Search

Coaches in youth sport stand as crucial actors in the implementation of policies and rights. But there are expectations, stresses, and pressures on the coaches from parents, the culture, sport governance, local organizations, as well as the children, that work implicitly or explicitly, either as supports or obstructions. Thus, the vital aim of this article is to present and discuss the dilemmas in acting as a coach in youth football, at a minor level – at a 'street-level', Hence, Michael Lipsky's study on several professions (in service and welfare) and, especially, his thesis on 'street-level bureaucracy' stands basically as the important influence in the design, presentation and final discussion and statements. The article is grounded in an empirical study, labelled as FC Countryside, which embodies and exemplifies a large number of Swedish football clubs in the lower divisions. These coaches in youth sports are regularly recruited and engaged as volunteers. Despite this position, due to sport policies, demands on skills and knowledge and the implementation of rights, they are subject to an increasing professionalization process of football in general. The discussion, due to the empirical findings, present the coaches as semi-professionals, and as 'street-level coaches', in the perspectives of Lipsky. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is devoted to extrajudicial forms of settlement of public law disputes. It is emphasized that an important component of European standards of administrative law is the institution of protection of individual rights, which has undergone significant transformations in recent years, one of the effective ones being the institution of extrajudicial settlement of public law disputes. Updating the forms of extrajudicial settlement of public law disputes is a consequence of the unification and harmonization of national legislation with European standards, their active implementation will make it possible to minimize conflicting legal relations in the public sphere, and properly prescribed procedures will contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of extrajudicial settlement of public law disputes. In the work, based on the analysis of the norms of the current legislation, it was found that the extrajudicial procedure for the settlement of public law disputes is not only an alternative to the judicial form of protection, but also an independent, effective form of protection of the rights, freedoms and interests of a person in public legal relations. The legislation of Ukraine defines the possibility of a pre-trial procedure for resolving an administrative dispute as an alternative (recommended) and not a mandatory way of resolving it, at the same time, the legislation contains a set of normative acts that separately determine the types, forms and procedures of its implementation, but no systematic settlement has been implemented. As forms of extrajudicial settlement of public law disputes, the article defines administrative appeal, mediation, parliamentary control of the Commissioner of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for human rights, etc. It is emphasized that the Law of Ukraine «On Administrative Procedure» most fully regulates the procedure for pre-trial resolution of a public law dispute, the subject of which is the decision of a subject of authority in the form of an administrative act, but it does not regulate the procedure for challenging the actions and inactions of the subject of authority as a subject appeal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is devoted to the analysis of the role of administrative procedures in combating corruption, the study of their impact on reducing corruption risks and increasing the transparency of the activities of state authorities. It is pointed out that administrative procedures are an important tool in the system of public administration, as they determine the sequence of actions performed by authorities when making decisions. Clear and transparent regulation of these procedures allows minimizing the risks of corruption, preventing abuse of power and manipulation in the process of providing administrative services. Administrative procedure, on the one hand, ensures the protection of citizens' rights, and on the other hand, it is a tool for monitoring the activities of state bodies. Attention is drawn to the fact that the presence of corruption risks in the process of implementing administrative procedures creates conditions for abuse of official powers and evasion of compliance with legislation. This, in turn, seriously undermines citizens' trust in government institutions, reduces civic activity and lowers the level of legitimacy of state power. Corruption creates an environment in which impunity reigns, creating distrust in the legal system and creating obstacles to ensuring proper state control and law and order. The main anti-corruption mechanisms include ensuring transparency in decision-making; implementation of electronic systems for submitting documents and monitoring their consideration; reduction of discretionary powers; establishing the responsibility of officials for violating established rules; monitoring the implementation of administrative procedures; ensuring the possibility of appealing administrative decisions. It was concluded that administrative procedures are an effective tool in combating corruption, as they establish clear rules of the game for all participants in the administrative process. In addition, administrative procedures not only regulate the relationship between the state and citizens, but also serve as an important tool for ensuring transparency and integrity in public administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It was established that the concept of discretionary powers of the court regarding the application of judicial control over the execution of court decisions in civil cases should be understood as such powers when, within the limits defined by law, the court that issued a decision in a civil case that is subject to execution has the opportunity independently (on own discretion) to choose one of several options for a specific lawful decision regarding the activities of the public or private executor to whom such execution is entrusted, regarding his actions or inaction, on the basis of a complaint filed by a party to the enforcement proceedings. In turn, the parties to enforcement proceedings have the right to appeal to the court with a complaint if they believe that their rights or freedoms have been violated by the decision, action or inaction of the state executive or private executive during the execution of the court decision. This provides an opportunity to intervene at one's own discretion (judicial discretion) within the limits of the powers of the state executor or private executor. The complaint is considered within a ten-day period in a court session with the participation of the debt collector, the debtor and the state executor or other official of the state executive service body or private executor whose decision, action or inaction is contested. However, when applying judicial discretion when applying this or that rule of law during judicial control, the judge must focus on achieving the goals and objectives of civil proceedings, as well as executive proceedings. Discretionary powers should not be used arbitrarily, and the court should control the decisions made on the basis of the exercise of discretionary powers as effectively as possible. At the same time, the powers of a judge must fulfill both the tasks set before a specific court (judge) during the administration of justice (correct and timely consideration and resolution of cases, fair judicial consideration of cases by an independent and impartial court), and the tasks set by the domestic legislator before the entire judiciary by the authorities (execution of justice), as well as tasks of the international level (guaranteeing and implementing the principle of access to justice and the principle of fair trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite many years of attempts by scholars and practitioners to determine the reason for the extremely low level of public trust in the judiciary and law enforcement agencies in Ukraine and ways to strengthen it, this level is still critical, and therefore there is a need to identify new ways to overcome such a crisis. Seeing such public distrust in the legal right of procedural decision-makers to make decisions based on their internal conviction, the study aims to review and analyse the scientific developments in the field of procedural decision-making by law enforcement agencies based on their internal conviction and to identify the factors which influence such conviction. Analysis, synthesis, and generalisation methods were used in the study of the outlined issues, which were used to process the bibliography of the issues, whereas deductive logical analysis, inductive generalisation and analogy were used to substantiate the results and formulate the conclusions of the study. Based on the study results, it is established that scholars have studied the concepts of worldview and internal conviction of procedural decision-makers separately. It is proved that any internal conviction is based primarily on a personʼs values and worldview orientations which are formed throughout life, primarily in childhood and adolescence. Regardless of the position held by a person, when faced with a problem in professional activity on which the law enforcement entity has already formed an opinion, the latter may make a procedural decision contrary to the actual circumstances of the case and the evidence available in it. The practical significance of this study is that the results obtained may become the basis for changes in the current legislation on the assessment of candidates for positions with discretionary powers, which involves focusing on their value beliefs and worldview

