scholarly journals Efektywność kontroli sądowoadministracyjnej rozstrzygnięć wydawanych w procedurach administracyjnych trzeciej generacji. Rozważania na tle wybranych rozwiązań normatywnych w prawie polskim

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-151
Author(s):  
Marcin Kamiński
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Third Generation ◽  
Specific Character ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
Administrative Procedures ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Judicial Impact

The study is devoted to analysing the relationships between the effectiveness of judicial control exercised by administrative courts and the specific character of administrative procedures of third generation. The considerations lead to the conclusion that the special features and the normative solutions of the positive law entail limitations on the intensity of the judicial review of legality of the contested administrative acts or actions. In such a situation, the judicial control may be confined to the formal sphere of legality. Consequently, the degree of effectiveness of the judicial impact on the administrative activity of prospective character may be substantially reduced.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Switzerland

2021 ◽  
pp. 75-78
Author(s):  
Thierry Tanquerel
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights

This chapter examines administrative procedure and judicial review in Switzerland. Article 29a of the Federal Constitution (Cst.) provides that 'In a legal dispute, every person has the right to have their case determined by a judicial authority. The Confederation and the Cantons may by law preclude the determination by the courts of certain exceptional categories of case'. It is widely recognized that Article 29a Cst. grants the right of judicial review of administrative action to everyone whose rights or obligations are affected by such an action. Judicial review of administrative action is entrusted partly to courts with general jurisdiction, partly to specialized administrative courts, and partly to specific independent appellate committees. As a general principle, procedural rights are deemed 'formal rights' by the Federal Tribunal, whose violation would cause the act or the measure at stake to be quashed irrespective of its substantive merits. However, there are certain acts or measures issued by Swiss authorities which escape judicial control, when those acts or measures are primarily of a political nature. When an act is appealed before a court, the only question at stake is the validity of the act. If the court finds it unlawful for procedural or substantive reasons, it will either quash it or modify it to make it lawful.

scholarly journals An Administrative Crack in the EU’s Rule of Law: Composite Decision-making and Nonjusticiable National Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-90
Author(s):  
Filipe Brito Bastos
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Exclusive Jurisdiction ◽  
National Rule ◽  
Administrative Procedures ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Domestic Law

Composite administrative procedures – Exclusive jurisdiction of Union courts to review non-binding national preparatory acts – No jurisdiction of Union courts to enforce national law – Autonomy and uniformity of EU law – No judicial control possible of violation of domestic law by national authorities – National rule of law gap – Judicial review, effective judicial protection, and principle of administrative legality

Judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy by the ECtHR and the (re)negotiation on the accession of the EU to the ECHR

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2198824
Author(s):  
Maria José Rangel de Mesquita
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Conclusion Section ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The article addresses the issue of judicial control of the implementation of Common Foreign and Security Policy at international regional level within the framework of the relaunching of the negotiation in view of the accession of the EU to the ECHR. Considering the extent of jurisdiction of the CJEU in respect of Common Foreign and Security Policy field in the light of its case law (sections 1 and 2), it analyses the question of judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy within international regional justice by the ECtHR in the light of the ongoing negotiations (section 3), in the perspective of the relationship between non-national courts (section 3.A), having as background the (2013) Draft Agreement of accession (section 3.B.1). After addressing the relaunching of the negotiation procedure (section 3.B.2) and the issue of CFSP control by the ECtHR according to the recent (re)negotiation meetings (section 3.B.3), some concrete proposals, including for the redrafting of the accession agreement, will be put forward (section 3.B.4), as well as a conclusion (section 4).

Judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy by the ECtHR and the (re)negotiation on the accession of the EU to the ECHR

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 356-370
Author(s):  
Maria José Rangel de Mesquita
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Conclusion Section ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The article addresses the issue of judicial control of the implementation of Common Foreign and Security Policy at international regional level within the framework of the relaunching of the negotiation in view of the accession of the EU to the ECHR. Considering the extent of jurisdiction of the CJEU in respect of Common Foreign and Security Policy field in the light of its case law (sections 1 and 2), it analyses the question of judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy within international regional justice by the ECtHR in the light of the ongoing negotiations (section 3), in the perspective of the relationship between non-national courts (section 3.A), having as background the (2013) Draft Agreement of accession (section 3.B.1). After addressing the relaunching of the negotiation procedure (section 3.B.2) and the issue of CFSP control by the ECtHR according to the recent (re)negotiation meetings (section 3.B.3), some concrete proposals, including for the redrafting of the accession agreement, will be put forward (section 3.B.4), as well as a conclusion (section 4).

