Search

According to the rule, the subject of power has the right to apply to the administrative court only in cases specified by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine (Part 4, Article 5 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) and for the purpose of exercising the powers entrusted to them. But in judicial practice, there is a position regarding which the law must necessarily provide certain grounds for appeal to an administrative court for cases brought by a subject of authority to a subject of private law. While in cases of a claim by a subject of authority against a subject of authority, an appeal to the court can also be made on grounds that are not directly provided for by law, but which directly follow from the relevant functions of this subject. In some cases and for the purpose of protecting the public interest, which does not conflict with the law and carries out the tasks and functions specified by the law, the subject of authority, without a direct indication of this in the law, may also file a lawsuit against the subject of private law. The article is devoted to consideration of the grounds for filing a lawsuit by a subject of authority to the administrative court. In accordance with the legislation, the specified entity acts as a plaintiff in administrative cases only in some cases. It is emphasized that in court cases in which the subject of authority acts as a plaintiff to the subject of private law, the court is guided by the principle of proportionality. This precept is a universal general law aimed at ensuring a reasonable balance of private and public interests. In administrative disputes based on a claim by a subject of authority against another subject of authority, the defendant must prove the legality of his decision, action or inaction, including that there is no violation of the rights of other persons, including public interests. Protection against groundless lawsuits by subjects of authority is, first of all, guarantees provided by the procedural law regarding the right to compensation for all costs related to the dispute. Judicial protection by the administrative court is the most effective mechanism for protecting the rights and interests of citizens, other individuals and legal entities in the event of their violation by any entity. Creating a situation in which no subject of authority has the right to apply to an administrative court with a claim in the public interest distorts the nature and task of the administrative court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The challenges that government outsourcing presents for administrative law were the topic of considerable scholarly discussion in the 1990s and early 2000s, with broad agreement amongst public lawyers that outsourcing should not result in a loss of the particular kind of accountability with which administrative justice is concerned. Yet, over the past two decades, while government outsourcing has continued and evolved, very little has been done to address these challenges. This article explores the question of when non-court-based administrative justice accountability mechanisms ought to extend to outsourced government functions. I argue that much of the focus of administrative lawyers to date has been on the approaches that courts should take, which has led governments and legislatures to adopt tests and taxonomies largely developed in or for the courts, which distinguish between 'public' and 'private' functions. I show that these taxonomies are not well adapted to administrative justice mechanisms outside of the courts, are not fit for purpose in many modern government outsourcing arrangements and have resulted in significant accountability gaps. I propose a different starting point for thinking about administrative justice in the modern mixed administrative state, based on normative principles as opposed to categories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the functioning of the Regional Administrative Courts (TAR) in Italy. For this purpose, we constructed two databases covering the period from 2018 to 2021, gathering macroeconomic and microeconomic data from the TARs of the Italian regions (NUTS-2). Despite the brevity of the period, the availability of data allows us to perform a comprehensive analysis with econometric models for micro and macro data. Empirical findings suggest the existence of two-fold and simultaneous effects of COVID-19 on the efficiency of administrative courts: on one hand, the advent of COVID-19 has led to the reorganisation of courts and related-activities, prolonging the duration of administrative disputes. On the other hand, COVID-19 has introduced measures to limit face-to-face activities, such as holding hearings in person, and adopting information and communications technologies (ICTs) to prosecute judicial activities. This measure proved beneficial to the proper functioning of the Italian TARs by reducing the duration of administrative proceedings. Policy implications indicate that the digitalisation of administrative procedures, not only during COVID-19, is crucial for enhancing the promptness of the administrative disputes of the Italian TARs.