The article analyzes the interaction between administrative discretion and the main social regulators – religion, ethics and law. It is shown that historically discretion arises as a religious institution, consisting in the trust of public authorities and their officials in prophets – people who are able to contact with the divine forces. The procedure of discretio spirituum, used in the Middle Ages to determine whether a person is a prophet or a false prophet, is described separately. The significance of this procedure is expressed in the partial secularization of discretion, that is, the assumption by church authorities that the divine injunctions can be interpreted, supplemented, or ignored not only by God, but also by the aforementioned persons (prophets). This recognizes that discretion can be both negative (negative) and positive (positive); that the amounts of discretion granted to prophets must be in direct proportion to the degree of trust in them; and that there are specific criteria according to which to establish what amounts of discretion will be granted to prophets. After many centuries, this concept of administrative discretion has remained virtually unchanged. Ethical science reproduces it almost literally: it again refers to the trust, which this time is granted to executive authorities and their officials, as well as to the degree of such trust, which determines the scope of discretionary powers and is determined by certain criteria. Legal science borrows the above theory less explicitly, but its echoes can be detected there as well. In particular, according to one of the concepts of law understanding the law embodies a distrust (degree of distrust) between the people, and since the law and discretion are usually opposed to each other, discretion is again defined as trust (degree of trust). In the conclusion the conclusion is made about the special relevance of this approach to the administrative discretion because since 2020 the trust is a constitutional category.