A Dialectic of Effective Judicial Protection and Mutual Trust in the European Administrative Space: Towards the Transnational Judicial Review of Manifest Error?

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 7-31
Author(s):  
Catherine Warin
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
Member States ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
Administrative Procedures ◽  
National Boundaries ◽  
Judicial Protection

The courts of the EU's Member States have a duty to ensure the effective protection of individuals who are confronted with administrative decisions potentially infringing their rights. However, the principle of mutual trust is often understood as a limit to this protection. This is in so far as it requires domestic courts to abstain from reviewing decisions made by administrations of other Member States, even though such decisions may have effects beyond national boundaries. As transnational administrative procedures become increasingly frequent, this article analyses the implications of the principles of effective judicial protection and of mutual trust on the review of such procedures by domestic courts. It shows how, by gradually allowing domestic courts to review certain types of manifest errors committed beyond their national jurisdiction, the CJEU is moving past the apparent opposition of these principles. It finally argues that developing the transnational judicial review of manifest error may help improve the effective judicial protection of individuals.

scholarly journals Constitutional and administrative paradigms in judicial control over EU high and low politics

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. E-240-E-267
Author(s):  
Pola Cebulak
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Theory ◽  
Two Dimensional ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Policy Domain ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Constitutional Judicial Review ◽  
High Politics

Abstract This article explores the particular tensions surrounding judicial review in EU external relations. The tensions are classified using a two-dimensional framework. Firstly, a distinction based on policy domains of high and low politics, which is derived from constitutional theory, and external to the CJEU; and secondly a distinction based on legitimizing paradigms of administrative (EU as effective global actor) or constitutional (judicial review as guarantee of fundamental rights) in character and determined by the Court itself. Even though one would expect a dominance of the administrative paradigm in the domain of high politics, the Court uses both the administrative and the constitutional paradigm in its external relations case-law. The decision on which of these becomes the guiding frame seems to depend more on the policy domain, and be made case by case, which suggests politically sensitive adjudication, rather than a coherent approach to legitimizing the nascent judicial review in EU external relations.

Directions of development of administrative courts’ jurisprudence in real property cases in 2020: Selected Aspects (Part I)

2021 ◽  
Vol I (I) ◽  
pp. 109-133
Author(s):  
Anna Dalkowska ◽  
Karol Rzęsiewicz
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Capital City ◽  
Official Journal ◽  
Real Property ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Administrative Proceedings

Jurisprudence of administrative courts on various aspects of real property law is extensive and multi- faceted. The main bulk of cases concerns real properties which are subject to the reprivatisation process that, in the absence of final solutions to re-privatisation predicaments and the multi-faceted effects of the Decree of 26 October 1945 on the Ownership and Use of Land Within the Boundaries of the Capital City of Warszawa, hereinafter referred to as the “Warsaw Decree” (promulgated in the official journal “Dziennik Ustaw” of 21 November 1945, No 50, item 279), which remains in force for over seventy years, are often the subject of judicial review of administrative decisions. Administrative court rulings play a significant role in real property cases and set the directions for future decisions by public administration bodies. The analysis of judicial rulings in real property cases will be limited to selected problems, which, given differing interpretations, are the cause of discrepancies in judicial decisions in administrative courts. This paper, which is the first part of the study, covers jurisprudence on the premise of death of a party during administrative proceedings, which has an impact on the potential invalidity of a decision and its ex tunc effects as well as the status of a party in real property proceedings.

Courts

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Craig
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Eu ◽  
The Way

The preceding chapter considered the foundations of judicial review in the EU. The discussion now turns to the EU Courts. The way in which the principles of review have developed has been affected by the jurisdictional divide between the CJEU and GC, and between these Courts and national courts. It will be argued that a necessary condition for an effective regime of judicial control is the existence of a rational judicial architecture, embracing the CJEU, GC, national courts, and agency boards of appeal.

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'.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document