Are there Grounds for Appeal of a Court Ruling According to Art. 200, Paragraph (1) of the Code of Administrative Procedure by an Administrative Authority which has issued an Administrative Act?

De Jure ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Izabela Charakova-Dimitrova ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Administrative Authority ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Proceeding ◽  
Administrative Act

The present article discusses the question: are there grounds for appeal of a court ruling according to Art. 200, Paragraph (1) of the Code of Administrative Procedure by an administrative authority which has issued an administrative act. The author analyzes the administrative proceeding, stipulated in Section IV of Chapter 10 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. The article considers the purpose of appeal of refusal to consider request for issuance of administrative act. The article also answers the question posed in Interpretative Case No 10/2019 of the Supreme Administrative Court.

Is the Provision of Art. 301 of the Bulgarian Code of Administrative Procedure Just Legislative Logorrhea?

De Jure ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariya Danailova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Communication Disorder ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Administrative Authority ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
Administrative Act ◽  
Effective Remedy

Logorrhea (from Ancient Greek λόγος logos ‘word’ and ῥέω rheo ‘to flow’) is a communication disorder that causes excessive wordiness and repetitiveness which can lead to incoherence. The article justifies the assumption that, without legal guarantees, Article 301 of the Bulgarian Code of Administrative Procedure (CAP) could be a meaningless flow of words. When the administrative act is revoked after commencement of the enforcement, the administrative authority should restore the violated right within one month, or satisfy the injured party in another legal manner when this is possible. Insofar as there are no legal mechanisms to oblige the authority to perform its public duty, the person concerned is entitled only to compensation, which is not always an effective remedy. Based on the litigation, conclusions and recommendations are made for improving the restoration and compensation measures of Art. 301 of the CAP.

Due Process Prior to Administrative Decisions and Effective Judicial Protection in Brazil: A New Perspective?

ICL Journal ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Perlingeiro
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Due Process Of Law ◽  
Administrative Proceeding ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Judicial Actions

AbstractIn view of the increasing number of repetitive judicial actions in public law issues, this text proposes reconsidering the guarantees of administrative due process of law - enshrined in the Brazilian Constitution of 1988 -, among them the effective independence of the administrative authorities, based on a comparative perspective between the Anglo-Saxon and Continental-European models concerning judicial protection of individual rights. The author is visibly concerned with searching for a better understanding of topics that are considered to be established dogmas in Brazilian law, such as the contradiction between the self-enforceability of administrative decisions and the need for the public authorities to initiate judicial actions against individuals; the distinction between the administrative procedure and the (judicial and non-judicial) administrative proceeding and their implications for individuals in court proceedings; impartiality without independence of the authorities in conducting a non-judicial administrative proceeding; scope of judicial review of the utilization of the margin of appreciation of factual/scientific matters in decisions made by public administrative authorities.

scholarly journals Vers une révision du processus et du cadre d'élaboration de la décision administrative au Québec

2005 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-210
Author(s):  
Marie-José Longtin ◽  
Mario Bouchard
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Model System ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
The Other ◽  
Administrative Authority ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Discretionary Powers

In this study, the authors examine various models for reviewing the system and procedural framework of administrative action in Québec. Firstly, they explore the solutions previously advanced as far as Québec is concerned, then those that have been adopted in other jurisdictions. Next, after identifying the principle decision-making agents of the administration, they enumerate the other factors to be considered in devising a model system, such as the assigned powers of the decision-makers, their procedure, the rules controlling their decision-making, and the establishement by the decision-makers of norms governing the exercise of their discretionary powers. These parameters having been determined the authors go on to evaluate, from various aspects, those solutions that have already been proposed and also others which offer themselves for consideration. In that regard, after discussing the classification of administrative bodies, they analyse the merits of a single or dual jurisdictional authority from the structural and constitutional perspective ; they pause to examine the very notion of administrative authority before going on to deal with the issue of an overall control of administrative bodies, such control being exercised by means of an Administrative Council. Then, after discussing the power given to an administrative body or agency to review its own decisions, they analyse the controversial issue of administrative procedure ant the codification of those rules, and go on to propose, as a possible solution, a flexible codification that is restrictive in part yet adaptable to the individual circumstances of the bodies concerned. In concluding that the existing patchwork of administrative decisionmaking must be satisfactorily resolved, and before indicating what corrective action should be studied, they attempt to identify the questions that have to be answered before undertaking review of the system and procedural framework of administrative action, the need for which review having been seen as imperative right from the outset.

scholarly journals Legislation on Administrative Procedures: The German Experience

