Significance of and Comparative Trends in Procedural Regulation of Right to Information

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 31-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Polonca Kovač
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Good Practices ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Rti Implementation ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
Legal Right

Any legal right is (more) efficiently pursued if sufficient procedural regulation supports its substantive setting. This article is dedicated to an analysis of procedural regulation of right to information (RTI) since its significance is increasing in terms of developing good governance and good administration within contemporary transparent, open and collaborative society. The comparative analysis of selected countries (USA, Ireland, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Slovenia, Croatia) included herein proves that selected procedural institutions, such as time limits and an appeal to an independent body or judicial review, contribute to a significantly higher level of implementation of the RTI in practice as also indicated by several international studies. In conclusion, the author recommends certain good practices, especially significance of RTI implementation in relation to different authorities in the context of administrative procedure guaranteeing constitutional and supranational transparency principles.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review: A ‘Common Core’ Research

2021 ◽  
pp. 3-20
Author(s):  
Giacinto della Cananea ◽  
Mads Andenas
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
International Level ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Long Period ◽  
History Of ◽  
Political Choices ◽  
National Systems

This chapter begins by explaining why judicial review of administration is interesting terrain for a comparative analysis, also in the light of European and international principles. It is helpful to bear in mind that, for a long period of time, a strand of thought in public law has contested not just the usefulness, but even the possibility of a meaningful comparison between national systems of judicial review. It is important, however, to take cognisance of two fundamental dimensions of change: one is the increasing specialization of the courts that exercise control over administrative power and the other is the emergence of common principles at European and international level. The chapter then highlights the importance of procedural fairness and propriety, although the legal relevance and significance of these principles will differ depending upon the history of any society and its political choices. It also addresses some methodological issues, including the nature of the 'factual analysis' and the choice of legal systems.

scholarly journals Comparative analysis of evidence based policies in the era of digitalization

2020 ◽  
Vol 338 ◽  
pp. 477-485
Author(s):  
András Bojtor ◽  
Gábor Bozsó
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Development Program ◽  
Policy Cycle ◽  
Evaluation Phase ◽  
Analysis Of Results ◽  
Strategic Policy ◽  
Political Conditions ◽  
International Comparative

A well-functioning administration with embedded institutions enables the formulation of a competitive environment which propitiously effects the country’s economic growth. In case of an intervention, the results and impacts should be measured and continuously monitored in a strategic policy cycle. These activities can be done on project and national levels and at the same time there could be a legitimate claim for carrying out international comparative analysis of results. The majority of public administration developments belongs to the scope of e-government. The evidencebased policy making is a component of good governance next to transparency, sustainability, efficiency, integrity and people centricity. Government obligations and responsibilities in evaluations vary from country to country. Digitalization brings new challenges for public service and governments are taking various measures in response to them. Evaluation can fulfil its role in the strategic policy cycle only if it can meet the political conditions with attention to ethical and methodological standards; can adapt to the digitalized circumstances. The paper aims a deeper analysis of evaluation phase, and to summarize the possible new methods reaching better results in public services and public administration services. In this paper we are going to conduct an international comparative analysis with a special attention given to a public administration development program in Hungary.

A Critique of Legal Framework Facilitating Access to Government Information in Tanzania

2015 ◽  
pp. 1737-1762
Author(s):  
John Ubena
Keyword(s):  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Universal Access ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Government Information ◽  
The Media ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
The Right

This chapter provides a critical analysis of the legal framework for access to information particularly information held by government in Tanzania. The analysis intends to establish whether the existing Right To Information (RTI) legal framework and ICT development in Tanzania facilitates universal and requisite access to government information. In order to do that, the chapter utilises a literature review to understand contemporary trends in both theory and practice. In addition, journal articles, books, reports, case law, and pieces of legislation focusing on RTI are visited to obtain deeper insights in the topic under scrutiny. The findings indicate that, despite Tanzania's efforts to embrace democracy virtues, good governance, and technology, the country lacks adequate legal framework to facilitate universal access to government information and ensure that the Right To Information (RTI) is observed in all the socio-economic contexts. To rectify this problem, there is need to enact the RTI law with clear focus of encouraging access to government information. Although two bills (the Media Service Bill [MSB] and the 2011 RTI) are currently being debated, it is not clear yet when they will become law and subsequently practiced.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in France

2021 ◽  
pp. 50-52
Author(s):  
Delphine Costa
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
Individual Decisions ◽  
Laws And Regulations ◽  
Administrative Justice

This chapter describes administrative procedure and judicial review in France. In French public law, no constitutional provision provides for judicial review of administrative measures. Nor is there a convention providing for judicial review of administrative measures. This is only envisaged by the laws and regulations, in particular the Administrative Justice Code and the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration. The administrative courts exercise extensive control over the acts or measures of the public administration, including both individual decisions and regulatory acts, but some are nonetheless beyond judicial review. Where an act or measure is contested on procedural grounds, judicial review takes place only under certain conditions: the procedural defect must have deprived the applicant of a guarantee or it must have influenced the meaning of the decision taken. Two types of judicial remedy exist in administrative law: it is therefore up to the applicant to limit their application before the administrative judge.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Lithuania

2021 ◽  
pp. 69-71
Author(s):  
Agnė Andrijauskaitė
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
General Rule ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
The Law ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Administrative Proceedings

This chapter reviews administrative procedure and judicial review in Lithuania. The introduction of administrative justice into the Lithuanian legal system happened against the backdrop of Lithuania's 'unflinching' desire to join the European Union and was meant to strengthen the protection of individual rights and administrative accountability. Two cornerstone acts in this regard, the Law on Public Administration and the Law on Administrative Proceedings (APA), were adopted in 1999. Administrative courts were also established in the same year. Article 3 (1) APA spells out the general rule that administrative courts settle disputes arising in the domain of the public administration. All the acts and measures excluded from the competence of administrative courts are listed in Article 18 APA, which establishes the so-called negative competence of administrative courts. Meanwhile, Article 91 (1) (3) APA provides that the impugned administrative decision may be quashed if 'essential procedural rules intended to ensure objective and reasonable adoption of an administrative decision were breached'.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Germany

2021 ◽  
pp. 53-58
Author(s):  
Lilly Weidemann
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Protective Effects ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Federal Statute ◽  
The Right ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Subjective Rights

This chapter explores administrative procedure and judicial review in Germany. The German Basic Law contains a guarantee of access to justice. According to section 40(1) of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (CACP), recourse to the administrative courts shall be available in all public-law disputes of a non-constitutional nature insofar as the disputes are not explicitly allocated to another court by a federal statute. German administrative court procedure generally aims to protect subjective rights. In general, all measures taken by a public authority are subject to review by courts. This principle forms an essential part of the fundamental rights constitutionally guaranteed. Thus, no measure by the public administration is excluded from this guarantee. The infringement of a procedural provision with protective effects does not necessarily lead to the right of the applicant to have the decision quashed. This usually requires the infringement of a right of the appellant resulting from substantive law. Damages cannot be claimed within the same (administrative) court proceeding that aims to quash an administrative decision.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document