scholarly journals DETERMINING INDIVIDUAL CATEGORIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC REGISTRATION OF CIVIL STATES WITH ACCOUNTING OF LEGISLATIVE TRANSFORMATIONS

2019 ◽  
pp. 170-173
Author(s):  
O. H. Pohrebniak
Keyword(s):  
Administrative Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Modern Development ◽  
The Status ◽  
Civil Status ◽  
Administrative Procedures ◽  
State Registration ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
Theoretical Developments

The article defines certain peculiarities of administrative proceedings of state registration of marriage and establishment of paternity in Ukraine. It has been established that the procedures for state registration of acts of civil status are types of administrative procedures, it should first be noted that the general normative act which should define the notions and peculiarities of such procedures should be the Law of Ukraine “On the administrative procedure” 2018, which at present time is a project and submitted to the VerkhovnaRada of Ukraine for consideration. As a rule, scholars agree that the administrative procedure is directly related to the activities of the public administration and is an established algorithm for the functioning of the subjects of power. In this case, the procedures for state registration of acts of civil status are no exception. They are a kind of administrative procedures and implemented by state authorities, and in certain cases, and by local self-government bodies. At the same time having its own peculiarities regarding the procedure for implementation and the subject structure of such procedures. It has been established that the modern development of domestic administrative legislation and the practice of its application testifies that at present the administrative procedure as an independent component of administrative law has not yet been fully formed, although, given the active theoretical developments of the representatives of the administrative and legal science on the pages of scientific, journalistic and educational publications concerning the concept, features, types and structure of administrative procedures, and referring to the active legislative development of this tyranny, it is safe to say that the process of the administrative procedure in the structure of administrative law is actively continuing. Therefore, on the basis of theoretical developments and practical features, the author’s understanding of the concept of “administrative procedure of state registration of acts of civil status” is determined. In addition, given the specific features of administrative proceedings for state registration of civil status acts, as well as for a more complete clarification of the status and authority of all participants in certain administrative procedures, the necessary additional introduction of the concept of “implementation of the administrative procedure” is argued. Such category will allow to find out the place, role and authority not only of the administrative body, but also other participants in administrative proceedings. Thus, under the implementation of an administrative procedure, it should be understood as the observance, execution, use and application of procedural steps directed at the consideration and resolution of an administrative case.

Final Report of the Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure

1941 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 501-506
Author(s):  
James Hart
Keyword(s):  
Attorney General ◽  
Final Report ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Public Hearings ◽  
Administrative Procedures ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
Rule Making

What is undoubtedly the most thorough and comprehensive study ever made of Federal administrative procedure was completed with the submission to the Attorney General, in a letter dated January 22, 1941, of the final report of the Committee named. In its investigation and report, the Committee confined its attention to those Federal agencies that substantially affect private interests by their powers of rule-making and adjudication. To the study of their procedures, it assigned a staff of lawyer-investigators, which produced 27 mimeographed monographs, 13 of which have been printed as Sen. Doc. No. 186, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. In its interim report of January 31, 1940, the Committee thus described the methods being employed in the preparation of these monographic studies: “They have involved extended interviews with officials and employees of the agencies involved, with members of the public affected, and with attorneys who have represented clients before these agencies. Members of the Committee's staff have attended numerous hearings and other administrative proceedings as observers, and have closely examined the files of the agencies to discover the methods utilized in disposing of matters arising under the various statutes and regulations. Upon the completion of these investigations, the staff has prepared for the study of the Committee a preliminary report upon each agency, discussing in detail its administrative procedures. The report has been given to the officers of the affected agency for their consideration and comment. Thereafter, the full Committee has met with the agency's officers to discuss with them the facts and problems disclosed by the report.” (Final Report, pp. 254–255). The Committee held public hearings in June and July, 1940. In Chapter IX of its final report, it presents recommendations concerning a number of the individual agencies studied; and in Appendices B through M, it summarizes data collected on significant topics.

