scholarly journals 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

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

<p><strong>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 </strong></p><p><strong>Resumo:</strong> 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.</p><p><strong>Palavras-chaves:</strong> Discricionariedade administrativa, patrimônio histórico, controle judicial, controle legislativo, tombamento, reserva da administração, devido processo legal, interesse público, responsabilidade.</p><p><strong>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 SUBJECT</strong></p><p><strong>Abstract:</strong> 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.</p><p><strong>Keywords:</strong> 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.</p><p><strong>Data da submissão:</strong> 08/11/2016                   <strong>Data da aprovação:</strong> 08/12/2016</p>

scholarly journals Sądowa kontrola decyzji organów podatkowych w sprawach ulg w spłacie zobowiązań podatkowych opartych na uznaniu administracyjnym

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 441
Author(s):  
Andrzej Niezgoda
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Administrative Discretion ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Tax Relief ◽  
The Law ◽  
Administrative Courts

<p>The article is of a scientific-research nature. The author discusses the problem of limits of judicial review of discretionary decisions made by taxation authorities, which aim at applying relief in payments of tax liabilities under Polish regulations and case-law of administrative courts. It may be noted that despite the issue of administrative discretion being discussed in the academic literature, the question of limits of judicial review in the practice of administrative courts still raises doubts. It is therefore reasonable to undertake the analysis of the main views formulated in the literature and the case-law of administrative courts addressing this problem, from the point of view of the limits of judicial review of discretionary decisions. The thesis of the article is that the nature of discretionary decisions on relief in payment of tax liabilities, determined by the function of administrative discretion, and, at the same time, the criteria set out in the law for judicial review of public administration, limit the role of the administrative court in examining the compliance with procedural law of the tax proceedings preceding the issuance of such a decision and the respecting by tax authorities of the fundamental values of the system of law expressed in the Polish Constitution. This is because they define the limits of administrative discretion, within which the choice of one of the possible solutions remains beyond the judicial review of the public administration. For the law, as it stands (<em>de lege lata</em>) there are no grounds for administrative courts, provided that the tax authorities respect the basic values of the legal system expressed in the Polish Constitution, to formulate assessments as to the circumstances and reasons justifying the granting or refusal to grant a tax relief, or its scope. The concept of internal and external limits of administrative discretion may therefore be useful for administrative court rulings.</p>

scholarly journals The possibilities of consensual resolution of judicial conflicts with the Public Administration

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (72) ◽  
pp. 31-50
Author(s):  
Gabriel Perlingeiro
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Studies

This text endeavors to define the theoretical limits of the capacities of the public administrative authorities to reach consensual solutions to disputes within the framework of judicial review. It is motivated by the lack of a clear understanding in Brazilian law of the border area between the legal relations of public and private law involving the public authorities, and the expressions “inalienable right” (or “inalienable interest”) and “public interest” as shown by the inexplicable asymmetry between what the public administrative authorities can do within a judicial proceeding and outside one. Based on a comparative study of common law versus civil law legal systems and an examination of the treatment of the subject in Brazilian statutes, case law and legal studies, this article reviews the relationship between the public interest and inalienability, demonstrating, in conclusion, that the possibility of the administrative authorities to enter into settlements or follow similar practices should not be rejected a priori, even in cases of public law. According to the author, there are three possible scenarios in which public administrative authorities may resort to consensual dispute resolution in the context of the judicial review: in private-law relationships, in public-law relationships with respect to the exercise of administrative actions prescribed by law and public-law relationships with respect to the exercise of discretionary powers.

Case Study #4: Star Trek by Gene Roddenberry

Public Voices ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 143
Author(s):  
Ken Nichols
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
World Wide ◽  
Star Trek ◽  
Government Organization ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Third ◽  
Gene Roddenberry ◽  
Common Goals

Star Trek began as a 1960s television series led by a swashbuckling starship Captain, an intellectual off-world first officer, and a multicultural, heart-of-gold crew. In the third of a century since its appearance on our home screens, the series Gene Roddenberry created has become a world-wide phenomenon.Star Trek is also a rich treasure trove of administrative literature: The setting — usually a starship, sometimes a planetary government organization. The characters are clearly delineated, colorful, share common goals, distinguish between their personal and professional roles and concerns, and serve well as archetypes for distinct organizational personalities. And the missions are clear, benevolent, in the public interest, and frequently controversial.As you watch an episode of one of the four Star Trek series, how many of these facets can you observe?That’s public administration, all right, but in a very different wrapper

