The Public Interest Conception of Public Law: Its Procedural Origins and Substantive Implications

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason N. E. Varuhas
Author(s):  
A.P. Ushakova ◽  

From the standpoint of the dominant interest criterion the article examines the justification of the legislator`s decision to apply public law methods in order to regulate relations concerning the use of land for infrastructural facilities placing. The author gives the arguments in favor of understanding the public interest as the interest of the whole society as a system, rather than the interest of an indefinite range of persons or the majority of the population. The author concludes that there is the simultaneous presence in the specified legal relations and private interests of the participants of legal relations, and public interests of society as a system. Both types of interests in these legal relations are important, but in terms of different aspects of the legal impact mechanism. Public interest is important because its realization is the purpose of legal regulation of this type of legal relations, from this point of view it acts as a dominant interest. The private interest of the holder of a public servitude is important as an incentive to attract the efforts of private individuals to achieve a publicly significant goal. The private interest of a land plot owner is important from the point of view of securing the right of ownership. It is substantiated that the public servitude is not an arbitrary decision of the legislator, but an example of application of the incentive method in the land law, which provides a favorable legal regime for a socially useful activity.


Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division). This case concerned whether organizations could demonstrate a sufficient interest for the purposes of bringing a judicial review on the basis of their expert knowledge and the public interest in bringing an application for review forward. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.


10.4335/52 ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-270
Author(s):  
Janez Ahlin

The special legal nature of the concession contract (as one of the legal transactions) which represents a legal framework where the public and private interests meet (two parties cooperate for mutual benefit) is characterised by intertwining of general rules of obligation law and special legal institutes that originate from the sphere of public law. The legal nature of the contractual relationships that arise between administrative and private entities requires special regulation of individual institutes that should reflect the public interest as an important guiding principle for concluding these contracts, and a special legal position of a public law entity as a holder of this public interest. Despite adoption of the new Public-Private Partnership Act in the legislative regulation of the concession contract that still remains variously regulated in previously adopted special provisions of sectoral laws, there are still some deficiencies and dilemmas that are more or less effectively dealt with in the contractual practice. For the legal positions that are classically civil at first sight, the legislator or court practice have laid down special modified rules of civil law in most developed countries. In the course of time, these rules became part of public law / administrative law. Thus, the French legal order has best developed the rules of the public contractual law and the legal institute of the administrative contract that the Slovenian administrative theoreticians try more and more to introduce also into our legal order. KEY WORDS: • concession contract • concession partnership • public-private partnership • public interest • party equality principle • law of obligations


2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 149-171
Author(s):  
Ana Paula Barcellos ◽  
Marcia Castro ◽  
Ricardo Moura

Disaggregated data on the relative success of the UN millennium goals made clear that the progress achieved in many countries, Brazil included, was not equitable, positioning the question “How to address inequalities?” as the next pressing challenge in human rights. Public law litigation could be regarded as a tool to reduce inequality, particularly in Brazil, given a unique institution of its legal system, the Public Prosecutors Office. This paper uses public interest litigation discussing access to sanitation services to test this hypothesis. In 2013, only 58.2% of the households had access to sanitation, with significant regional inequality in coverage. Boolean analysis was applied to assess court orders (2003-2013) and results showed a disconnect between litigation and demand for sanitation, indicating that areas that were better off in various social and economic indicators were the ones receiving attention. The paper suggests reflections on how public interest litigation could target those most in need.


2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 707-723
Author(s):  
Gerard J Kennedy ◽  
Lorne Sossin

Concentrating on Canadian experience, specifically litigation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the ‘Charter’), this article seeks to reconcile the access to justice benefits of summary procedures with the government litigant's duty to act in the public interest (or as a ‘model litigant’) and uphold the rule of law. Though acknowledging the benefits that can result from the use of summary procedures to end litigation, the authors observe that compliance with strict requirements in procedural law are frequently dispensed with in the Charter context. In fact, summary procedures can have a devastating effect on the development of Charter rights. The authors ultimately posit that the government should have a duty of restraint in using summary procedures to end public law litigation, and courts should be reluctant to permit the government to preclude such litigation aimed at advancing the evolution of the Charter from reaching hearings on the merits.


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (72) ◽  
pp. 31-50
Author(s):  
Gabriel Perlingeiro

This text endeavors to define the theoretical limits of the capacities of the public administrative authorities to reach consensual solutions to disputes within the framework of judicial review. It is motivated by the lack of a clear understanding in Brazilian law of the border area between the legal relations of public and private law involving the public authorities, and the expressions “inalienable right” (or “inalienable interest”) and “public interest” as shown by the inexplicable asymmetry between what the public administrative authorities can do within a judicial proceeding and outside one. Based on a comparative study of common law versus civil law legal systems and an examination of the treatment of the subject in Brazilian statutes, case law and legal studies, this article reviews the relationship between the public interest and inalienability, demonstrating, in conclusion, that the possibility of the administrative authorities to enter into settlements or follow similar practices should not be rejected a priori, even in cases of public law. According to the author, there are three possible scenarios in which public administrative authorities may resort to consensual dispute resolution in the context of the judicial review: in private-law relationships, in public-law relationships with respect to the exercise of administrative actions prescribed by law and public-law relationships with respect to the exercise of discretionary powers.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hoolo 'Nyane ◽  
Tekane Maqakachane

In Lesotho, standing to litigate is still based on the private law doctrine of locus standi in judicio. This doctrine requires the person who institutes an action in a court of law, regardless of whether it is in the private or public interest, to satisfy the court that he or she is directly and substantially interested in the outcome of the decision. Section 22(1) of the Constitution of Lesotho provides that any person who alleges that the Bill of Rights in the Constitution has been violated 'in relation to him' may approach the court of law for redress. Although the Constitution is silent about the enforcement of the other non-Bill of Rights parts of the Constitution, the courts have readily invoked section 22(1) to exclude litigants who are not 'directly and substantially' interested in the outcome of the case. This restrictive approach notwithstanding, a more liberal approach has been adopted in pockets of public law decisions of the superior courts in Lesotho. The purpose of this article is to amplify this liberal approach. The article argues that constitutional democracy in Lesotho will benefit from a liberal approach as opposed to a restrictive approach to standing. This is supported by a discernible movement in modern-day public law towards a more liberal approach to standing.


Twejer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 707-738
Author(s):  
Mohammed Waheed Dahham ◽  

The administrative contract is the tool used by the administration to maintain the continuity of the public facility and its steady progress in order to meet the needs of citizens, in way would achieve the public interest. The administrative contract consists of procedures paving the way for its conclusion, represented by the administrative decisions issued by this department with the public authority it has in accordance with the laws and regulations. These decisions are part of and component of the administrative contract. Therefore, the elements of the administrative contract are; that the public authority is one of its parties, the contract relates to a public facility service, and the contract should be subject to public law. However, the conditions of validity of the contract are; the administration shall abide by the laws and regulations in selecting the contractor, the administrative contract includes contractual and regulatory provisions and, and the public person has a generic feature throughout the life of an administrative contract. Key words; administrative law, administrative decision, elements of administrative law, conditions of validity of administrative contract, legal system of administrative law, conclusion of the administrative contract


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document