Redefinição do Ato Discricionário

Redefinition of the Discretionary ActRESUMO: Por meio do método hipotético-dedutivo, o artigo aborda a discricionariedade do ato administrativo, a partir da revisitação da matéria lastreada na crítica à supremacia do interesse público. Ademais, o artigo visa demonstrar que o ato administrativo sujeita-se à controlabilidade jurisdicional, como meio de preservar, além da legalidade, a juridicidade dos atos, sem prejuízo da manutenção e respeito à independência dos Poderes da República. Por certo, não significa dizer que a intervenção e decidibilidade jurisdicional devam se sobrepor por absoluto à discricionariedade administrativa (conveniência e oportunidade do Administrador Público), mas é justamente essa intervenção que poderá, nesse aspecto, fortalecer a democracia.Palavras-chave: Discricionariedade do ato administrativo; Controlabilidade jurisdicional; Crítica à supremacia do interesse público.ABSTRACT: This paper approaches the discretion of the administrative act through the hypothetical-deductive method by revisiting the matter based on the criticism to the supremacy of the public interest. Furthermore, the text aims to demonstrate the subjugation of the administrative act to the judicial controllability as a mean of preserving not only the legality, but also the act’s juridicity, without undermining the subsistence and respect to the Republic’s Branches of Power. Indeed, it does not mean to state that judicial intervention and its judgement must overlap the administrative discretion (opportunity and convenience analysis), it’s precisely this intervention that can strengthen democracy, though.Keywords: Judicial controllability; Criticism to the supremacy of the public interest; Discretion of the administrative act.Data da submissão: 31/01/2020 Data da aceitação: 05/06/2020

Download Full-text

IN SEARCH OF THE SUBJECTIVE PUBLIC LAW: CONDITIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

Administrative law and process ◽

10.17721/2227-796x.2019.4.01 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 5-14

Author(s):

Peter Chvosta

Keyword(s):

Public Interest ◽

Legal Protection ◽

The Public ◽

Legal Provisions ◽

Public Rights ◽

Administrative Act ◽

The Law ◽

Administrative Jurisdiction ◽

The Individual ◽

Public Right

Purpose. The article is devoted to the legal figure of subjective public right in the context of legal protection in administrative matters. Methods. Based on the historical development of administrative jurisdiction in Austria and Germany in the 19th century, the function of the subjective public right is discussed in more detail: When the legislator grants citizens subjective public rights (and thus enforceable claims against the administration), the citizen can assert his or her individual interests before the courts by means of a right of defence against the state. At the same time, this results in an external legal control of the administration (compared to a mere internal administrative control by way of disciplinary measures) and thus promotes the rule of law of administrative action, which is in the public interest. Results. By pursuing his subjective public right, the citizen acting in his own interest indirectly contributes to the correct enforcement of the law. In a sense, he acts as an assistant to the public interest. The granting of a subjective public right also limits the group of persons who can take action against an administrative act, since otherwise anyone could challenge an administrative act. If the legislator has not expressly stipulated in the law which persons are entitled to a subjective public right in which respect, the determination of subjective public rights can be difficult in individual cases: When the law provides for a permit subject to certain conditions, the addressee of an administrative act is necessarily entitled to obtain a permit if the conditions required by law are met. The question is more complex in the case of persons who are not the addressee of an administrative act but who are affected by its effects. In this case, it must be determined by way of interpretation whether the legal provisions whose violation the citizen claims to have violated were passed not only to protect public interests but also, at least, in the interests of individual persons. Only then is there also a subjective public right of the individual to compliance with this provision. Conclusions. The legislator can avoid difficulties of interpretation by means of clear rules on the granting of subjective public rights. In particularly important administrative matters (e.g. approval of infrastructure projects), where the granting of subjective public rights is not sufficient to ensure judicial control of administrative acts, a larger group of persons can be granted party status.