Breaking Authoritarian Bonds: The Political Origins of the Taiwan Administrative Procedure Act

2005 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeeyang Rhee Baum
Keyword(s):  
Status Quo ◽  
Administrative Reform ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Survival ◽  
The Public ◽  
Secondary Sources ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Regulatory Policies ◽  
The Status ◽  
Administrative Procedures

Taiwan recently adopted a series of administrative reform laws designed to make the bureaucracy more transparent and allow public participation in regulatory policies. Because administrative reform limits the executive's power, it is clear why legislatures would favor strict administrative procedures. But it is less clear why presidents would support them. The passage of these laws begs the question why presidents support administrative procedural reforms designed to restrict their abilities to act freely. I argue that in Taiwan, President Lee Teng-hui's control of his party deteriorated as factional disputes within his own party increased over time. Lee ultimately concluded that the Kuomintang's political survival depended on major reforms. Consequently, the status quo-oriented bureaucracy—hitherto an important source of support for Lee and his key constituencies—became an impediment. Lee supported Taiwan's Administrative Procedure Act in order to reduce the bureaucracy's capacity to impede reform. More generally, I argue that administrative procedures designed to open up the bureaucracy to the public, including previously excluded groups, can serve politicians' goal of redirecting the bureaucracy. Archival data, secondary sources, and interviews with key presidential advisers, senior career bureaucrats, and politicians support my argument.

scholarly journals Reflections About the Administrative Process in Modern Russia

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 277-291
Author(s):  
A. A. Grishkovets
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Administrative Process ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Procedures ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Administrative Jurisdiction ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
Administrative Justice

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.

SPECYFIKA REGULACJI ADMINISTRACYJNOPRAWNEJ W PRAWIE KONSULARNYM. WYBRANE PROBLEMY USTROJOWE I PROCEDURALNE

2021 ◽  
pp. 354-375
Author(s):  
Michał Możdżeń-Marcinkowski
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Other ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Fundamental Condition ◽  
Administrative Procedures ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Administrative Proceedings

The article discusses a significantly modified regulation within administrative law applied in the consular service. There seems to be a need for a voice in the discussion regarding the legal status of a Consul of the Republic of Poland (as well as the other members of the diplomatic corpus) as seen from an administrative law point of view. In the background of two regimes of administrative and consular law, it is also undoubtedly necessary to indicate the basic procedural border problems. A very typical example are the modified administrative procedures provided for diplomacy, with particular emphasis put on the importance of jurisdictional administrative proceedings lead by the consul. The administrative procedure constructed in this way by the legislature differs in many points from the general administrative procedure performed by other Polish authorities. Therefore, to some extent, it can be perceived as a specific administrative consular law. The aim of this article is to signal the typical procedural differences and to point out their sources. “Consular administrative law” can be perceived as a special administrative procedure, which does not constitute part of the general administrative procedure applicable to all national authorities and citizens in Poland, but which still is a sub-branch of Polish consular law which applies to the Polish citizens and foreigners in a specific administrative situations. The existence of so-called “consular administrative law”, however, presupposes one fundamental condition, which is having and maintaining foreign relations in the first place.

scholarly journals DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

2020 ◽  
pp. 92-104
Author(s):  
Rustam Madaliev
Keyword(s):  
Administrative Law ◽  
Kyrgyz Republic ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Administrative Legislation ◽  
Administrative Procedures ◽  
Law And Legislation ◽  
Administrative Justice

The article provides an overview and stages of the development of law and legislation on administrative procedures and administrative justice in the Kyrgyz Republic. The article discusses the adoption, implementation, content and the application of the new Law on Administrative Procedure and the Administrative Procedure Code of the Kyrgyz Republic. At the beginning, the socio-political background and the rationale for the ongoing judicial reforms and the efforts of the state to strengthen the rule of law in the Kyrgyz Republic are described. A significant part of article considers steps for developing a law on administrative procedures of the Kyrgyz Republic and the problems associated with its development. Then, the content and issues of implementation and the problems of the practical application of the new law on administrative procedures of the Kyrgyz Republic are disclosed. A separate part is devoted to the development, content, implementation and practice of the application of the new Administrative Procedure Code of the Kyrgyz Republic. The article also outlines the problems and shortcomings in the practice of applying legal norms on administrative procedures and administrative justice in the Kyrgyz Republic. In general, the article summarizes that a new system of administrative law has been formed in Kyrgyzstan to replace “Soviet” administrative law, but there are still problems in understanding and applying the new administrative legislation: not all the regulatory framework and practice of administrative agencies are brought into line with the new legislation; there are facts of not understanding, ignoring and not applying the new legislation by public authorities; not all curricula of higher legal education are brought in line with a new understanding of administrative law. It is necessary to continue the implementation measures to put into practice the new administrative legislation through organizational measures to educate and train law applicators, as well as the development of judicial practice in administrative cases.