The subject of the study is the conceptual, theoretical, empirical and methodological foundations of the socio-economic and legal nature of the development of administrative justice in the context of economic globalisation. Methodology. The study uses general and special methods of cognition. Using the dialectical method, the authors differentiates the essence of the development of administrative justice in the context of economic globalisation on the legal and economic levels according to the relevant criteria. The analysis created the conditions for a multifaceted study of the complex of problems and prospects for the development of Ukrainian administrative justice in the context of economic globalisation from the perspective of economic and legal etymology. The synthesis created the conditions for generalising the characteristic features of administrative justice, taking into account the current trends and international legal and regulatory developments in this area. The formal legal method allowed to correctly interpret the content of international and national legal acts that define the directions for improving administrative justice in the context of economic globalisation. The purpose of the article is to identify the problems and directions of development of administrative justice in the context of economic globalization. The results of the study show that the problems of the current state of administrative justice in Ukraine are complex, and the ways to overcome them take into account various parameters that are directly or indirectly based on the principles of economic globalisation, which are primarily based on economic and legal principles. Among the areas for improvement of administrative procedures, those that primarily ensure effective protection of human rights and freedoms, in particular through the implementation of relevant international standards, occupy an important place. Conclusion. The study of the economic foundations for optimisation of administrative justice in Ukraine has made it possible to identify certain indicators which serve as socio-economic prerequisites for optimisation of administrative justice. The statistical data show that the areas of manifestation of the subject matter of administrative court proceedings are differentiated depending on the impact of economic globalisation on certain public law relations which give rise to the relevant public law disputes. The authors distinguishes between a group of public law disputes which are directly related to the phenomenon of economic globalisation, and public law disputes in which public interests of economic content are manifested. This contributes to the creation of certain, primarily legal, structures which would facilitate the optimisation of administrative proceedings in the context of economic globalisation, which has both an external, international and internal, national format. The above considerations of optimising administrative justice in the context of economic globalisation have made it possible to identify specific problems faced by Ukrainian justice, including administrative justice: 1) organisational; 2) legal support; 3) material, financial and social support of courts and judges; 4) functioning of the institution of judicial governance and self-government; 5) staffing; 6) ensuring access to justice. Among the areas of improvement of administrative justice, the following are considered in detail: implementation of the principles of the rule of law and procedural economy, introduction of digital technologies (elements of artificial intelligence), introduction of alternative forms of pre-trial and post-trial dispute resolution, optimisation of the zonal and territorial location of courts, implementation of international standards of administrative justice, and some others.

Normative legal acts make up a system that regulates social relations in each field. Ukraine, in the process of becoming a democratic, legal state with comfortable living conditions for its citizens, must ensure a high level of content, and procedures for the adoption, implementation, and application of legal acts. On the other hand, frequent amendments to the legislative framework or gaps in legal regulation do not contribute to improving the functioning of the legal system. Namely, administrative courts are called upon to resolve disputes in the field of public-legal relations, including appeals against normative legal acts of state administrations. The article states that the subjects of lawmaking are, including, local state administrations by the provisions of Art. 41 of the Law of Ukraine «On Local State Administrations». The state of the administration of justice by administrative courts in 2022 and 2023 was studied, and it was recommended that judicial statistics bodies separate data on appeals of normative legal acts when forming reports on the implementation of judicial proceedings. An example of incorrect application of substantive law norms and violation of procedural law norms by the courts when considering the issue of opening proceedings in cases regarding the appeal of normative legal acts was considered. The analysis of such legislative framework as the Laws of Ukraine «On information», «On law-making activities», «On the procedure for covering the activities of state authorities and local self-government bodies in Ukraine using mass information», «On media» and others on the publication of normative and legal acts and their entry into force, which are mandatory for subjects of power. It is indicated that the numerous reforms of justice bodies, and the creation of a system of interregional justice bodies create conflicts with the provisions of the Presidential Decree No 493/92 of October 3, 1992. Based on the studied judicial practice, attention was drawn to the contradictions of the practice of higher courts in this matter. In addition, it pointed out the problems related to the suspension of legislative norms regarding the publication of projects and decisions of local self-government bodies, military-civilian administrations, and military administrations, as well as their officials, which was caused by the introduction of martial law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the use of legal human rights instruments by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) in England. The LGSCO's use of these instruments is growing rapidly and can be used to promote cultural and systemic change, draw attention to maladministration, and provide recommendations for justice. However, there are limitations and risks associated with their use, such as limited understanding and potential misuse. The article argues for cautious and organic growth in the LGSCO's use of legal human rights instruments, while also acknowledging the importance of non-rights work. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for dedicated efforts to enhance the LGSCO's use of these instruments in the future. [Extracted from the article]

