Problematic Aspects of Judicial Protection against the Inaction of Administrative Authorities in the Czech Republic

One of the three most important types of actions in the Czech administrative judiciary is the action for protection against the inaction of an administrative body. Judicial protection follows on from the protection within the administrative proceedings (according to the Administrative Procedure Code). Its entrenchment in the Czech law in 2002 was a huge positive. Nevertheless, in practice there are some controversial issues or issues for discussion which relate to this action. The article analyses the essence of this action, its conditions and hearing in court. However, the main attention is paid to the problematic aspects of the action, both those regarding its legislation and those arising from the practice and case law relating to protection against administrative inaction.

THE PROCESS OF DIGITALIZATION IN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The article is devoted to the investigation of issues related to the introduction and implementationof digital technologies in administrative commissions of local government, through a comprehensivereview of the theoretical, legal foundations, as well as the practice of applying new technologies. Duringthe introduction of digitalization into the daily activities of public authorities, the investigation of newmanagement processes in specific areas, in particular, in organization process in administrative commissionsunder the administrative body of local government plays an important role. Based on the analysis oftheoretical investigation, legal acts regulation and practice some suggestions are being made, aimed toimproving the digitalization process in the organization of administrative commissions of local governmentin Barnaul.

The Interpretation of Certain Norms of the General Administrative Code of Georgia and Law of Georgia on Police

This article is related to issues of interpretation of certain norms defined under General Administrative Code of Georgia and Law of Georgia on Police. In particular, Article 3 of the General Administrative Code of Georgia regulates the scope of this code. However, pro-vision of the Article 4 does not contain any reference to the administrative offenses committed by the police and other administrative bodies, what in specific cases may lead to ambiguity in regards the scope of this code – as subject required by the General Administrative Code of Georgia and Administrative Offenses Code of Georgia, in both cases is an authorized administrative body (officials). Responding to administrative offenses by police is an important part of the activities carried out by the state authority (police). There- fore, Law of Georgia on Police distinguishes preventive function of the police from function of responding to offense. Also, the Article 5 of the law defines legal grounds for police activities, however this article does not contain specific references to Administrative Offenses Code of Georgia what can be deemed as legislative shortcoming. Taking into consideration the above-mentioned, in order to clarify the law and to achieve objective goal of the legal norm, below listed terms shall be added to 1. General Administrative Code of Georgia Section 4, Article 3, and 2. Law of Georgia on Police, Article 5.

Judicial oversight of applications submitted to the administration is a reason for its development

"The administration performs a great task in the life of modern societies, through its intervention to satisfy public needs through the establishment and management of public utilities that aim to achieve the public interest and respond to the requirements and necessities of daily life, as well as protecting public order, and regulating the relationship between them and individuals with constitutional and legal texts, as well as The organizational rules that lay down the general framework for public liberties and individual rights, all to prevent them from practicing any activity outside the framework of legality. Originally, the administration is not obligated to issue its decisions in a specific form, as it is free to choose the external form of these decisions, unless the law requires it otherwise. This requires that the decision be embodied in an external form in order for individuals to know the will of the administration and to adjust their behavior according to its requirements. However, the implementation of this rule on its launch, may negatively affect the rights of individuals, because the administration may sometimes deliberately remain silent about deciding the requests submitted to it, or it may neglect at other times to respond to these requests. Existence of apparent decisions in an external legal form, meaning that the matter remains in the hands of the administration, if it wants it will respond to the requests of individuals, and if it wants to be silent, which constitutes a waste of their rights, a violation of the principle of equality, and confiscation of the right to litigation guaranteed by the constitution, it requires protection of individuals from the inconvenience of the administration And the abuse of their rights, and put an end to the neglect of employees and their indifference to the requests or grievances submitted to them, in addition to the fact that the requirements of the public interest require that the administrative staff exercise the powers entrusted to them by law at the present time. ( ) For these justifications, the legislator intervened in many countries, including France, Egypt, Lebanon and Iraq, to ​​suppose that the administration had announced its will, even if it remained silent or silent about deciding on the request presented to it, and this resulted in an implicit administrative decision of rejection or approval. As a result of the large number of state intervention in the economic and social fields in recent times, it has led to the multiplicity and diversity of state agencies and institutions, and the public administration often does not provide its services to individuals except at the request of individuals. Therefore, it may be difficult for individuals to identify a competent administrative authority to submit their request to. to get those services. He makes a mistake and submits it to a non-competent administrative body. When this authority is silent and does not transfer the request to its competent authority, and the legal period granted to the administration to respond to their requests has passed, individuals resort to the judiciary, and submitting the request to the non-competent authority prevents the judiciary from accepting their claim, which wastes their rights and thus harms them. Therefore, the administrative judiciary in many countries has extended its control over this case to consider the application submitted to a non-competent administrative body as if it was submitted to its competent authority, given that the state is a single public legal person. Accordingly, the request submitted to any party starts from the legal period available to the administration to meet the requests of individuals and in its absence the implicit administrative decision of rejection or acceptance arises. Accordingly, we will study the jurisprudence of the French, Lebanese, Egyptian and Iraqi judiciary in this study. The importance of the study lies in the implications of the subject of requests submitted to the administration, the delay in their completion, the silence of the administration, and the consequent effects and exposure to the rights of individuals. And that it will show how to confront this silence, neglect and intransigence of the administration. The idea of ​​implicit administrative decisions, resulting from the administration’s silence on the requests submitted to it, is an effective means, which makes the administration more positive and enables individuals to confront the administration’s silence, and prevents its intransigence, arbitrariness or neglect. The problem of the research is that can silence be an expression of the will? How do individuals protect themselves from the actions of the administration, and who guarantees its non-bias, arbitrariness and deviation? Does submitting the application to a non-competent body protect the rights of individuals? ? And the extent of judicial oversight on the authority of the administration.? And the extent of the compatibility and divergence of the positions of the administrative judiciary in France, Lebanon, Egypt and Iraq regarding this.? From the above in explaining the importance of the study and its problem, we can deduce the scope of the study, which is the study of judicial control over the requests submitted to the administration by taking an overview of the nature of the requests, their types and distinguishing them from others, and the position of each of the legislation, the judiciary and jurisprudence from it. The research consists of two sections, the first deals with the nature of the request and what is related to it, and the second is judicial control over the applications submitted to the administration, as follows"