Having studied Ukrainian general legislative provisions, binding legal opinions of the Supreme Court of Ukraine and the scientific literature concerning the discretionary powers of administrative courts, it is established that, regardless of the use of quasi-dispositive wording expressing the "possibility" or the "right" of the administrative court to make a procedural decision, the existence of grounds for such decisions implies that it has the duty to make this decision or, in exceptional cases, to adequately justify the inconsistency of the decision that could have been made with the tasks and principles of administrative proceedings. It is noted that the discretion of the administrative court cannot be unlimited and is subject to general and sectoral principles, the purpose of administrative proceedings and individual procedural mechanisms and some other factors of a higher order to the provision establishing procedural discretion. For instance, it was determined that deviations from previous decisions made by the same administrative court judge in the same or similar cases are not acceptable. However, not any non-uniform application of law within the freedom of discretion should be justified, but only a difference that has a significant impact on disputed rights and obligations on the participants of the relevant legal relationship. It is argued that the discretion of the administrative court, which is not limited by special restrictive legislative provisions, in order to prevent arbitrary decisions, must be accompanied by the obligation to properly substantiate the existence of grounds for making a particular procedural decision with reference to those real factual circumstances, which as far as possible can be measured by objective indicators and verified within the framework of the court decision appellate. It is emphasized that this when exercising discretionary powers is necessary for the administrative court to fulfill general requirements regarding the existence of a rational basis for the decision taken, confirmation of its legality and reasonableness with the help of facts and evidence, relying on which any other judge of the administrative court acting in good faith and with competence in the relevant matters would have sufficient grounds to make the same decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unfair use of the prosecutorʼs discretionary powers leads to violations of the rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests of a person. Examining the main ways of abusing the right to prosecution will help prevent negative manifestations in criminal proceedings that hinder the performance of its tasks. The purpose of the study is to identify specific examples of unfair behaviour by prosecutors in Ukraine and the United States during criminal proceedings. The paper uses a set of methods of scientific knowledge: abstraction, analysis, synthesis, comparative legal, formal legal, modelling methods. Some aspects of the implementation of criminal prosecution as the main procedural function of the prosecutor are examined. The main structural elements of the prosecutorʼs activity in the implementation of criminal prosecution and methods of abuse of discretionary powers in the implementation of this function are analysed. Examples of abuse of the right to prosecution are given both in Ukraine and in the United States. Separate criminal cases were considered, in which higher courts concluded that the prosecutor was abusing their right to prosecution (criminal prosecution). The legislation and legal positions of the highest court of the United States were used to compare and consider best practices. It is noted that although the American and Ukrainian models of criminal justice differ in many (primarily, formal) ways, they are based on numerous joint democratic and humanistic principles that serve to achieve justice in the field of countering crime. The need to take legitimate response measures when the prosecutor exercises their discretionary powers is justified. It is concluded that abuse of the right to prosecution exists by public prosecutors in criminal proceedings both in Ukraine and in the United States. It is demonstrated that the methods of such abuses are virtually the same and lead to violations of the rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests of participants in criminal proceedings, harm justice, and lead to a loss of public confidence since the discretionary powers granted to the prosecutor are often directed to convict and punish a person instead of searching for the truth, establishing justice. The conducted study will contribute to the development of measures to prevent the prosecutors from abusing the rights granted to them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: the article is devoted to the study of issues related to the development and formation of the administrative discretion doctrine in Russian legal science, legislative regulation of administrative discretion and discretionary powers of subjects of public administration. Purpose: to present a theoretical and doctrinal interpretation of administrative discretion with regard to the specifics of activities of the Federal Penitentiary Service. Methods: our research is based on the dialectical method of scientific cognition. The article uses general scientific (analysis, synthesis, induction, etc.), private scientific and special methods of cognition (comparative legal, formal legal). Results: a general characteristic of concepts, such as administrative discretion, discretion in law and discretion (discretionary powers), is presented and logical connections between the content of these concepts in terms of their doctrinal understanding are considered. Problems of implementing administrative discretion in practice are studied. The dualism of administrative discretion in the penal system in terms of the implementation of anti-corruption measures in the field of execution of criminal penalties is revealed. Conclusion: based on the study of domestic and foreign experience, possible prospects for developing the institution of administrative discretion in the activities of public administration, including in the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia, are indicated. The intersectoral nature of administrative discretion is emphasized. The issue of the modern role of administrative discretion in activities of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia, taking into account the specifics of the sphere of legal realization, is revealed.

The article continues the discussion on the topical issue of administrative discretion for Russian administrative-legal theory and legal practice, organized by the editors of the journal “Siberian Law Review” on the pages of two previous issues of the journal with the participation of P. P. Serkov and Yu. P. Solovey. The Author focuses on the state of the modern domestic doctrine of administrative discretion, the contribution of Russian legal scholars to its development, the need and possibility (including criteria and limits) of delimiting administrative discretion from other types of discretion. It is proved that the Russian jurisprudence demonstrates, contrary to the assertions of some experts, not confusion in the face of the problematic category of discretion, but ontological and methodological certainty, although sometimes reaching extremes. At the same time, there is no single Russian doctrine of discretion, there are many such doctrines, and some scholars have the right to claim that specific doctrines are associated with their names. The Author draws attention to the fact that discretion in general and administrative discretion in particular are interdisciplinary (interscientific) categories, so they must first of all be rid of the semantic and meaningful “layers” of other sciences. The sooner a pure theory of discretion appears, the more mistakes and risks will be insured against by legal science and law enforcement practice. In order to avoid terminological confusion and preserve the subject matter of the study, it is absolutely important to distinguishfour concepts: 1) administrative discretion; 2) judicial control over administrative discretion; 3) judicial discretion; 4) judicial discretion in the exercise of judicial control over administrative discretion. These concepts have a certain connection with each other, however, they designate different (partly even by their branch affiliation) categories, phenomena, processes and institutions. As a conclusion, it is indicated that the motives of each discretionary decision of the public administration must sooner or later (better sooner than later) be made public. To make this a reality, legal science needs to develop and offer effective legal guarantees for ensuring the rights of citizens and their associations when public authorities exercise their discretionary powers.