Download Full-text

The Public Interest and Administrative Discretion

The American Review of Public Administration ◽

10.1177/027507409202200403 ◽

1992 ◽

Vol 22 (4) ◽

pp. 289-300 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Thomas J. Barth

Keyword(s):

Public Interest ◽

Administrative Discretion ◽

The Public

Download Full-text

Discricionariedade e controle na tutela do patrimônio histórico e cultural: reserva da administração na escolha entre interesses públicos concorrentes e os limites da intervenção dos poderes judiciário e legislativo

Revista de Direito da Administração Pública ◽

10.47096/redap.v1i2.64 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 1 (2) ◽

Author(s):

Patrícia Baptista Ferreira

Keyword(s):

Public Administration ◽

Public Interest ◽

Judicial Review ◽

Due Process ◽

Primary Role ◽

Administrative Discretion ◽

Public And Private ◽

The Public ◽

National Heritage ◽

Artistic Heritage

DISCRICIONARIEDADE E CONTROLE NA TUTELA DO PATRIMÔNIO HISTÓRICO E CULTURAL: RESERVA DA ADMINISTRAÇÃO NA ESCOLHA ENTRE INTERESSES PÚBLICOS CONCORRENTES E OS LIMITES DA INTERVENÇÃO DOS PODERES JUDICIÁRIO E LEGISLATIVO Resumo: A proteção constitucional do patrimônio histórico e cultural como interesse difuso incrementou o contencioso sobre o tema. A decisão de preservar, ou não, um bem e a escolha do instrumento adequado para isso situam-se, porém, na esfera de discricionariedade do Executivo. O Judiciário, portanto, deve adotar postura deferente aos juízos de mérito da Administração, competindo-lhe zelar pela observância do devido processo legal. O Legislativo, por sua vez, tem papel restrito ao exercício da competência normativa.Palavras-chaves: Discricionariedade administrativa, patrimônio histórico, controle judicial, controle legislativo, tombamento, reserva da administração, devido processo legal, interesse público, responsabilidade.ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL HERITAGE: THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PRIMARY ROLE TO CHOOSE AMONG SEVERAL COMPETING PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE LIMITS OF JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTION ON THIS SUBJECTAbstract: Brazil´s 1988 Constitution qualifies national historic and artistic heritage as a diffuse interest worthy of protection of Public Administration. Since then, judicial disputes regarding this subject have significantly increased. The decisions about whether and how to protect a historical site belong to the administrative sphere of discretion. Thus, judicial review should defer to administrative decisions, unless the due process clause rests violated. Legislative role on the subject is limited on rulemaking.Keywords: Administrative discretion, national historical and artistic heritage, protection of historical and artistic sites, judicial review, legislative review, due process, public interest, public and private accountability.Data da submissão: 08/11/2016 Data da aprovação: 08/12/2016

Download Full-text

Zaštita javnoga interesa u raspolaganju javnim dobrom u općoj uporabi

Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci ◽

10.30925/zpfsr.38.1.9 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 38 (1) ◽

pp. 275-299

Author(s):

Aleksandra Popovski

Keyword(s):

Public Good ◽

Public Interest ◽

Legal Framework ◽

Public Law ◽

The Other ◽

Legal Basis ◽

Positive Regulation ◽

The Public ◽

The Subject ◽

Administrative Act

The interest of the community regarding the use of public good is legally acknowledged as a public interest. In order to protect the public interest, a person of public law is not allowed to alienate the public good, nor burden it with certain forms of security rights. The power to dispose the public good is reduced to issuing licenses for the temporary and revocable use of the good that goes beyond general use. Approval may be issued in the form of an administrative act, concession or contract. Administrative act and concession enable the application of various remedies by which person of public law may protect the public interest. On the other hand, the contract as a legal basis for the use of public good does not allow a person of public law to enforce authoritative action and immediately protect the public interest. Nevertheless, administrative act and concession are underrepresented in the Croatian legislation, while contract has been given considerable space. Therefore, the subject of the article is the analysis of the regime of disposal of the public good, in order to critically address the adequacy of Croatian positive regulation from the viewpoint of the protection of the public interest, as well as to propose regulatory intervention in order to improve the present legal framework.

Download Full-text