scholarly journals CONSULTATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC AND STUDY OF PUBLIC OPINION AS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES: GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

2020 ◽  
pp. 140-150
Author(s):  
В. О. Кінзбурська
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Public Information ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Competitive Selection ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Procedures ◽  
Public Consultations ◽  
Public Monitoring

In the article the author defines the list of administrative procedures of interaction of state bodies with the public, which includes the procedures that arise in connection with: 1) public consultations (organization and conduct of public discussions of regulations); 2) the study of public opinion; 3) involvement of the public in the work of commissions established under public authorities; 4) exercising public control and supervision; 5) carrying out information activities of state bodies (publication of public information about the work of state bodies, providing answers to public requests for information); 6) activities of public councils in terms of interaction with state bodies (conducting public consultations, conducting public monitoring, holding meetings of the public council and making decisions of a recommendatory nature); 7) submission of appeals and requests for information (application of administrative procedures). The author analyzes some administrative procedures of interaction of state bodies with the public, namely: conducting public consultations and studying public opinion. The key features of the administrative procedure of public consultations are identified, which include: its dual form of implementation, as such consultations can be carried out both in person and via the Internet; availability of mandatory and optional stages; close connection with other administrative procedure related to the implementation of information activities of public authorities; obligatory documentation of the result in the form of a report, and in case of a face-to-face consultation with the public, also a protocol; the possibility of initiating this procedure by both entities government agencies and civil society institutions. It is noted that the administrative procedure for the study of public opinion is similar to the general administrative procedure for public consultation, but has its differences, in particular: it is initiated exclusively by state bodies (executive authorities); has no optional stages; provides for competitive selection among the subjects of public opinion polls, ie in fact it is a different administrative procedure for competitive selection; does not require logging, and the main document for the implementation of such a procedure is a report.

scholarly journals In the name of the public: Representatives of collective and wider interest of the public in administrative matters in Serbia

Pravni zapisi ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 504-531
Author(s):  
Jelena Jerinić
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Interested Party ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Active Approach ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Direct Indication ◽  
Administrative Procedures

Serbian Law on General Administrative Procedure (LGAP) opened a possibility for broadening the standing in administrative procedures and administrative disputes, by inclusion of subjects representing collective interests and interest of the wider public - primarily, citizen associations and similar organizations. However, by failing to regulate a series of concrete issues, the Law places the administration and the Administrative Court before a challenge, demanding from them an extensive interpretation of not only LGAP's provisions, but other legislation already recognizing such organizations as AIDS in realization of the public interest. The author analyzes relevant legislation, as well as available administrative and court caselaw in search of these answers. The lack of explicit legal provisions could be balanced by a creative approach in practice, especially by the Administrative Court. Having in mind comparative solutions, the question arises whether it is necessary to regulate this category of potential parties separately or to link it more explicitly to the already existing notion of an interested party. Instead, completely new notions have been introduced - collective interests and the wider interests of the public - which are not or not consistently defined in Serbian law. The current, not so voluminous case law, shows that the administrative bodies need a more direct indication of the rules, i.e. a more explicit definitions of these terms. However, despite the restrictive legal framework, administrative bodies should be open to understanding the specific circumstances, i.e. the motivation that an organization has when it seeks standing. In the normative sphere, one of the solutions could be to envisage the analogous application of LGAP's provisions on the interested party. Other solutions could be sought in explicitly mentioning them in the provisions on right to appeal. The current formulations of LGAP do not provide sufficient guidance to the administration and an extensive interpretation would be a great challenge for them. An active approach of the Administrative Court could show the way for the administration toward and effective application of these provisions of LGAP.