This article continues the series of scientific publications planned by the editors of the Siberian Legal Review, the Authors of which analyze the problem of administrative discretion (discretion), which is very relevant for the Russian administrative law theory and practice, in the “question-answer” format. In the domestic legal literature, one can find various definitions of administrative discretion; they are also contained in the legislation of a number of post-Soviet states. Pointing out the shortcomings of some definitions of the named concept, Yuri P. Solovey proposes to define administrative discretion by the choice made by public administration of a variant of solving a managerial issue in the form of an administrative act (regulatory or individual), corresponding, in its opinion, to the requirements established by law for administrative acts, in conditions of insufficient legal certainty of goals, grounds, conditions, content, situation, place, objects (addressees), subjects, procedure for registration, procedure and (or) terms (time) for the adoption of an administrative act. In response to the question about the appropriateness of such an approach to understanding the concept under consideration and the call to formulate his own definition of administrative discretion, Petr P. Serkov agrees with the critical assessments of the mentioned definitions of the concept of discretion. At the same time, in his opinion, the study of the phenomenon of administrative discretion does not involve the interpretation of this phrase, as a result of which the other definitions of discretion are born, but, first of all, the clarification of its content. The latter is impossible without referring to the logical construction of the mechanism of administrative legal relations, since discretionary decisions are filled to the maximum extent with the immutable logic of the emergence and development of this mechanism, available for reproduction and control. Meanwhile, the analytical potential of this construction, unfortunately, remains unclaimed in the theory of modern administrative law. Petr P. Serkov concludes that administrative discretion functions in the naturalness of legal reality, formed by legal regulation, including due to the ideological content of the norms of administrative law, and their state mental coercion as an unalternatively necessary component of legal regulation.

This material opens a series of scientific publications planned by the editors of the Siberian Law Review journal, the Authors of which analyze the problem of administrative discretion (discretion), which is very relevant for Russian administrative legal theory and law practice, in the “question-answer” format. The scientific, theoretical and practical significance of the noted problem is predetermined by the fact that the exercise of discretionary powers by the public administration (as opposed to powers strictly bound by law) is fraught with the greatest threat to the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens, the rights and legitimate interests of organizations. The purpose of the study is to clarify issues related to the concept and essence of administrative discretion, its regulatory legal framework, forms of implementation, ways to establish the limits of discretion of public administration, criteria for assessing the legality of discretionary administrative acts, judicial and agency control over administrative discretion. The subject of the research is normative legal acts, legal principles, administrative and judicial acts, scientific works of Russian and foreign legal scholars. The hypothesis of the study is that, despite the abundance of scientific publications on administrative-discretionary topics, the domestic doctrine of administrative discretion is a motley mixture of judgments that do not agree with each other, often divorced from the needs of administrative and judicial practice, characterized by the absence of a single categorical apparatus. According to Yuri P. Solovey, an important, if not the most important section of administrative discretionary issues, are the limits of judicial control over administrative discretion, which has practically fallen out of the field of view of Russian scholars, despite the fact that it has been thoroughly studied abroad for more than a century and a half. From the point of view of Petr P. Serkov, the domestic science of administrative law has not yet properly answered three fundamental questions, namely: what is administrative discretion, what is it intended for and how is it carried out. The Authors of the publication are unanimous that such a “doctrine” of administrative discretion does not contribute to the development of legislative solutions to bring such discretion to the standards of a legal, democratic state. In the process of research, dialectical, formal-logical, formal-legal, comparative-legal methods of cognition, the method of interpreting law, analysis of materials from administrative and judicial practice are used. The Authors attempt to streamline the categorical apparatus of the theory of administrative discretion, as well as to formulate its main provisions and some proposals for improving the current legislation.