The article is devoted to the organization and functioning of administrative courts of general and special jurisdiction in the Federal Republic of Germany. Administrative justice in Germany is an independent branch of judicial power. It is represented by administrative courts of general and special jurisdiction and is separated from constitutional, general courts and courts of labor disputes. The system of administrative courts of general jurisdiction in Germany covers three levels: the administrative courts, the higher administrative courts of the states and the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig. The administrative court is the court of first instance for most administrative proceedings. The higher administrative courts of the federal states are the appellate and cassation instance of the administrative courts. Each federal state has a Supreme Administrative Court, the states of Berlin and Brandenburg share a Supreme Administrative Court, which, with the exception of Bavaria, SaxonyAnhalt and the city-states, are not located in the capital of the state to emphasize their independence from the administration in terms of location. Higher administrative courts are courts of first instance in cases of judicial review of laws and regulations, prohibition of associations by state bodies, and approval of implementation of certain infrastructure projects. The Federal Administrative Court, located in Leipzig, is the court of appeal and cassation on matters of law. The legislature also gave the Federal Administrative Court first-instance jurisdiction in public law disputes between the federal government and non-constitutional Länder, bans on mergers by the Federal Minister of the Interior or approvals for certain infrastructure projects. In these cases, the Federal Administrative Court has jurisdiction of both first and last instance. A feature of administrative justice in Germany is the presence of special courts of administrative justice – financial and social courts with appropriate organization and functioning. The issue of the status of judges of administrative courts, non-professional judges, representatives of public interest, judicial administration, competence and jurisdiction was considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the history of the development of the Institute of Judicial Administrative Legal Protection of Human Rights. The socio-economic, political-legal, ideological relations that formed in Ukraine in the period from the beginning of the 18th to the middle of the 20th century were chosen as the object of the study. In addition, which had a decisive influence on the development of ideas about judicial protection of human rights. The subject of the research is political and legal views on judicial protection of human rights. The methodological basis is the principles of historicism, scientificity and objectivity. Problem and comparative research methods were most intensively used. Development of the topic and interpretation of the studied material were carried out taking into account the peculiarities of the analyzed period. When solving the assigned tasks, he followed a complex approach to the analysis of legal phenomena. The chronological boundaries of the study are determined by what was formed at the end of the 18th to the middle of the 20th century. the political and legal opinion in Ukraine regarding the protection of human rights, within the framework of administrative proceedings in particular, has undergone a significant evolution. The political and legal opinion on the implementation of the protection of human rights against the arbitrariness of state authorities formed the basis of the reform of the judicial system, and in the process of this transformation, a new link appeared in the judicial system - the administrative court. It is indicated that the theoretical, practical and didactic significance of the problem is due to fundamental changes in the life of Ukrainian society in the context of integration into the European Union, in which the highest value is recognized as a person, with his status, rights and obligations. It is noted that the construction of a harmonious system of human rights and responsibilities, and, most importantly, the establishment of a mechanism for their real implementation are directly dependent on a comprehensive study of the patterns of formation, formation and functioning of rights and responsibilities, starting from the moment of their inception and up to the present time, which will allow to identify the peculiarities of their further development, to determine the place of rights and obligations in the system of legal values, as well as to identify the prerequisites of existing problems in their implementation and to propose ways to overcome them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Dilemas Contemporáneos: Educación, Política y Valores is the property of Dilemas Contemporaneos: Educacion, Politica y Valores and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Public Administration & Civil Service / Memlekettìk Basķaru Ža̋ne Memlekettìk Ķyzmet is the property of Academy of Public Administration under the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan / Akademiya Gosun and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Administrative tribunal judges determine rights and entitlements regarding bureaucratic decisions. In immigration appeal cases, they review negative decisions of permanent residency acquisition and family reunification. Based on an analysis of all immigration appeal decisions in Canada's Quebec province over a period of twenty-three years, we find that tribunal judges confirm the bureaucratic decision in the vast majority of cases, noting the migrants' inability to meet the annual income requirements, and rarely reverse the decision in favour of migrants. Documenting the marginal contribution of tribunal judges to promoting administrative justice, this article contributes to the debate on whether and how courts can advance immigrants' rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Catalana de Dret Públic is the property of Revista Catalana de Dret Public and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This study analyzes the normative definition of the guarantees of political rights of citizens. A dialectical methodology of knowledge of law is used, and law is interpreted as an attribute of social management of society. A legal norm is understood as a process of necessity, the elements of which are the hypothesis, disposition and sanction of the norm in their organic connection. It is shown that the political rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen are established by the disposition of the legal norm, and their guarantees are determined by the sanction of the legal norm. The public legal character of political rights conditions their guarantee by legal acts of the court of administrative justice, as a type of justice. The study concludes that improving the normative definition of the guarantees of political rights is an urgent task for the management and legal regulation of political relations in modern society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forms are vehicles that register the everyday. A bureaucratic form starts a dialogue between an individual and the State in a particular area of public administration. The visual design of bureaucratic forms shapes what is registered and how personal identity is documented in the eyes of the State. This article is situated in the field of administrative justice and argues that we must increase the scope for personal narrative in the design of bureaucratic forms. Meers notes that there has been no sustained research into application forms despite the importance of forms in the administration of the welfare state. By drawing on sociological scholarship on registration and narrative together with socio-legal scholarship on design, the ideas explored offers a novel and interdisciplinary approach to scholarship on the form of forms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Kırıkkale Law Journal (KLJ) is the property of Kirikkale Law Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article provides a historical and legal characterization of the institution of a Public Interest Litigation in general and in the context of administrative proceedings. The author reveals the historical origins of this institute from the time of Roman law, where it was called "actio popularis". Some of the most common constructions of such claims in Roman law are highlighted. The author emphasizes the public benefit of filing such claims despite their private law nature. The author emphasizes the dualism between private and public interests in law, which is particularly evident in the institution of a Public Interest Litigation. The terminology used in different legal systems to describe the institution of a public interest action or its individual varieties is revealed: "actio popularis", "Public Interest Litigation", "Public Interest Law", "Social Interest Litigation". The author outlines the main areas in which Public Interest Litigation is most often applied: environmental protection, anti-discrimination, etc. The author analyzes the reasons for the low interest in the institution of public interest litigation in previous historical periods in Ukraine. On the other hand, it is suggested that there has been a significant increase in interest in such lawsuits in recent years, which is due to certain factors. These include: the development of civil society and the increased interest of legislators in this institution, as well as the ratification by Ukraine of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention). The last point was important in the context of the further adoption by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of the decision of 11.12.2018 in case No. 910/8122/17, which stated the right of environmental associations to file lawsuits in the public interest on these matters. The article concludes with the emphasis on the prospects for further research into the application of actio popularis in foreign jurisdictions with a view to exploring the possibilities for expanding the number of legal relations in which such claim s may be filed in Ukraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is dedicated to the issues of the history of the emergence and evolution of the locus standi doctrine (locus standi in judicio). The occurrence of the term "locus standi," as well as its manifestations in Roman law, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the 20th century, allows for a better understanding of the locus standi doctrine and possible avenues for its development. In administrative law of the United States, Canada, France, Italy, South Africa, and other countries, the locus standi doctrine holds a prominent place. Ukranian legal system operates with the right to access to the court, the right to appeal to an administrative court, the right to judicial protection, and the right to seek redress, which can have different meanings depending on their understanding in substantive or procedural aspects, taking into account their possible understanding in sensu stricto or sensu lato. In the aspect of determining the right to appeal to an administrative court, the presence of administrative procedural legal subjectivity in a person is crucial in national legal system. Any person with administrative procedural legal subjectivity can be a plaintiff in an administrative case, but not every plaintiff is a proper plaintiff in an administrative case. The right to protection belongs to the proper plaintiff, who has claims in a particular administrative legal dispute. The presence of the right to protection, and in the laws of the United States, Canada, France, Italy, and other countries - the presence of locus standi (locus standi in judicio) in a person, precedes the determination of the possibility of granting the claims of such a person. The evolution of the locus standi doctrine in this article is examined from the right of an individual to appear before popular assemblies in ancient Rome to the right of an individual to appear before the court and act as a plaintiff in a case in modern times. This article attempts to explore the historical aspect of the formation of the locus standi doctrine, as well as its potential application as a basis for further clarification of the substantive legal nature of a proper plaintiff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the formation of the main approaches to the content of the concept of an administrative act in European administrative law. The subject of the analysis is either the rule of law or the doctrine of France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The author notes that administrative act as an independent category arises in France as a result of the creation of a separate administrative jurisdiction. The article gives a detailed analysis of the evolution of approaches to the administrative act in France, as a result, the author shows gradual narrowing of its content and reveals its prerequisites. The author states that the interpretation of the administrative act given by M. Hauriou as an expression of the will of the administration in order to cause legal consequences served as the basis for the application (with some adaptation) civil law developments regarding legal transactions (invalidity of administrative acts, conditional administrative acts, etc.) to administrative act. The article examines the approaches of the German doctrine and shows common features and differences between the concept of an administrative act in Germany and in France. The study determines construction of an administrative act by analogy with a judicial decision as a characteristic feature of the German legal order. In this regard, its focus on the settlement of a specific case becomes its key parameter, which, unlike France, excluded the possibility of considering regulatory acts of the administration as a type of administrative acts. Much attention is given to the approaches to the administrative act in Italy and Spain. The author shows that these countries point departed from the French and German traditions in the middle of XX century and adopted a much broader definition of the administrative act.

