Administrative Law. Judicial Control. Judicial Review of Deportation Order Is Available under Section 10 of Administrative Procedure Act

This chapter describes administrative procedure and judicial review in France. In French public law, no constitutional provision provides for judicial review of administrative measures. Nor is there a convention providing for judicial review of administrative measures. This is only envisaged by the laws and regulations, in particular the Administrative Justice Code and the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration. The administrative courts exercise extensive control over the acts or measures of the public administration, including both individual decisions and regulatory acts, but some are nonetheless beyond judicial review. Where an act or measure is contested on procedural grounds, judicial review takes place only under certain conditions: the procedural defect must have deprived the applicant of a guarantee or it must have influenced the meaning of the decision taken. Two types of judicial remedy exist in administrative law: it is therefore up to the applicant to limit their application before the administrative judge.

Proceduralism and Automation

The Foundations and Future of Public Law ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198845249.003.0014 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 275-298 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Carol Harlow ◽

Richard Rawlings

Keyword(s):

Artificial Intelligence ◽

Public Administration ◽

Judicial Review ◽

Due Process ◽

Case Law ◽

Administrative Law ◽

Paradigm Change ◽

Technological Revolution ◽

Administrative Procedure ◽

The Impact

In this chapter, we argue that administrative procedure has become a central organising concept for administrative law. Our first theme is the steady proceduralisation of public administration experienced in recent years, in the framework of a relationship between courts and administration which we present as a two-way, non-hierarchical process. We look first at internal drivers to proceduralisation emanating from administration, notably the managerial reforms of the 1980s and the rise of regulation as a standard governance technique. We then turn to the contemporary case law of judicial review, focussing on the judicial response to, and stimulus for, administrative proceduralism. Our second theme is the idea of procedures as a repository for values and of values as an important, though often subliminal, driver of administrative procedure. We look at the potential for exchange as well as dissonance between public administration and administrative law. Our third theme concerns challenges to administrative law from the technological revolution currently under way. The impact of automation on public administration was at first rather modest; today, however, technology is taking great leaps forward—from computerisation to artificial intelligence and beyond. The innovations have so far been welcomed as beneficial—faster and more consistent administration, swifter and less costly courts and tribunals. It is time to recognise that we are facing a paradigm change, in which key values and procedures of administrative law, such as transparency, accountability, individuation, and due process, will need to be supported and sustained.

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

Administrative Justice Fin de siècle ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198867562.003.0002 ◽

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.

An Anglo-American Tradition

The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Administrative Law ◽

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198799986.013.4 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1-21

Author(s):

Peter Cane

Keyword(s):

Administrative Law ◽

Public Law ◽

Late Nineteenth Century ◽

Judicial Control ◽

Administrative Procedure ◽

The Us ◽

American Tradition ◽

Late Nineteenth ◽

Anglo American ◽

The Impact

This chapter explores the idea of a ‘tradition’ of comparative administrative law (CAL) in the trans-Atlantic Anglosphere. It first deals with a period from the early eighteenth to the late nineteenth century. At this time, Western comparative public law was predominantly an Anglo-European affair. The chapter next focuses on a period between about 1880 and 1940, a time of heavy intellectual traffic between England and the US, in which the birth of an identifiably Anglo-American tradition in comparative administrative law may be witnessed. Finally, the chapter is concerned with the impact on the Anglo-American tradition of the US Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA marked the maturation of American administrative law as a legal category concerned above all with judicial control of administrative power.

Expanding Horizons

The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Administrative Law ◽

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198799986.013.57 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1052-1073

Author(s):

Cheng-Yi Huang

Keyword(s):

Artificial Intelligence ◽

Cultural Differences ◽

Judicial Review ◽

Administrative Law ◽

Potential Conflict ◽

Administrative Procedure ◽

Dynamic Development ◽

Behavioural Insights ◽

The Future ◽

Legislative Delegation

This chapter focuses on four interconnected topics that can lead us to envision the dynamic development of comparative administrative law now and in the future. It first discusses behavioural insights into administrative procedure and judicial review, which may broaden perspectives on rationality review. Next, the chapter addresses the desk-level operations of bureaucratic administration and calls for greater attention to how cultural differences—especially in the shadow of colonialism—have perhaps transformed or reinvented administrative law doctrines infused with the characteristics of locality. The chapter then deals with the complexity of institutions through the eyes of comparative administrative law. Finally, the chapter shifts to a future-oriented discussion about potential conflict and collaboration between governmental use of artificial intelligence and such traditional administrative law doctrines as legislative delegation and judicial deference.

Administrative Law. Judicial Control. Scope of Judicial Review under Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act

Harvard Law Review ◽

10.2307/1330660 ◽

1929 ◽

Vol 43 (1) ◽

pp. 131

Keyword(s):

Judicial Review ◽

Administrative Law ◽

Workers Compensation ◽

Judicial Control

Good Governance Dalam Konteks Hukum Administrasi

Administrative Law & Governance Journal ◽

10.14710/alj.v2i2.205-217 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 2 (2) ◽

pp. 205-217

Author(s):

Sri Nur Hari Susanto

Keyword(s):

Judicial Review ◽

Good Governance ◽

Administrative Law ◽

Regulatory Function ◽

Conceptual Approach ◽

Knowledge And Skills ◽

Legal Principles ◽

Judicial Control ◽

Legislative Body ◽

Legal Writing

Abstract The research aims to determine the practice of implementing good governance in the context of administrative law. This writing is a legal writing that uses a conceptual approach. The results of the study show that the legislative body in carrying out the regulatory function must base on good / decent regulatory principles / principles by developing knowledge and skills in the field of legislation as mandated by Law Number 12 Year 2011 along with its attachments. In general, there are two main means used to assess good / decent governance, namely Procedure and Facts used in making decisions, in addition to attention to several legal principles as a manifestation of the implementation of the principle of democracy. Judicial control in overseeing government actions against decisions made, including in Judicial Review, which are repressive and prioritize the legality aspect (rechtmatigheid) of a decision. Keyword: Good governance, Administrative law. Keywords: Good Governance, Administrative Law, government Abstrak Penelitian bertujuan untuk mengetahui praktek pelaksanaan good goveranance dalam konteks hukum administrasi. Penulisan ini merupakan penulisan hukum yang menggunakan pendekatan konseptual. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa Badan legislatif dalam menjalankan fungsi regulasi wajib mendasarkan pada prinsip-prinsip/ asas-asas regulasi yang baik/layak dengan mengembangkan pengetahuan dan ketrampilan di bidang perundang-undangan sebagaimana diamanatkan oleh Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 beserta lampirannya. Pada umumnya terdapat dua sarana utama yang dipergunakan untuk menilai tentang penyelenggraaan pemerintahan yang baik/layak, yakni Prosedur dan Fakta yang dipergunakan dalam mengambil keputusan, di samping perhatian terhadap beberapa prinsip hukum sebagai wujud dari pelaksanaan asas demokrasi. Kontrol peradilan dalam mengawasi tindakan pemerintah terhadap keputusan yang dibuatnya, termasuk dalam Judicial Review, yang bersifat represif dan mengutamakan aspek legalitas (rechtmatigheid) dari suatu keputusan. Keyword : Good governance, Administrative law. Kata Kunci: Good Governance, Hukum Administrasi, pemerintahan

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Switzerland

10.1093/oso/9780198867609.003.0014 ◽

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.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Spain

10.1093/oso/9780198867609.003.0013 ◽

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.