Sidon against Beirut: Space, Control, and the Limits of Sectarianism within the Jewish Community of Modern Lebanon

When the State of Greater Lebanon was established in 1920, the Jewish Community Council of Beirut was officially recognized as the central administrative body within Lebanon, and although smaller communities such as Sidon and Tripoli also had their own councils they were consequently made subject to the authority of Beirut. In this context of political overhaul, I argue that some Jewish actors made use “from below” of political opportunities provided by sectarianism “from above”—or national sectarianism—to garner control over all Jewish political structures in Lebanon. But by examining in particular activities in and around the Israelite Community Council in Sidon (al-Majlis al-Milli al-Isra'ili bi-Sayda), I show how and why these attempts to practice new forms of sectarianism were met with resistance, despite connections that tied Lebanon's Jews together administratively in one community.

7. Discretion and deference

This chapter discusses how judges can defer in appropriate ways to administrative authorities on some issues, while still opposing abuses of power. The chapter explains why the courts defer massively to administrative authorities on some issues involving foreign affairs and national security, public expenditure, planning, and legal and political processes. The mere fact that the law has allocated the power to an administrative body gives rise to a presumption that a court should not interfere unless there is a ground for review other than that the court would have reached a decision. The extent to which a court ought to defer is determined by the three reasons for allocating power to an administrative body: the body’s expertise, its political responsibility, and/or its decision-making processes.

The concept of administrative control and supervision: Ukrainian experience and European approaches

In the publication the author considers the concept and content of administrative control (supervision) in the context of European experience. In contrast to the domestic approach, the doctrine and legislation of European countries mainly use the term “administrative control” in the opposite sense - as control over public administration, and not vice versa, as the administration’s control over society and its individual representatives. Such a definition of control (supervision) in Ukraine has a negative consequence in the form of combining within one legal institution two different forms of activity - control over the administration and inspections of individuals. It also leads to a distinction between inspection activities and the provision of administrative services. This loses the mission of the administrative body - either to provide services or to carry out inspections. These types of administrative activities are fundamentally different and can not be performed by the same representatives of the same department. There are such differences: - initiation of proceedings (in the procedure of providing services - a person, and in the procedure of inspection - the administrative body); - completeness of the necessary documents for decision-making (in the procedure of providing services - the list of documents is provided by the person, and during the inspection - the body independently determines the amount of documents in accordance with the law); - the need of involving other interested persons (in the procedure of providing services - it is preferable to involve interested persons, and during the inspection - such persons are usually not needed). According to the Law of Ukraine “On Central executive bodies” the executive body is formed as an inspection if only most of its functions are control and supervisory functions for compliance by state bodies, local governments, their officials, legal entities and individuals of acts of legislation (article 17 of the Law). Ukrainian legislation does not comply till now with this concept and allows inspections not only by inspections, but also by other state bodies (ministries, agencies and services). In this case, there is currently a nonconformity between the name of the public authority and the powers it exercises. To correct these shortcomings, it is proposed to change the name of this activity to “coercive powers”, “interfering powers”, “police powers”. Each of the proposed terms has certain advantages and disadvantages, but they all have a positive in comparison with the current situation, when the concept used is contrary to the European administrative and legal tradition. The analysis of the concept of administrative supervision and control in Ukraine and the relevant european experience shows the following conclusions: - inconsistency of the ukrainian understanding of administrative control (supervision) with european legal doctrine and practice; - the need for using of the concept “administrative control (supervision)” only for control over the activities of the public administration; - the need of implementation new term for inspections of administrative bodies vs. individuals. The best term will be “inspection powers”; - incorrect consideration of the procedure for providing administrative services as part of the control procedure.