Fuzzy Lines: Using the Best-Selling Novel to Illustrate the Blurring Boundaries of “Public”

Public Voices ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
Nolan J. Argyle ◽  
Gerald A. Merwin
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Contracting Out ◽  
The Public ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
Civic Community ◽  
Additional Area ◽  
Do So

Privatization, contracting out, and a host of other current trends blur the line between public and private—they create what at best is a fuzzy line. This study examines yet one additional area where the lines between public and private have gotten even fuzzier—the best selling novel. It uses the writings of Tom Clancy and Clive Cussler,two authors whose names on a novel guarantee best-seller status. It will do so in the context of what a civic community and civil society are, and how they relate to the public-private question, a question that has renewed life in public administration.

The rights of the defendant and public interest in proving insanity under the law of New York

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 108-124
Author(s):  
Aleksey Grin'ko
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Whole Process ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legislative Changes

Allocation of the burden of proof is a key issue of criminal procedure that is affected by multiple legal and social factors. Under due process principles, the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial is deemed to be the epicenter of the whole structure. However, efficient law enforcement is a prominent public interest that must be considered. This article explores the correlation between public and private interest in proving insanity under the law of New York, which provides great empirical background due to its long history of legal disputes and legislative changes. Considering the nature and structure of the burden of proof, the author concludes that there are several principles for its fair allocation: the due party that bears both the burden and the risk of its nonperformance; the feasibility of the burden; the adequate opportunity for the other party to rebut; the concentration of resources upon needs that are not presumed but in fact exist. All the mentioned principles lay the ground for the harmonization of constitutional guaranties for the defendant as well as the successful enforcement of criminal law. The current New York approach to insanity defense as an affirmative one along with the history of its implementation tends to prove its compliance with such requirements. This finding suggests that bearing the burden shall not be treated as impairment by default, but can protect both the interest of this party and the integrity of the whole process.

scholarly journals Governing Knowledge: Intellectual Property Management for Development and the Public Interest

2015 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 69-88
Author(s):  
Leonardo Burlamaqui
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Intellectual Property Management ◽  
Analytical Perspective ◽  
The Right

The core point of this paper is the hypothesis that in the field of intellectual property rights and regulations, the last three decades witnessed a big change. The boundaries of private (or corporate) interests have been hyper-expanded while the public domain has significantly contracted. It tries to show that this is detrimental to innovation diffusion and productivity growth. The paper develops the argument theoretically, fleshes it out with some empirical evidence and provides a few policy recommendations on how to redesign the frontiers between public and private spaces in order to produce a more democratic and development-oriented institutional landscape. The proposed analytical perspective developed here, “Knowledge Governance”, aims to provide a framework within which, in the field of knowledge creation and diffusion, the dividing line between private interests and the public domain ought to be redrawn. The paper’s key goal is to provide reasoning for a set of rules, regulatory redesign and institutional coordination that would favor the commitment to distribute (disseminate) over the right to exclude.Keywords: knowledge management, intellectual property, patent, public, interest, public sector, private sector, socioeconomic developmen

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in France

2021 ◽  
pp. 50-52
Author(s):  
Delphine Costa
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
Individual Decisions ◽  
Laws And Regulations ◽  
Administrative Justice

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.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Lithuania

2021 ◽  
pp. 69-71
Author(s):  
Agnė Andrijauskaitė
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
General Rule ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
The Law ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Administrative Proceedings

This chapter reviews administrative procedure and judicial review in Lithuania. The introduction of administrative justice into the Lithuanian legal system happened against the backdrop of Lithuania's 'unflinching' desire to join the European Union and was meant to strengthen the protection of individual rights and administrative accountability. Two cornerstone acts in this regard, the Law on Public Administration and the Law on Administrative Proceedings (APA), were adopted in 1999. Administrative courts were also established in the same year. Article 3 (1) APA spells out the general rule that administrative courts settle disputes arising in the domain of the public administration. All the acts and measures excluded from the competence of administrative courts are listed in Article 18 APA, which establishes the so-called negative competence of administrative courts. Meanwhile, Article 91 (1) (3) APA provides that the impugned administrative decision may be quashed if 'essential procedural rules intended to ensure objective and reasonable adoption of an administrative decision were breached'.

Proceduralism and Automation

2020 ◽  
pp. 275-298 ◽  
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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document