Administrative discretion is an important construction of modern administrative law, the formation of which in many respects can be viewed as a “struggle” to limit the discretionary powers of the subjects of state administration. It is well known that good governance would be impossible without administrative discretion. There are four stages in the development of the modern theory of administrative discretion and each stage was devoted to one aspect of this one but these stages did not coincide chronologically and developed in parallel. They had a different methodology, which was used by the founders and followers of the approaches prevailing at each stage. The first stage started in France and formed by the 18th century. This related to the concept of prudent governance exercised prudent officials who were ruled by enlightened monarch. Their decisions were not reviewed by the courts. The principle of reasonable is the modern result of this stage – an absolutely unreasonable administrative act is null and void. The second stage developed in parallel with the first one but formed by the 19th century. Administrative discretion was formed as legal concept on this stage, and it was presented as free discretion, which also could not be a subject to judicial review. The third stage, characterized by competition between administrative justice and free discretion, took place at the end of the 19th and the middle of the 20th. Judicial possibilities for reviewing discretionary acts gradually expanded, criteria for evaluating such acts were created. These criteria were incorporated into the laws and legal judicial positions after the fourth stage began. The creative side of discretion has become a very important part of this legal construction, administrative discretion at this stage is defined as a way of laws concretizing. Nowadays, the third and fourth stages are developing in parallel in Russia. It should be noted that the Russian administrative law doctrine was formed as a common doctrine Civil Law system. Russian authors always used the methodology of Civil Law system, developed it, but they paid attention to the specifics of our administrative law, our governing and historical development. Nevertheless, Russian doctrine needs more research in order to create more legally formalized administrative discretion. As a result, the legislature and courts should receive academic decisions suitable for implementation.