Der Gemeinsame Parlamentarische Kontrollausschuss für Europol: Innovative Verwaltungskontrolle in der EU

2017 hat der Gemeinsame Parlamentarische Kontrollausschuss für Europol seine Tätigkeit aufgenommen. Mit der Einrichtung dieses Ausschusses aus Abgeordneten des Europäischen Parlaments und der mitgliedstaatlichen Parlamente übt erstmals ein interparlamentarisches Gremium formalisierte Verwaltungskontrolle aus. Dies bedeutet eine substantielle Fortentwicklung der interparlamentarischen Zusammenarbeit; und es wird ein neuartiger Mechanismus der Verwaltungskontrolle im europäischen Sicherheitsverwaltungsverbund etabliert. Vor dem Hintergrund bestehender Formen interparlamentarischer Zusammenarbeit beleuchtet der Beitrag, wie der Europol-Kontrollausschuss als innovatives Instrument der Verwaltungskontrolle funktioniert. Er untersucht die Leistungsfähigkeit aber auch die Barrieren der Verwaltungskontrolle in der Form interparlamentarischer Gremien. Der Beitrag argumentiert, dass solche Gremien grundsätzlich einen Beitrag zur demokratischen Kontrolle von Verwaltungsverbünden auf europäischer Ebene leisten können, gerade im Hinblick auf EU-Agenturen und sonstige verselbstständigte Behörden. Das Ergebnis der Analyse ist jedoch, dass der Europol-Kontrollausschuss in der Praxis erst noch beweisen muss, dass er effektive Kontrolle leistet und sich somit als Vorbild eignet. In 2017, the Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group for the oversight over the EU agency Europol took up its work. This committee, which consists of parliamentarians from both the European Parliament and the parliaments of the Member States, is the first of its kind. For the first time an interparliamentary institution is formally tasked with a mandate to scrutinize an administrative body. This amounts to a substantive evolution of parliamentary cooperation. At the same time, an innovative mechanism of administrative control regarding the cooperation of European security administrations was introduced. The paper examines how the Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group exercises its scrutiny powers. It analyses both the specific capacity of interparliamentary bodies to perform administrative control and the inherent limits thereof. It points out that interparliamentary bodies can contribute, in particular, to controlling independent EU agencies that take part in European administrative cooperation. Yet, it shows that the Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group in practice still has to prove that it is actually willing and able to exercise effective control over Europol.

Pelaksanaan Sistem Tribunal di Malaysia: Ke Arah Penambahbaikan

The existence of a tribunal system, in addition to helping to smooth the administration system, is considered as sharing power with the judiciary in making decisions. Thus arose the question of decision- making power and prevention of abuse by the administrative body. In line with the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 to ensure justice in support of effective, responsible and inclusive institutions, transparent and fair practices are essential for ensuring people’s trust in the administrative body and government. This paper, therefore, discusses the tribunal system and its implementation in Malaysia. In view of this, tribunal systems that exist in other countries, especially the United Kingdom, are also examined as models for improvement. Matters such as autonomy or control of power and the trial process are among the issues raised. Recommendations for improvement are proposed based on three basic principles—openness, fairness and impartiality—to further strengthen the implementation of the existing tribunal system in line with developments abroad.

Right To Information As A Means Of Protection Information Needs

This article refers to a comprehensive vision of the right to information as the main means of legal protection of the information needs of citizens in general. Based on psychological assumptions, the author justifies the importance of such needs in the life of modern society. The article details the issue of creating and guaranteeing the correct functioning of a special authorized administrative body, to act as an instance of appeal and supervision in the course of the legal regulation of information and the underlying legal relationships. By way of conclusion, the authors especially emphasize the need to overcome the culture of secrecy, a type of undemocratic government, and refer to other requirements and accepted standards in this area to guarantee the enjoyment and enjoyment of this right at all times.