> </p><p> </p>


2019 ◽  
pp. 263-269
Author(s):  
Henk Addink

By the end of the twentieth century, the concept of good governance was applied in specific policy fields like international environmental law and in the more general frame of policy by the international organizations. The good governance perspective has also been developed in the context of globalizing administrative law. At present, the implementation of good governance has a much broader meaning than it did twenty years ago. The concept is clearly in development and transition. Elements such as propriety, transparency, participation, accountability, accountability and human rights have been added to the concept. All these elements have been incorporated into several documents over the course of time. Within the framework of the Council of Europe, the ECtHR develops its own interpretation of the principle of good governance in the review of government action. We see that the principles of international law and more specifically the principle of effectiveness and the principle of legitimate expectation have been applied by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. At the grassroots of international law, good governance has been accepted as a principle of law, in national legal systems, and from there in regional and international institutions. So, it functions as a norm for the administration and the court uses elements of the principle in its review. The concept is applied as such and in the different policy fields. In describing the conditions for principles of international law we conclude that the good governance principle is a principle of international law.


Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. A public authority must have the legal power to act; if that power is conferred by statute, it may also specify the procedure that must be used prior to an action or a decision being taken. This is what is known as a ‘statutory procedure’, because it is specified in a statute. The statute may, for example, require the authority to give notice of its intention to take action in a certain way, to consult interested groups, or to tell individuals that they have the right to appeal from an adverse decision. If the authority does not comply, then this is a breach of the statutory procedure and may be reviewed as a procedural impropriety. This chapter discusses the judicial review of procedural impropriety. It covers the rules of natural justice; the right to be heard; legitimate expectation; the detailed requirements of natural justice; the rule against bias; and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document