Consequences of the Final Civil Decision in the Criminal Trial Pursuant to the Albanian Legislation

Judicial jurisdictions are separated; the criminal court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate charges brought by the prosecution, whereas other jurisdictions are exercised by the civil court and the administrative court. Thus, civil cases or in other words disputes between private entities, such as contractual obligations or inheritance issues, etc., are settled by the civil court, while disputes between individuals and public administration fall within the scope of administrative jurisdiction. Therefore, depending on the type of case, in Albania there are courts with separate judicial jurisdictions. However, in quite a few cases we might face cases where the different judicial jurisdictions are interwoven between them, in other words the consequences of a civil trial can affect the criminal trial. This paper will analyze the legal provisions in Albania, how to act in cases of resolving a case with a final civil decision in relation to facts, which are also being adjudicated in the criminal process. This paper will also analyze the role of the final civil decision in the criminal trial. Domestic court practice will be considered in terms of the impact that a civilly resolved case by a final court decision has on a criminal case. Received: 31 May 2021 / Accepted: 31 September 2021 / Published: 5 November 2021

Reflections About the Administrative Process in Modern Russia

The article deals with the problem of understanding the administrative process in modern Russia. Discussion about its essence has not stopped in the science of administrative law for many years. There are two main points of view. The administrative process is understood in a narrow sense as a jurisdictional activity and in a broad sense as a set of administrative procedures, administrative jurisdiction and administrative justice. The opinion is expressed that the understanding of the administrative process should be based on the understanding of the subject of administrative law. After the adoption of the Code of Administrative Proceedings of the Russian Federation in our country, a real legal basis appeared for the creation of administrative justice, which resolves disputes between a citizen and the state. The legal nature of administrative justice and administrative jurisdiction is not the same. They belong to various subbranches of administrative law. The situation should be preserved when one part of cases of administrative offenses is considered by courts, and the other - by other bodies of administrative jurisdiction. The proposal to consider cases of administrative offenses in accordance with the norms of the Code of Administrative Proceedings is critically assessed. An attempt to create administrative courts in the Russian Federation is analyzed and evaluated. The experience of creating administrative courts in France and Germany is presented. The reasons why the administrative courts were never created are indicated. Administrative cases are considered by courts of general jurisdiction. An attempt to adopt the Administrative and Administrative Procedure Codes of the Russian Federation is analyzed. The Code of Administrative Proceedings of 2015, on the basis of which administrative cases are considered, is, in fact, the Administrative Procedure Code. The proposal to develop and adopt the Federal Law “On Administrative Procedures” is critically assessed. It is concluded that the administrative process is a judicial procedure for considering cases arising from public legal relations according to the norms of the Code of Administrative Proceedings of the Russian Federation, as well as the activities of bodies of administrative jurisdiction, including the court, to consider cases of administrative offenses in the manner established by the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses.

The Intersection of Traditional and Modern Terminology as a Barrier in Understanding the Administrative Process

At present, in connection with the constitutional reform carried out in the Russian Federation, the process of reconciliation of the basic categories of administrative law with the Constitution is actively underway. In parallel, in the scientific community of specialists in administrative law and process, there has long been a request for the harmonization of views and concepts for the formation of modern administrative procedural legislation. Such a serious scientific task can be successfully solved only by relying on the letter and spirit of the country's fundamental law as the only indisputable starting point for doctrinal provisions. The catalyst for many years of discussion about the boundaries and essence of the administrative process was the adoption in 2015 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings of the Russian Federation. After the enactment of this code in scientific circulation, the categories of “judicial administrative law” and “judicial administrative process” are actively used, which brings the domestic doctrine closer to the theory of developed foreign countries. However, even in the absence of a law in Russia that defines the legal foundations of an extrajudicial administrative process, one should not forget that the majority of modern representatives of science recognize the existence of an extrajudicial administrative process in the Russian Federation. We are talking about the widest range of administrative cases - about the activities of administrative-public bodies to resolve administrative matters under their jurisdiction, both of a regulatory and protective nature, controversial and indisputable. In this situation, we believe that it is required to conduct a scientific analysis of the terminology used in Russia to study the essence of the administrative process. The article makes an attempt, taking into account foreign and domestic doctrine, to study numerous definitions for suitability for the formation of a uniform understanding of the administrative process in the Russian Federation. The work, in particular, explores the understanding of public administration and administrative justice, compares the content of the terms “administrative jurisdiction” and “administrative procedures” in Russia and in foreign countries. Based on the results of the analysis, it is concluded that the least controversy is caused by the use of the term “administrative proceedings” in relation to out-of-court proceedings and “administrative proceedings” to the judicial trial hearings.