THE POSITION OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS – LEGAL ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (XXI) ◽  
pp. 97-114
Author(s):  
Michał Sędziński
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Special Role ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Administrative Proceedings

The aim of this article is to comprehensively analyse the legal position of the public prosecutor in administrative proceedings and administrative court proceedings. This subject is interesting because the public prosecutor is usually associated with criminal proceedings and his capacity as the public accuser. However, the public prosecutor plays a special role in administrative proceedings, i.e. participates in them as an entity with the rights of a party, even though he has no legal interest in it. It is also worth noting that the powers of the public prosecutor are clearly more extensive than those of other entities with the rights of a party. This article is an attempt to determine the role of the public prosecutor in administrative proceedings and decide whether he is the accuser or rather the representative of the public interest. The position of the public prosecutor in proceedings before administrative courts is special as well. This issue needs to be discussed in detail, which was taken into account in the second part of the article. The position of the public prosecutor as the advocate of the rule of law is regulated by the Act on the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The analysis of these provisions in conjunction with Chapter 4 of the Code of Administrative Procedure leads to a conclusion that the public prosecutor who acts in administrative proceedings as an entity with the rights of a party has powers vested in him alone and watches over such proceedings, thereby fulfilling the duties of an advocate of the rule of law. To fully show the special position of the public prosecutor, it is necessary to enumerate his powers in administrative proceedings and compare them with the competences of “ordinary” entities with the rights of a party.

Los «Administrative Law Judges» norteamericanos: imparcialidad administrativa y control judicial

2015 ◽  
pp. 129-162
Author(s):  
Francisco VELASCO CABALLERO
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Judicial Intervention ◽  
Administrative Agencies ◽  
Administrative Employees ◽  
Administrative Procedures ◽  
Open Issues

LABURPENA: Objektibotasuna eta Administrazioa Legeari lotuta izatea Zuzenbide Publiko Konparatuan beti irekita dauden gaiak dira. Helburu hori lortzeko, estatu bakoitzak hainbat tresna juridiko izaten ditu. Espainian, objektibotasunaren eta legezkotasunaren bermea epaileen esku utzi da, funtsean. Beste herrialde batzuek tresna administratiboak dituzte, helburu berberak lortzeko esku-hartze judizialaren beharrik gabe. Horrelakoak dira Ipar Amerikako ≪Administrative Law Judges≫ deituak. Administrazio-enplegatu independenteak dira (independentziazko estatutu ia judiziala dutenak), eta funtzio hau dute: aurkakotasun-prozedura administratiboetan interesdunei entzutea eta dagokion gaian erabaki objektibo bat proposatzea. Administrazio-agentzietako zuzendaritza-kargudunen aldean enplegatu publiko horiek duten independentziari esker, objektibotasuna eta legezkotasuna berma daiteke, esku-hartze judizialaren beharrik gabe. RESUMEN: La objetividad y la vinculacion de la Administracion a la ley son cuestiones permanentes abiertas en el Derecho publico comparado. Diversos son los instrumentos juridicos con las que, en cada Estado, se pretende alcanzar esos objetivos. En Espana, la garantia de objetividad y de legalidad se ha depositado, fundamentalmente, en los jueces. Otros paises disponen de instrumentos administrativos que, sin necesidad de intervencion judicial, pretenden alcanzar los mismos objetivos. Este es el caso de los llamados ≪Administrative Law Judges≫ del Derecho norteamericano. Son empleados administrativos independientes (con estatuto cuasi judicial de independencia) cuya funcion es oir a los interesados en los procedimientos administrativos contradictorios y proponer una decision objetiva en el correspondiente asunto. La independencia de la que disponen estos empleados publicos, respecto de los cargos directivos de las correspondientes agencias administrativas, permite asegurar la objetividad y legalidad sin necesidad de intervencion judicial. ABSTRACT : Objectivity and legality of the Public Administration are open issues in comparative law. Various are the legal instruments by means of which each nation intends to achieve those objectives. In Spain, the guarantees of objectivity and legality traditionally rely on the judicial branch of power. Other countries have displayed distinctive administrative instruments, different to judicial intervention, to achieve the same objectives. This is the case of the so-called ≪Administrative Law Judges≫ of US law. They are independent administrative employees holding quasi-judicial independent. Their task consists of conducting the hearings in contradictory administrative procedures and proposing objective decisions to the directors of the relevant administrative agencies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document