Discretionary powers allow administrative authorities to fulfil public interest through their flexibility to act in circumstances not anticipated by law. Yet, in Iraq discretionary power remains contentious as it may undermine individual rights. This article examines the concept of discretionary powers, particularly how Iraq's administrative authorities exercise such powers and the role of Iraq's administrative judiciary in reviewing any administrative decisions. Analysis of material from primary and secondary sources reveals that Iraq's legal system permits administrative authorities to exercise broad discretionary decision-making powers. This precipitate abuses. Further, the restriction of Iraq's administrative judiciary and the absence of suitable legislation prevent administrative court judges from effectively curbing administrative arbitrariness. Legal transformations are necessary to streamline the scope for discretion by requiring Iraq's administrative authorities to provide reasoned decisions and better empower the administrative judiciary to check the administration's arbitrariness. As well, judges need more training on the operations of administrative courts.

The recodification of criminal law realised in the Slovak Republic in 2005 brought several new elements to criminal proceedings. One of them was the expansion and significant strengthening of the discretion of the public prosecutor in criminal proceedings. However, this authority of the public prosecutor’s office is, in many cases, perceived sensitively and controversially in Slovak society, especially in connection with many cases and scandals, when the prosecutor simply stated that ‘the act did not occur’. One of the related problems is the fact that the injured party in the Slovak Republic has essentially no powers that would, independently of the prosecutor’s office, ensure the control of the prosecutor’s discretionary powers directly through an independent and impartial court. This situation also stems from the fact that the public prosecutor’s office has a prosecution monopoly in Slovak criminal proceedings. However, the current prosecution monopoly of the prosecutor’s office is not a rational consequence of its historical development in our territory but a consequence of the coup d’état in 1948 and the subsequent onset of the communist regime. The possibility for other entities (e.g., the injured party) to exercise their rights through criminal law institutions has thus been minimised. Based on the above, the aim of this paper is to examine the existing scope of the discretion of public prosecutors in Slovakia, analyse the possibilities of controlling the exercise of these powers, and answer the question of how to improve the current possibilities of the control.

The article is devoted to the debatable issues of discretionary powers of the bodies of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine. It is noted that for the Ukrainian legal doctrine and, especially, the practice of law enforcement, discretion is a fairly new legal category and its content is poorly understood. Considering the above, in particular, the concept and types of discretionary powers are considered. The situation of the refusal of the antimonopoly body to consider the case, issued by a letter, which is an act of individual action, which can be challenged in court, is being investigated. An analysis of the judicial review of the proper exercise of the powers of the competition agency is given, which must act not only within the limits of its powers, choosing one or another type of behavior according to the law, but it is also necessary that such behavior is fully aimed at protecting human rights, the general interest of the state and society. give an example of illegal implementation of discretionary powers of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine in which cases.

The Indian Constitution obligates the Governors to act with the aid and advise of their Council of Ministers except in those matters where discretionary powers have been explicitly conferred upon them. Despite the absence of an explicit power to order a state government to face a floor test before the House, Governors have been using their discretion to make such directions. While defining the ambit of this discretion, several Inter-State Council reports and judicial pronouncements have assented to this practice. This paper argues against this trend and asserts that the process of summoning the assembly for a "floor test" must be driven by the choice of elected legislators rather than the Governors' subjective satisfaction. Towards this end, this paper proposes a four-level formula, with certain rights for the opposition parties, which must be followed by the Governors when the confidence of the House in the incumbent government is questioned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The research of the issues of abuse of rights is one of the most relevant in the theory of law, because the spheres of legal relations are rather diverse in which abuses are manifested. Preconditions and causes of such legal phenomenon in information relations are of particular interest in the process of so-called "sanctions cases", when special economic and other restrictive measures are introduced against certain legal entities and private individuals. The purpose of the article is to elicit the preconditions of emergence of such legal phenomenon as abuse of law on the example of realization individuals' rights in the sphere of information relations and granting recommendations for elimination of such preconditions. The legal nature and content of the category of subjective law as a measure of freedom and possible behavior is analyzed, which is characteristic for subjects of private law and private legal relations. It is more correct to apply the term of power to state bodies. The existence of so-called discretionary powers is the most similar category to the category of subjective law, as it contains freedom of choice versions of behaviour. The possibility abusing of law is inherent in the very nature of private law and the content of subjective law and the nature of discretion. The example of consideration the category of cases on appeal of sanctions applied by the President's Decrees of Ukraine clearly illustrates the imperfection of legal regulation of relations on referring information to the category of information with limited access. The list of information that is state secret and the procedure of referring information to this category are analyzed. The example of pretrial investigation information shows the abstractness of legal regulation of the list of information that is the information of pre-trial investigation and at the same time can be the information related to state secret. It is concluded that abstruseness of wording the law gives public authorities extensive opportunities to abuse their discretionary powers in part of groundless dissemination of state secret at documents that must be evidence in administrative case only to delay the consideration of a case. The recommendations are conceded for improving the current legal regulation and expanding the list of information that cannot be state secret by information on essence of offence and legal norms violated by the subject to which a state applies any coercive measures. It is given an interpretation of the provisions of the Code of Administrative Proceedings of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine "On State Secret". The priority of effect of the provisions of the Code of Administrative Proceedings of Ukraine over the provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On State Secret" under the rule of lex posterior derogate priori in the part of possibility of a party of trial to have access to the information, containing state secret and is evidence in a case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Hungarian Law Enforcement / Magyar Rendészet is the property of National University of Public Service 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.)