The aim of this paper on the current state of administrative appeals is to present an overall picture of the effectiveness of administrative justice, to the extent that the available data allow us to do so. To this end, and using statistics that show the lack of effectiveness of ordinary appeals, we identify the main problems of the aforementioned administrative appeals and then go on to make some de lege ferenda proposals for their improvement. These proposals arise from the study of the strengths of the special/sectorial appeals and from some successful experiences of other conflict resolution mechanisms, such as the Provincial Jury of Forced Expropriation, the Barcelona Tax Council and the University ombudsmen.

The right of access to a court is subject to certain limitations. While a number of these limitations may be created deliberately, in line with the function of the administrative justice system (e.g. restrictions on review by the higher courts, others may be more or less unintended consequences of the design of the administrative justice system (or application of relevant rules or case law). The article attempts to present possible forms of these limitations and tries to outline some of the main “bottlenecks” in the access to judicial protection in the context of Czech administrative justice. These limitations can be regarded mainly as formal and informal, and their recognition can result in increasing the efficiency of the functioning of judicial protection, in particular by simplifying procedural regulation in relation to the ongoing societal and technical changes.

This editorial introduces the new editor of the Journal's Ombudsman, Tribunals and Administrative Justice section; highlights the editorial team's four strategic priorities for the section; and identifies four research priorities which the editorial team wishes to promote. For strategic priorities, the first is developing 'applied administrative justice' scholarship consciously directed at resolving practical administrative justice problems. Second is growing the connections between the Journal and civil society organisations, including those working on the frontline with individuals and communities most exposed to, and dependent on, public bodies. Third is expanding the interdisciplinary reach and content of the section, particularly to mental health and accounting. Fourth is encouraging early career researchers to become more involved in the section. As to research priorities, the editorial team identifies four themes: money and administrative justice, encouraging researchers to grapple with the financial benefits of their proposals and the effectiveness of different funding mechanisms; mental health and administrative justice, particularly through engaging with the fields of "therapeutic jurisprudence" and "law and emotion"; new technologies and administrative justice, particularly how virtual delivery changes experiences of public bodies; and hybridity and administrative justice, examining the complicated range of publics, privates, and charitables involved in modern public service delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thought on procedural fairness in administrative justice has traditionally focused on the relationship between public decisionmakers and the person or group formally subject to the decisionmaking process. Yet, people who are not the direct subject of such processes but are, in various ways, able to access the experiences of others can also have salient and consequential experiences of procedural fairness. This article demonstrates empirically this phenomenon, which we label 'vicarious administrative fairness', and observes that it is vital to developing a fuller understanding of the sociology of administrative justice. In turn, this richer sociological understanding raises new questions about if and how institutions, including the law itself, ought to respond to it -- not least as it calls into question the default, individualistic unit of analysis underpinning conventional thinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study purpose is to analyze the principles of administrative procedure and proceedings established in the Administrative Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as to identify recommendations for their improvement in legislation and in law enforcement practice. The concept and principles of administrative procedure and proceedings are analyzed, and deficiencies in the legal regulation of administrative procedure and proceedings principles are revealed. The study proceeds from the assumption that the existing set of principles of administrative procedure in the Republic of Kazakhstan, set out in the new Administrative Procedure and Processual Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, limit the possibilities for protecting the rights of citizens in the administrative and procedural order. Being limited to the existing set, they significantly narrow the possibilities for improving administrative and legal norms in the future. Based on the review of specialized foreign legislative regulation in the field of administrative procedure, the study gives grounds to say that when developing a new act, the Kazakh legislator did not use positive foreign experience. The experience of Kazakhstan can be used in other countries that are faced with the need to reform or develop administrative procedural regulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses environmental conflict resolution in Brazil in both the administrative and judicial spheres, with the aim of analyzing the configuration of the bodies in charge of such adjudication, the procedural instruments at their disposal, and the main types, grounds and effects of environmental claims. An overview of the Brazilian system is evaluated based on the criteria of judicial and extrajudicial due process in order to point out certain dysfunctions of environmental adjudication that compromise its effectiveness, such as the inadequacy of the procedural legislation and the poor quality of the resulting decisions; ways of strengthening the rights and guarantees provided to litigants by the administrative and judicial authorities are also proposed as a means of improving the performance of environmental adjudication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Accounting & Financial Studies Journal is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Reviewing the scientific monograph Frumarová, Kateřina, Tomáš Grygar, Zdeněk Koudelka, Lukáš Potěšil, Olga Pouperová, Radovan Suchánek and Martin Škurek: Administrative Justice.