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 204-215
Author(s):  
A. D. Maile
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
General Order ◽  
Administrative Procedures ◽  
Administrative Act ◽  
The Law

This article provides an overview of the main provisions of German administrative procedural law. It outlines in a systematic way the particularities of administrative procedures and the possibilities for a citizen to seek administrative remedy. The essence of the basic principles of administrative procedural law as well as the particularities of temporary legal protection and the possibilities for an extrajudicial appeal against an administrative act are explained to the reader. The Author points out that administrative proceedings in Germany are, in a broad sense, any decision-making activity of a public administration body. According to the German Administrative Procedure Act, an administrative procedure in the sense of the law is an externally imposed activity of the administrative authorities that is aimed at verifying the conditions, preparing and issuing an administrative act or entering into a public-law contract. At the same time, the activities of a public administration body are not bound by a specific form, unless there are specific rules on the form of procedure. It is stated that current German administrative law distinguishes between an administrative act and a general order. The latter is also an administrative act, the range of addressees, however, is wider. An administrative act according to the law is any order, decision or other authoritative action of an administrative body aimed at regulating a single case in the field of public law and having direct legal consequences of an external nature. A general order is an administrative act, which is addressed to a certain or defined by general features, or which concerns the public-law properties of a thing or the use of it by the public. The author notes that an administrative act must be specific in content, justified and announced to the participants in the proceedings. As long as the act has not been declared, it is invalid. An administrative act is valid from the moment it is announced, unless it itself provides otherwise. It continues in force until it is revoked, cancelled, terminated by a deadline or for any other reason specified in the law. Based on the analysis, it is concluded that the lack of a law on administrative procedures in Russia is a negative indicator of the modern Russian administrative legal system.

scholarly journals Naprawienie szkody spowodowanej ograniczeniem korzystania z nieruchomości w związku z ochroną przyrody – wybrane zagadnienia

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 41
Author(s):  
Dorota Lebowa
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Administrative Authority ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Proceeding ◽  
Administrative Body ◽  
Legal Forms ◽  
Judicial Procedure ◽  
The Right ◽  
Two Stages

<p>Establishing legal forms of nature conservation entails a restriction on the right of ownership and other property rights. For this reason, the legislature introduced in the Act of 27 April 2001 on Environmental Protection Law solutions allowing for the purchase of real estate or payment of damages. The provisions of the Environmental Protection Law set out an administrative-judicial procedure of claiming for remedying a damage caused by the legal operation of the public administration related to the protection of environmental resources. This procedure is based on the fact that a claim, essentially of a civil nature (a claim for remedying a damage caused by restricting the use of property) is pursued in two stages – the first in an administrative proceeding in which the administrative authority issues a decision and in the second, where the case is decided by a general court. The first stage is obligatory, in the sense that in the event of a dispute for compensation, the aggrieved party must apply to the administrative body for compensation. The second is initiated as a result of the action of the party dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the administrative body.</p>

scholarly journals Administrative Procedure of Trademark Enforcement in Pakistan: A Comparative Analysis with Malaysia and USA

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. p113
Author(s):  
Sohaib Mukhtar ◽  
Zinatul Ashiqin Zainol ◽  
Sufian Jusoh
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Administrative Authority ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
The People ◽  
Trademark Registration ◽  
Prompt Action ◽  
Similar Kind

Trademark is one of the component of Intellectual Property (IP). It is a mark, name, sign, smell or a sound which distinguishes goods and services of one undertaking from goods and services of other undertakings. It is required to be distinctive and non-descriptive. It losses its distinctiveness when registered owner of trademark does not take prompt action against its infringement. Trademark enforcement procedures including administrative procedure must be expedient, adequate, fair, equitable, and must not be complicated, costly and time consuming. Administrative procedure starts when application for trademark registration is opposed by the registered trademark owner before the concerned administrative authority. Trademark registration authorities are: (i) Trademark Registry under Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan (IPO-Pakistan) in Pakistan, (ii) Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO) in Malaysia, and (iii) United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in United States of America (USA). The registered owner of trademark may apply before the concerned administrative authority against the registration of identical trademark by adopting administrative procedure of trademark enforcement. This study is qualitative method of research a comparative analysis of administrative procedure of trademark enforcement in Pakistan, Malaysia and USA. After a comparative analysis of administrative procedure of trademark enforcement in Pakistan, Malaysia and USA, it is found that there are only three IP Tribunals in Pakistan and there is a need of more IP Tribunals which is required to give its decision within 90 days resultantly saves time and money of the people. It is also found that there is Trademark Trial and Appeal Board at USPTO, where appeal against decision of the Registrar may be filed by the aggrieved party thus a similar kind of body is required to be established at Trademark Registry in Pakistan. Furthermore, IP experts should be hired at IP Tribunal and at Trademark Registry for smooth implementation of administrative procedure of trademark enforcement in Pakistan.