Definitions, categories, constructions of the administrative-legal nature which can be the issue of inquiry in the administrative process, presented formalized in the Constitution of Ukraine, Code of the Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, administrative laws, regulations. The Administrative Courts act in the sphere of public-law relationships in order to protect rights, freedoms and interests of the individual (Article 125 of the Constitution of Ukraine). Task of the administrative proceedings is fair, impartial and timely solution of the disputes by the court in the sphere of public-law relationships on the purpose of the effective protection of the individual's rights, freedom and interests and the legal entity's rights and interests from the violation by the subjects of power (Article 2 § 1 of the Code of the Administrative Proceedings of Ukraine). The Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court analyze such regular consistency in the administrative process: 1) administrative discretion of the subject of power; 2) current solutions, actions, inactions of the subject of power; 3) administrative procedure for making decisions (administrative acts, regulations); 4) final decisions, actions, inaction of the subjects of power, made (committed) as a result of the administrative procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article identifies effective ways to modernize control over provision of administrative services in the sphere of land relations. Emphasis is placed on the fact that the current practice of control over provision of administrative services in the sphere of land relations still needs to be optimized in the existing realities and the quality of functioning of public administration bodies needs to be improved. The need to reorganize state control is substantiated, which implies creation of a clear and transparent system of state control in the field of land resources and availability of adequate scientific and methodological and personnel support of the respective state authorities. Means of elimination of corruption risk and simplification of administrative procedures in the course of provision of administrative services in the sphere of land relations are proposed. The purpose of the article is to highlight the main ways of improving control over the provision of administrative services in the sphere of land relations in the context of modern state transformations in Ukraine.Today, most scholars recognize the need to develop ways to effectively counteract and prevent corruption in the sphere of land relations. Analysis of works of such scientists as V. Bakumenko, Yu. Bytiak, O. Drozd, O. Levchenko, Ye. Legeza, R. Kuryltsiv, O. Petruk, A. Senina, H. Sharyi and others, shows that special attention is paid to solving the problem of overcoming corruption during provision of administrative services in the sphere of land relations, which can be attained only by consistent and systematic reforms, taking into account international experience and relevant standards and prospects for the development of state anti-corruption policy in Ukraine. Taking into account the fact that administrative services, in particular in the sphere of land relations, under any circumstances, should be provided with high quality, the work emphasizes the need to ensure appropriate conditions to control their provision.

The sovereign nature of the forms of operation of cultural heritage protection authorities, the polarization between the individual interest and the public interest, discretion margin in the activities of the authorities – all these elements create a kind of “explosive mixture”, which is the source of the legal disputes between the owners of historical monuments and historical monuments protection bodies. The key element of the guarantee of individual freedom is the judicial review of public administration. Therefore, it is a matter of dispute to which extent the public administration is subject to judicial review when performing the tasks entrusted. The aim of this article is to show how Polish administrative courts approach the problem. What methodology of the review of discretion margin do they use? How do they solve the dilemma: who makes the final decision – the body or the court? Do they retain judicial self-restraint or are they ready and willing to interfere in the merits of the decision?