LEGAL REGULATION OF MEASURES OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROCEDURAL COERCION

In accordance with the methodology of the system analysis, the legal regulation of measures of administrative and procedural coercion applied in administrative and tort law is considered. An analysis of the current Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses and the draft Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses prepared by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and other normative acts is carried out. It is noted that measures to ensure proceedings in cases of administrative offenses occupy a special place in the current administrative legislation. Measures of administrative and procedural coercion are procedural actions of administrative jurisdiction bodies and their officials regulated by administrative and procedural norms, which are carried out in the process of law enforcement activity in order to identify the offense, establish the offender, create conditions for clarifying the circumstances of the case, identify, investigate and consolidate evidence, ensuring the execution of the decision in the case. Special features of administrative and procedural measures of coercion are determined. Considering the coercive nature and restrictions imposed by the application of personal, property, organizational rights, there is a need for detailed regulation of the grounds, conditions, procedure of such measures. The structural separation of measures of administrative and procedural coercion in the procedural part of the normative and legal act on administrative offenses is important. It proves the need for legal optimization of measures to ensure proceedings in cases of administrative offenses. With regard to each measure of administrative and procedural coercion to ensure the proceedings in the case of an administrative offense, the rules of the normative and legal act should include the content of the constituent actions, specific goals, grounds and conditions of application.

Estimating CO₂ Emissions for 108,000 European Cities

City-level CO2 emissions inventories are foundational for supporting the EU’s decarbonization goals. Inventories are essential for priority setting and for estimating impacts from the decarbonization transition. Here we present a new CO2 emissions inventory for 116,572 municipal and local government units in Europe. The inventory spatially disaggregates the national reported emissions, using 9 spatialization methods to distribute the 167 line items detailed in the UN's Common Reporting Framework. The novel contribution of this model is that results are provided per administrative jurisdiction at multiple administrative levels using a new spatialization approach. All data from this study is available along with an interactive map of results at https://openghgmap.net

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Spain

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.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Latin America

This chapter explains administrative procedure and judicial review in Latin America. Judicial review of administrative action has been constitutionalised in many Latin American countries, like Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela, and has been the object of special laws regulating the jurisdiction. According to the Constitutions and to the laws regulating the contentious administrative jurisdiction in Latin America, all administrative provisions are subjected to judicial review as it is not possible for any administrative act to escape judicial control. Therefore, the principle applicable is the universal character of the judicial oversight of constitutionality and unlawfulness regarding regulations and administrative acts, which is exercised by the Courts without exception. In almost all Latin American countries, the rules of administrative procedure are regulated through special Administrative Procedure Lasw (APLs), which began to be sanctioned in 1972 (Argentina). In all cases where the courts find that a challenged administrative act infringes the fundamental rights of an individual or corporation, or does not meet the fundamental standards of administrative propriety and fairness, the courts of the contentious administrative jurisdiction in all Latin American countries have the power not only to annul the challenged act but, depending on the nature of the claim filed by the plaintiff, the courts can also award damages for the administrative action.

Freedom of movement in terms of justification in a democratic society: ECtHR approaches