scholarly journals Administrative Acts of the European Union

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Marek Jaśkowski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Present Contribution ◽  
Member States ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Act ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Eu

In light of the transfer of the non-negligible extent of administrative competences from member states to the EU it is important not to deprive the interested individuals of legal guarantees, originally enjoyed by them under the national law of administrative procedure. Therefore, formal qualification of an act at the EU level should not result in diminishing individual procedural protection. With this assumption in mind the present contribution is intended to construe a notion of an administrative act of the European Union on the basis of national law conceptions of administrative acts. Subsequently, the article presents an analysis of various categories of EU acts in light of a uniform notion of the individual administrative act as an attempt to standardize the structures, procedures and methodologies employed in different domains of EU competence.

INDIRECT JUDICIAL CONTROL OVER THE LEGALITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 259-292
Author(s):  
A.F. VASILYEVA
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Indirect Control ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Legal Sanctions ◽  
Administrative Act ◽  
Legal Force

Indirect judicial control over the legality of administrative acts within the framework of which the court considers civil law claim whilst evaluates the legality of an administrative act with a missed deadline of direct retrial, is one of the most pressing and unresolved problems of civil and administrative law interplay. The permissibility of indirect judicial control over legally binding administrative acts generates inter-branch conflicts, ‘divergent legal implications’ that have negative impact both on the citizen, when his conduct, permitted by an administrative procedure, entails civil legal sanctions, and on the administrative body, since the civil law practice is a means of “invasion” into its competence to assess the circumstances of the case and make decisions in a particular managerial situation1. The approach of not accepting the binding nature of an administrative act which has legal force, established in the Russian legal system for the court considering a civil case, is perceived as an axiom that does not require proof. However, looking at the problem of binding nature of an administrative act through the prism of the German concept of legal force of administrative acts allows us to question the validity and effectiveness of this axiom for modern civil and public circulation. In German legal system indirect control over the legality of legally binding administrative acts is not possible, such acts are considered obligatory for the courts, with the exception of acts that are null. Thus, the limits of indirect judicial control over the legality of administrative acts are placed in their legal force, and the very concept of the legal force of administrative acts must be built on the grounds of harmonization of the underlying interactive principles: legality, legal certainty, protection of trust.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Italy

2021 ◽  
pp. 62-64
Author(s):  
Diana-Urania Galetta ◽  
Paolo Provenzano
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Authority ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
The Public ◽  
Appeal Court ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Council Of State ◽  
Administrative Justice

This chapter illustrates administrative procedure and judicial review in Italy. According to article 113 of the Italian Constitution, 'the judicial safeguarding of rights and legitimate interests before the organs of ordinary or administrative justice is always permitted towards acts of the public administration'. In Italy, judicial review of administrative action is performed by specific courts: a court of first instance, called Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale (TAR), which is established in every Region, and the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State), which acts as an appeal court. The judicial process before these courts is now regulated by the Code of Administrative Process (CAP). Article 7 CAP provides that the administrative courts have jurisdiction over all acts that the public administrations and legal entities equivalent to them adopt in the exercise of their administrative authority. Since 1889, the Italian system of administrative justice has centred on the provision that administrative acts can be annulled by the administrative courts only in cases of 'breach of law', 'misuse or abuses of power', and/or 'lack of competence'.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Austria

2021 ◽  
pp. 37-40
Author(s):  
Stefan Storr
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Administrative Authority ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Power ◽  
Fundamental Significance ◽  
General Article ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Court Of First Instance

This chapter discusses administrative procedure and judicial review in Austria. In Austria, there exists a principle of the 'exclusivity of legal sources'. Legal protection is only possible against certain administrative legal sources. In general, Article 130 B-VG pronounces judgments on complaints by the administrative courts against rulings by administrative authorities for unlawful acts; against the exercise of direct administrative power and compulsion to carry out unlawful acts; and on the grounds of breach of the duty to reach a decision by an administrative authority. In principle, the administrative court has to examine the case comprehensively; in general, there is no exclusion for specific administrative matters. It is of fundamental significance for the Austrian administrative judicial system that an administrative court of first instance generally decides on the merits of the case. Only in very exceptional cases does it set aside the contested act by the authority and refer the case back to it.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document