The subject. The article investigates historical legal, theoretical-methodological and constitutional-legal problems of the formation and functioning of the institute of the head of state.The purpose of the study is to show how the constitutional functions of the head of state concretize his powers.The study is based on the use of methods of analysis and synthesis, historical legal, formal legal, comparative legal methods, scientific abstraction.The main scientific results. The authors summarize that the historical and legal analysis shows the key role of the head of state in the mechanism of ensuring state unity and law and order. Reality testifies the fact that the role of the President of the Russian Federation creates sufficient constitutional and legal grounds and conditions for the consolidated work of all state authorities, including law enforcement agencies, in the direction of ensuring the unity of state power and constitutional law and order. The indicated directions are in many ways identical, organically interrelated and interdependent, systematically define the main lines of activity of the head of state, contributing to the improvement of the constitutional and legal mechanism for ensuring the rule of law in general. Firstly, the Constitution of the Russian Federation contains only the basic powers of the President of the Russian Federation, which are substantially expanded by the legislator and presidential decrees. Secondly, the President has so-called “hidden”, discretionary powers that are not directly enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, implicit in it and stem from the sense of presidential functions that manifest themselves in unforeseen extraordinary circumstances. Thus, the constitutional design of a strong presidential power allows the President of the Russian Federation to ensure the unity of the executive power and the exercise of the powers of the federal government throughout the territory of Russia (pt. 4 of Art. 78 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). Such presidential power is carried out through the issuance of its decrees and orders, the adoption of operational and administrative decisions.Conclusions. The authors noted that the effectiveness of the work of the head of state is especially evident in the state unity and the constitutional and legal mechanism for ensuring the rule of law, which is developed in the constitutional doctrine.

The introduction of the presidency is of great importance for the historical development of Ukraine as a sovereign, independent, democratic and legal state, as the consolidation of the President's position at the legislative level testifies to the international experience of democratic institutions, the main place among which is occupied by the presidency. The Constitution of Ukraine provided great opportunities for the President as a representative of the "interests of the whole people" to remain the dominant element of the political system of Ukraine. The powers of the President, in contrast to the powers of many other bodies and officials of the state, are provided exclusively at the level of the Constitution of Ukraine, and their expansion through ordinary laws is not allowed. The latter determine only the procedure for exercising a particular authority of the President of Ukraine in a particular sphere of public life. And this week it is very interesting to study a separate function of the President, namely the ability to act "in the spirit of the law (Constitution)" - discretionary powers. Many decisions and drafts of heads of state see discretionary powers, and this does not mean that there is an excess of power or even going beyond the law. After all, in the legal encyclopedia, discretionary powers are defined as the right of the head of state, head of government, and other officials of public authorities to act under certain conditionsat their own discretion within the law. Discretion in a particular situation is indicated in the rule of law by such appeals as, for example, "may", "has the right", and not "should", "must". In the recent history of Ukraine, during the transformation of the institution of the presidency, we have already seen the exercise of their discretion by the heads of state. For the most part, we must mention the resonant decisions "in the spirit of the Constitution" of V. Yushchenko and P. Poroshenko. Thus, we will consider the poll of the President of Ukraine V. Zelensky, conducted on October 25, 2020, from the standpoint of his exercise of his discretion, namely the right to act based on his legal status, which is primarily defined in Article 102 of the Constitution of Ukraine, where it is written that "the President of Ukraine is the head of state and acts on its behalf." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers the use of s.22 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) and particularly, the test within that provision of what is "ju s t". It draws together lessons from four recent cases raising disparate issues: the approach to appeals, the interpretation post-Waya, the duly of the prosecution, and the breadth of the discretion in s.22. It also briefly considers the position of third parties' interests in s.22 proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The definition of an activity as a "Service of General Interest" influences who and how may provide it. The competence to determine which activities are of general interest lies with the Member States, while the Commission's task is to watch for "manifest errors" in their assessment. However, it is unclear what the Commission's competence actually encompasses. This article discusses the scope and limits of the powers of the Member States and the Commission, focusing on legislation, policy documents and case law. It also puts under scrutiny a possible trend of ever more activities being labelled as having an economic nature, as well as the pervasive effects such a trend could have on the Member States' liberty in the "Make-or-Buy" decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Restrictive measures imposed by governments around the world to counter the Covid-19 pandemic undoubtedly have a negative impact on the economy. One of the instruments of the state, which makes it possible to save entire sectors of the economy, including the banking sector, from bankruptcy, is the stabilization loans of the central bank. Accordingly, the analysis of the discretionary powers of central banks and their governing bodies in issuing stabilization loans to overcome the economic consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic is relevant and timely. The authors used different scientific methods, such as the dialectical method, the method of comparison, the method of elementary-theoretical analysis and synthesis, the hermeneutic and the forecasting analysis. As a result of the study, the authors substantiated a definition of the powers of the governing body of the central bank in making decisions on the provision of stabilization loans to banks, as part of the function of the central bank to maintain the stability of the national currency and the indicative regulation of banks. The authors concluded that there is a need for an expanded approach to the limits of the discretion of the central bank, on the basis of harmonization of economic purpose of decisions on the issuance of stabilization loans to banks, in accordance with the constitution and the laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discretion is among the central concepts in German administrative law and, accordingly, in tax law as its section. Discretion is also not insignificant in tax law of Ukraine. The article has the following objectives: 1) to define the content of the concept “discretion”; 2) to analyze the criteria for appropriateness of discretion; 3) to determine the specifics of discretion exercised in the area of taxation; 4) to identify the special place of evaluative concepts in the formulation of judicial doctrines. It is established that the concept of “discretion” should be understood as the ability of a public authority to have a certain range for independent decision-making which can be verified by a court of law within a limited scope. Discretion of holders of public powers may relate to: a) action or omission by a public authority; b) the question of “how”, i.e., the question of measures to be used by a regulatory body as a response in a particular case. It is noted that in terms of discretion, it is important to comply with the following conditions: 1) the right to exercise discretion should be clearly prescribed by law or consistently ensue from it; 2) discretion should be exercised in accordance with the purpose for which it is granted; 3) discretion should be applied within the limits established by law. Respective conditions should be determined as conditions of appropriate discretion. The author emphasizes the importance of evaluative concepts in terms of development of the discretion doctrine in the area of taxation. At the same time, it is stated that in this area, discretion receives its limited application. Therefore, both in Germany and in Ukraine, discretion in the area of taxation is possible. At the same time, it is noted that in Germany, discretion in the tax and legal field is significantly limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Administración Pública is the property of Centro de Estudios Politicos y Constitucionales 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 Revista Digital de Derecho Administrativo is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia 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.)