Copyright of Selcuk Law Review / Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Selcuk Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Cuestiones Políticas is the property of Revista Cuestiones Politicas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The subject. The article focuses on the concept of acts which clarify legislation and have normative properties (acts with normative properties, or ANPs). This concept was introduced in Russia’s procedural legislation in 2016 in order to allow such acts to be challenged by way of judicial review. ANPs are different from normative acts and, in accordance with the established doctrinal classification, can be described as interpretational acts.The purpose of the article is to examine the nature of ANPs and the way in which Russia’s courts decide judicial review claims which seek to challenge ANPs.The methodology includes interpretation of Russian procedural legislation and analysis of doctrinal researches on judicial review of ANP. The authors also analyze the materials of the empiric monitoring of judgments in ANP judicial review cases and ascertain the criteria of normativity which are relied upon by Russia’s courts when identifying ANPs and distinguishing between ANPs and other legal acts – primarily, between ANPs and normative acts. The main results, scope of application. The authors describe the drafting defects in the procedural legislation and maintain that the statutory definition of ANP lacks clarity. The authors put forward their own definition of ANP as distinguished from normative acts, on the one hand, and acts that apply legal norms, on the other hand. The authors argue that, in contrast to normative acts, ANPs not only lay down the will of the issuing authority, but also have a knowledge acquisition (cognitive inquiry) component in them. There is a logical and semantic link between the content of an ANP and the norms which are contained in a normative act and are interpreted by the ANP. In contrast to an act of legal application, the validity of an ANP depends not only on the competence of the authority that issued the ANP, but also on the validity of the normative act interpreted by the ANP. Further, acts of legal application, but not ANPs, establish a logical correspondence between individual objects and the general concepts used in legal norms.The authors also analyze the doctrinal works on judicial review of ANP. The scholars who criticize the introduction of this procedure in the legislation believe the concept of ANP to be superfluous for various reasons and argue that ANPs are either non-normative acts or defective normative acts. The authors of this article, however, maintain that the scholars who criticize the concept of ANP do not take into account the special nature of ANP normativity – i.e., normativity of interpretational acts. The authors put forward a hypothesis regarding the way in which courts are likely to treat ANP judicial review cases, describe the materials of the empiric monitoring, and then provide the statistical result of the said monitoring.Conclusions. The analysis of the content of judicial acts allowed the authors to identify five types of interpretational collisions between the original legislative norm and its interpretation (clarification) in an ANP. The reasoning of the courts was analyzed to reconstruct the criteria used by the courts to establish whether a challenged legal act has normative properties. The authors identified that the courts consider that there are two ways in which an ANP can acquire normative properties: either through the expression of the will of the issuing authority or through actual application of an ANP. The authors describe the criteria of both types of ANP.The authors conclude the article with the description of the main problems revealed during the monitoring and propose their possible solutions.

The introduction of judicial review of statutory public bodies’ normative administrative acts was long overdue in the Hungarian legal system. Prior to 2018, no subjective or objective legal protection was allowed against these acts, which resulted in a number of anomalies, especially in case of professional bodies (chambers) with compulsory membership. This issue was recognised by the legislature as well, which endeavoured to rectify this hiatus by adopting the Code of Administrative Court Procedure. However, the progressive rules of the Code regarding the judicial review of normative acts of professional bodies have never been put into practice, as a mere two years later it was altered in a way that reflected a reversion to the regulatory framework prior to the adoption of the Code. The aim of this paper is to examine the original regulatory framework as well as the new amended rules of the Code from the perspective of the twofold function of administrative justice: protecting individual rights, while also controlling the legality of administration. Our primary focus of research was on the qualitative examination of the rules of the Code, however we also touch upon judicial practice, where available.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, administrative courts were established one after another in European countries. In this article, scholars review the origins of administrative justice in three Baltic states – Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia – when all three states declared their independence. In the article, the authors reveal the legal regulation of administrative justice, the procedural provisions of judicial review, the system of institutions that supervised the legality of administrative acts, and their jurisdiction during the period from 1918 to 1940 in the Baltic states.