The article is devoted to the right to freedom of movement, guaranteed by the Article 2 of the Protocol 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and compliance with the requirement of «necessity in a democratic society» while restricting freedom of movement. The article mentions the implementation of Article 2 of Protocol 4 to the Convention and the case law of the ECtHR by national courts in practice. In particular, it is stated that Article 2 of Protocol 4 to the Convention is most often applied in decisions of the courts of civil jurisdiction (507), less so in cases of the administrative courts (47), although namely administrative justice must protect human rights from arbitrary state interference. Article 2 of Protocol 4 to the Convention is most frequently applied by administrative courts in numerous and uncomplicated cases concerning the registration of a person's place of residence. It is noted that freedom of movement includes 3 aspects: free movement, freedom to choose residence and the right to leave any country freely, including one's own. It is emphasized that freedom of movement, even though it is a fundamental freedom, is not absolute and may be restricted under the conditions set out in Article 2 of the Protocol. Restrictions on freedom of movement must be necessary in a democratic society. Proportionality is an indirect requirement of necessity in a democratic society. The concept of «necessity in a democratic society» is the most unusual for national jurisprudence. A study of the ECtHR case law on Article 2 of Protocol 4 shows that freedom of movement is most often violated because the imposed restrictions are not justified in a democratic society. Using the ECtHR case law (judgements «Garib v. The Netherlands», «Soltysyak v. Russia», «Stamose v. Bulgaria», «Bartik v. Russia») revealed (named, described) key aspects (factors) taken into account by the ECtHR when verifying compliance with the criterion of «necessity in a democratic society» and proportionality in the consideration of complaints concerning the restriction of the right to freedom of movement. It is appropriate to take into account the following factors: the private situation of the person whose right is restricted, the severity of the measure, the duration of restrictions, the availability of judicial review. The circumstances that exist in the state at the time when the restrictions are applied are important. Restrictive measures must be appropriate to the purpose pursued throughout the duration of the restrictions. To determine whether the restriction was proportionate, it is necessary to take into account the dynamic approach to the interpretation of the ECHR, according to which the Convention is a «living" instrument and should be interpreted in the current context. Key words: freedom of movement, Protocol № 4 to the Convention, ECtHR practice, restrictions, administrative jurisdiction, necessity in a democratic society, proportionality.

Pandemic State Failure, Hydrocarbon Control, and Indigenous Territorial Counteraction in the Peruvian Amazon

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Peruvian government failed to protect its sparsely populated Amazon region. While infections were still rising, resource extraction was quickly approved to continue operations as a declared essential service that permitted an influx of workers into vulnerable indigenous territories despite weak or almost absent local healthcare. This article analyzes territorial counteraction as an indigenous response to pandemic national state failure, highlighted in a case of particularly conflictive stakes of resource control: Peru’s largest liquid natural gas extraction site Camisea in the Upper Amazon, home to several indigenous groups in the Lower Urubamba who engaged in collective action to create their own district. Frustration with the state’s handling of the crisis prompted indigenous counteraction to take COVID-19 measures and territorial control into their own hands. By blocking boat traffic on their main river, they effectively cut off their remote and roadless Amazon district off from the outside world. Local indigenous control had already been on the rise after the region had successfully fought for its own formal subnational administrative jurisdiction in 2016, named Megantoni district. The pandemic then created a moment of full indigenous territorial control that openly declared itself as a response and replacement of a failed national state. Drawing on political ecology, we analyze this as an interesting catalyst moment that elevated long-standing critiques of inequalities, and state neglect into new negotiations of territory and power between the state and indigenous self-determination, with potentially far-reaching implications on state-indigenous power dynamics and territorial control, beyond the pandemic.

FEATURES OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL STATUS OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS AS SUBJECTS OF INTERACTION WITH PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITIES

The article is devoted to the analysis of general theoretical aspects of determining the administrative and legal status of administrative courts as subjects of interaction with public administration bodies. The basis of the study were modern scientific developments on the subject, as well as current national legislation. The article reveals the category of "status". The essence of the legal status as one of the varieties of the general status of the subject (person, authority, etc.) is analyzed. Scientific approaches to the administrative and legal status are analyzed. The current administrative and legal status of administrative courts in Ukraine is determined. It is concluded that the administrative and legal status of administrative courts is the legal status of administrative courts determined by the norms of administrative law, which consists of a set of elements, the determining factor among which is instance and territorial jurisdiction for public law disputes, one of the parties of which is a public authorities. It was found that among the features of the administrative and legal status of administrative courts as subjects of interaction with public administration authorities should be noted: 1) does not contain the traditional division of elements into rights, freedoms, responsibilities, and is answered only by the competence in the relevant jurisdiction; 2) administrative jurisdiction, according to current legislation, is differentiated into institutional and territorial; 3) is regulated not only by substantive but also by procedural rules of law; 4) consider cases of administrative jurisdiction, in which public administration authorities may act as one of the parties, and administrative courts may interact with these bodies outside the court process.