Despite the differences of approach that different national legal systems may adopt regarding discretionary powers, in general terms the main issue of discussion stays the same: Given that discretion is accepted and considered an essential legal technique in the context of administrative decisions, how, and to which extent, may discretionary powers be controlled and subjected to review by courts? The purpose of the present article is to discuss discretionary powers from the perspective of legislative drafting, with the aim to identify specific tools to be used by law-makers in order to prevent discretion from turning into arbitrariness. Therefore, starting from an analysis of Portuguese legal doctrine on the concept of discretionary powers, the present article will address three main issues. First, clarification as to how legal discretion is to be understood and how to identify discretionary powers granted by legislation. Second, identification of the advantages and disadvantages of legal discretion, in order to determine normative criteria according to which we can settle under which conditions discretionary powers in legislative drafting is to be employed or not. Third, identification of which legislative drafting tools may be used by law-makers in order to grant discretionary powers. Overall, by focusing on law-making techniques, the article aims to demonstrate the extent to which legislative drafting tools, such as the ones identified in this article, are powerful tools to better identify discretionary powers in the law, but also to ensure that these powers are granted only when actually necessary. Taking into consideration that migration and asylum law usually involves reference to fundamental individual rights, the article argues that the provision of discretionary powers ought to be avoided whenever there are no solid and reasoned grounds for their use, so that discretion remains a tool for regulation and does not become arbitrariness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the court case R. (on the application of C) v Director of Public Prosecutions in Great Britain, on the right to review decision not to prosecute.

Copyright of Revista Digital de Derecho Administrativo is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia 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 sovereign nature of the forms of operation of cultural heritage protection authorities, the polarization between the individual interest and the public interest, discretion margin in the activities of the authorities, all these elements create a kind of “explosive mixture”, which is the source of the legal disputes between the owners of historical monuments and historical monuments protection bodies. The key element of the guarantee of individual freedom is judicial review of public administration. Therefore, it is a matter of dispute to which extent the public administration is subject to judicial review when performing the tasks entrusted. The aim of this article is to analyze how Polish administrative courts approach the problem. What methodology of the review of discretion margin they use? How they solve the dilemma: who makes the final decision – the body or the court? Do they retain the judicial self-restraint or rather they are willing to interfere in the merits of the decision?

Abuse of power is one of classic concepts in administrative law. According to the classical approach, this concept is based on the assumption that the scope of discretion of public administration bodies is defined, beside competence norms, procedural and legal grounds for action, also by the objective for which the discretionary powers was granted. The classic concept has evolved over the years. It is also evident that its importance has been in decline nowadays. The priority objectives of my study concerned more practical than theoretical aspects of the topic. The key issue of my work is to analyze how courts have changed their approach to the judicial review of the discretionary powers of public administration. I set myself two goals in this study: first, I would like to indicate the fundamental direction in which the classic concept of abuse of power evolves. Secondly, I would like to describe the contemporary role of this concept and to response whether it can still be an effective instrument to protect an individual from arbitrary decisions of the public administration.

The article focuses on the decision of Criminal Division of Court of Appeal of Great Britain in the case R. v Prenga (Jetmir) on subject to a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued by Italy with credit for time spent in custody and reduction in sentence.

Copyright of Revista Digital de Derecho Administrativo is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia 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.)