The article is devoted to the prospects for the development of administrative justice in Germany. On the wave of reforms initiated to a large extent by European law, there were those states in which administrativelegal protection was traditionally aimed primarily at ensuring the integrity of the objective legal order and for a long time did not pay enough attention to the protection of citizens in urgent cases and in case of administrative inaction. In contrast, in Germany, where administrative procedural law is characterized by the concept of subjective legal protection and the right to effective legal protection has been guaranteed at the constitutional level since 1949, the need for change has been negligible. The dynamism that has characterized the development of administrative justice in many European states since the 1990s will continue in the coming years and will further change administrative and legal protection. In the Federal Republic of Germany, which is characterized by a paradigm of subjective legal protection, legal protection will be enriched by prosecutorial actions from associations and possibly citizens. This applies primarily to those areas where legal norms for the protection of certain public interests suffer from the structural weakness of law enforcement, which is partly caused by the fact that there is no possibility for individual actions in case of violation of these norms. There is a need to fill gaps in legal protection at the European and international levels. It is necessary to pay attention to the elimination of gaps in legal protection not only in the law of the European Union, but also in relation to possible violations of rights by the measures of international organizations. As long as effective legal remedies do not exist there, the European Union and its Member States must offer alternative legal protection, which is also based on universal guarantees of respect for human rights. Alternative conflict resolution mechanisms will continue to be tested. Out-of-court and judicial mediation will become more important. However, given the principle of administrative legality, their scope will remain limited. Serious changes in legal protection may occur due to the adjustment of the ratio between administrative and judicial means of protection. In particular, in the case of decisions on complex technical, economic, social and environmental issues, as well as decisions that must take into account a large number of interests, it may be functionally appropriate to strengthen control at the administrative level. Digitization will change not only the internal working processes of the courts, but also the communication between those seeking legal protection and the courts. It can provide greater transparency for all participants in the process, but it can also make access more difficult for those who have difficulties communicating with new media. Therefore, when implementing e-justice, special care should be taken to avoid a digital divide in legal protection. In addition, the digitalization of the judicial system has great potential to support judges in their work, not to replace them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article puts forward an analytical framework for understanding administrative justice. It does so by reading a leading approach, Jerry Mashaw's administrative justice models, in conjunction with the pragmatic sociology of Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot, and their orders of worth framework. This provides an enhanced framework, which, while remaining consistent with Mashaw, offers additional insights and is particularly suitable for analyzing decisionmaking environments in the modern contracting state. The article illustrates the workings of the new framework by looking at a controversy under UK and EU law concerning the inclusion of labor objectives in public procurement. The discussion reveals a decisionmaking environment characterized by system dissonance. Actors must navigate different sets of tensions and tradeoffs between competing normative and ethical visions for procurement decisionmaking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses a few notable judgments of Johan Froneman from his years on the Constitutional Court and in the context of administrative law. The focus is primarily on three judgments: the dissenting opinion of Froneman J in KwaZulu-Natal Joint Liaison Committee v MEC for Education, KwaZulu-Natal [2013] ZACC 10, 2013 (4) SA 262 (CC) and his unanimous judgments in AllPay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Chief Executive Officer, South African Social Security Agency [2013] ZACC 42, 2014 (1) SA 604 (CC) and Pretorius v Transport Pension Fund [2018] ZACC 10, 2019 (2) SA 37 (CC). The contributions made by Froneman J in these cases are discussed in relation to three substantive themes: his development of the public-law claim of unconscionable conduct (a rival to administrative-law claims); his novel treatment of non-compliance with procedural requirements under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA); and his revolutionary approach to the application of procedural fairness under the PAJA. But the judgments dealt with here are significant not merely on account of the contribution they make to the substance of administrative law, for they also reveal several qualities that are characteristic of the judge himself. Above all, I suggest, his judgments reveal courageous creativity and anti-formalism. Other qualities on display include acute perception and clear-sightedness, disarming candour - itself a technique of anti-formalism - and an unshakeable sense of fairness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The institute of urgent judicial decisions is a special procedure for administrative justice bodies in France, which allows to prescribe effectively and quickly a wide range of necessary measures (from the appointment of expert examinations to the suspension of normative administrative acts) and to protect the legitimate interests of individuals and organizations. There are two main categories of urgent judicial decisions, accordingly their functional purpose. The procedural features of urgent judicial decisions are related to the obligation of the French administrative courts to establish conditions for urgency and the need to prescribe certain measures as a matter of urgency. These criteria, being evaluative, are specified by the jurisprudence of the French administrative courts, according to which the judge determines whether there is a threat of causing immediate and sufficiently serious harm to the interests of the applicant and whether there is a need to take urgent measures, taking into account the circumstances of the case. At the same time, the urgent applications judge does not consider the case, but sets temporary measures that can be changed in the course of further proceedings. The article suggests creating mechanisms in Russian law that are similar to those existing in the French legal regulation of urgent judicial decisions in administrative cases. In particular, the author suggests expanding the powers of Russian courts to suspend normative administrative acts and individual decisions when courts take measures of preliminary protection in administrative claims.

Since there is a problem of forming a system of modern doctrinal knowledge on protection in administrative proceedings by individuals of their rights violated in public relations, the topic under research becomes relevant. The justice in national administrative cases requires qualitative improvement taking into account European experience. The purpose of the research is to form a uniform judicial enforcement in the field of public relations, establish the rule of law, and provide fair justice. The methodological basis of this study is a set of general scientific (dialectical, analysis, and synthesis), as well as special legal (historical, comparative law, consideration and interpretation of legal norms, formal-logical) methods of scientific knowledge. The practical significance of the obtained results is that the formulated theoretical provisions, proposals and recommendations can be used: in research to conduct further research on the problems of administrative proceedings in Ukraine, ways and means of effective protection of subjective rights of individuals; in law-making for further improvement in accordance with European principles of national legislation; in the law enforcement practice of judges of administrative courts of Ukraine for consideration and resolution of public law disputes, in the protection of their rights in administrative judicial specialization by citizens and legal entities.

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.

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.

This paper aims at the exploring the issues of the legal regulation of alternative means for administrative disputes resolution in Ukraine in frames of European integration. The importance of alternative dispute resolution in the field of administrative legal relations has been emphasised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in a number of its recommendations. Alternative means have been introduced in administrative procedure and administrative justice in some European countries, including Ukraine. However, the ADR mechanisms in administrative legal relations still are not widely used primarily because of the lack of the clear legal regulation. In this paper, the core problems related to the use of alternative means for dispute resolution in administrative procedure and administrative justice have been identified and recommendations on enhancement of legal regulation of certain instruments in Ukraine have been provided based on the European approaches and the best practices of the selected states – members of the Council of Europe.

This paper concerns the system of the ‘main’ types of administrative action in the Czech administrative justice, more precisely the qualification of the ‘correct’ type of an action. The boundaries between action types are not always clear, which has consequences for the protection of applicants’ rights in the administrative justice proceedings. The first part of the paper deals with the theoretical level of the problem outlined. The second part deals with some recent changes in Czech case law and proposes possible solutions.

South Africa’s constitutional framework entrenches a variety of legislative imperatives that protects culture as a right. Sections 30 and 31 of the Constitution, 1996 were specifically enshrined to resonate with the spirit and purport of the need to protect cultural rights. Some statutory enactments such as Children’s Act 38 of 2005 and Limpopo Initiation Schools Act 6 of 2016 are also highly respectful of cultural rights thereby enabling cultural families and communities to subject their children to practice any such cultural activities of their choice, but to the extent that it is practicable. It is argued that while South Africa’s post-1994 constitutional apparatus are fundamentally rights-based orientated and thus require the state and every legal and juristic persons to be bearers of such a responsibility of protecting human rights, the state is correspondingly obligated to protect cultural rights as a constitutional entitlement in order for citizens to enjoy heritage as a right, either as a group or individuals with cultural orientation. Constitutionally speaking, the state is prohibited from engaging in acts that unjustly interferes with free enjoyment of heritage as a right. The article adopted a traditional legal doctrinal methodological approach, which is best suited for interpreting legislative instruments to capture a variety of plausible meanings and implications to a real life legal situation.

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is implemented in most countries as an administrative procedure. In this context, it is subject to the principles of administrative justice. However, to date, no empirical research has been conducted to determine the extent to which EIA decisions comply with the principles of administrative justice. In this paper, empirical data from 42 EIA cases in South Africa are used to establish EIA compliance with the administrative justice principles of lawfulness, procedural fairness and reasonableness. This is achieved by measuring EIA decisions against specially developed key performance indicators (KPIs). Overall, decisions were found to mostly comply with the principles of administrative justice. However, questions arise with regards to the quality and substance of the information feeding into the decision-making process and on which decisions are ultimately based. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The entry into force of the Law No. 21325 in Chile in 2021 has not only reformed judicial review in matters of migration and foreigners, it has also introduced significant modifications to administrative appeal, under the application of basic administrative laws. Apparently, this law has increased the effectiveness of such claims if they are exercised against non-expulsive acts (having established their compatibility with other appeals and, likewise, the suspension of the effects of the contested acts) and excluded the application of administrative appeals against an expulsion measure. However, this first interpretation can admit other interpretations. The administrative appeal against non-expulsive acts may impose restrictions on the rights of the claimant, in line with certain interpretative criteria developed by the case law in Chile. Likewise, the ineffectiveness of such claims against expulsive acts may be corrected, in accordance with the constitutional guarantees regarding the exercise of these mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]