scholarly journals SOME ISSUES OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 66 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE CODE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE FARMERS

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-95
Author(s):  
Svetlana Tsonchovska
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
The Other ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
Administrative Act

The process of creating and approving the final dedicated layer of “Allowable Areas” is a complex factual set of administrative and procedural actions by the administration that assists farmers to declare their plots with which they want to participate in the relevant support campaign. In view of the fact that the final order of the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Forestry is, by its legal nature, an individual administrative act which affects the rights and legitimate interests of individual farmers in the course of their activities to one degree or the other, it is also subject to of judicial review of its legality.

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.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Italy

2021 ◽  
pp. 62-64
Author(s):  
Diana-Urania Galetta ◽  
Paolo Provenzano
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Authority ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
The Public ◽  
Appeal Court ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Council Of State ◽  
Administrative Justice

This chapter illustrates administrative procedure and judicial review in Italy. According to article 113 of the Italian Constitution, 'the judicial safeguarding of rights and legitimate interests before the organs of ordinary or administrative justice is always permitted towards acts of the public administration'. In Italy, judicial review of administrative action is performed by specific courts: a court of first instance, called Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale (TAR), which is established in every Region, and the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State), which acts as an appeal court. The judicial process before these courts is now regulated by the Code of Administrative Process (CAP). Article 7 CAP provides that the administrative courts have jurisdiction over all acts that the public administrations and legal entities equivalent to them adopt in the exercise of their administrative authority. Since 1889, the Italian system of administrative justice has centred on the provision that administrative acts can be annulled by the administrative courts only in cases of 'breach of law', 'misuse or abuses of power', and/or 'lack of competence'.

scholarly journals THE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING UNDER THE BULGARIAN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE CODE

World Science ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veselina Kanatova-Buchkova
Keyword(s):  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Detailed Consideration ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Administrative Act ◽  
Final Settlement ◽  
Legal Consequences

This paper considers the issues related to the provisional enforcement of administrative acts and the legal remedies against the execution of an administrative act before its entry into force in case of contestation before a higher administrative body or the court. The means of protection of the parties concerned against the provisional enforcement of administrative acts are the subject of special proceedings defined as enforcement proceedings, as they guarantee the ultimate aim of protecting the respective appellant, which is sought by challenging the administrative act, namely not to have the legal consequences of an illegal administrative act realized. The enforcement proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Code provide protection through the suspension of provisional enforcement until the final settlement of the issue of the legality of the administrative act. There detailed consideration of the preconditions of the proceedings, including the controversial issues related to their application in the administration of justice. 

scholarly journals CHARAKTER PRAWNY ODPOWIEDZIALNOŚCI ZAWODOWEJ W BUDOWNICTWIE

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 145
Author(s):  
Bartosz Majchrzak
Keyword(s):  
Construction Industry ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Specific Character ◽  
Professional Liability ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Nature

THE LEGAL NATURE OF PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRYSummary The article concerns the legal nature of professional liability in the construction industry (Articles 95-101 of Ustawa z dnia 7 lipca 1994 r. – Prawo budowlane: the Polish Construction Act of July 7, 1994; Dz.U. 2013, Item. 1409; with later amendments; hereinafter P.b.). This issue requires an analysis of the relevant norms of P.b. in the context of the typical characteristics of administrative and disciplinary liability. It can be concluded that the professional liability of persons performing independent technical duties in the construction industry has a specific character, combining elements of administrative law with the solutions adopted for disciplinary penalties. The function of this liability and its essential procedural regulations, which are subject to the Polish Administrative Procedure Code (Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego) suggest its nature is administrative. However, a number of specific regulations have been drawn from the model applicable in disciplinary liability (including the deciding authority, the initiator of the proceedings, the prosecutor’s function, moderation of penalties, the catalogue of penalties, the institution of limitation of proceedings, entry of records in the register of sentenced persons and its erasure). As a result, we can formulate an objection of incoherent regulation.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Spain

2021 ◽  
pp. 72-74
Author(s):  
Oriol Mir
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Fully Integrated ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Spanish Constitution ◽  
Administrative Jurisdiction ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection

This chapter discusses administrative procedure and judicial review in Spain. The Spanish Constitution of 1978 (CE) devotes two central provisions to judicial review of administrative action. Article 106(1) CE, located in Part IV on government and administration, establishes that 'The Courts control the power to issue regulations and to ensure that the rule of law prevails in administrative action, as well as to ensure that the latter is subordinated to the ends which justify it'. On the other hand, Article 24(1) CE enshrines the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, which also includes protection against administrative action: 'Every person has the right to obtain the effective protection of the judges and the courts in the exercise of his or her legitimate rights and interests, and in no case may he go undefended'. Judicial review is usually performed by specific courts fully integrated into the judiciary, the so-called jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa (administrative jurisdiction), competent to review administrative action subject to Spanish administrative law.

Public Authority Liability in Romania

2020 ◽  
pp. 69-72
Author(s):  
Roxana Vornicu
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
Administrative Act ◽  
Administrative Jurisdiction ◽  
Subjective Rights

The Romanian regime for administrative liability has much in common with other systems of continental Europe. There is no immunity for public authorities. This is excluded by the Constitution, by way of what can be regarded as a general principle of damages liability, for both subjective rights and legitimate interests. Judicial review is guaranteed to all, with few exceptions, and concerns illegality on both procedural and substantive grounds. However, various conditions must be met for a claim for damages to be successful. An administrative appeal must be carried out. Moreover, and more importantly, the contested administrative act or measure must be annulled by the administrative jurisdiction, although in Romania this is a specialized branch of ordinary courts.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Latin America

2021 ◽  
pp. 65-68
Author(s):  
Allan Brewer-Carias
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Administrative Act ◽  
Administrative Jurisdiction ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Latin American Countries

This chapter explains administrative procedure and judicial review in Latin America. Judicial review of administrative action has been constitutionalised in many Latin American countries, like Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela, and has been the object of special laws regulating the jurisdiction. According to the Constitutions and to the laws regulating the contentious administrative jurisdiction in Latin America, all administrative provisions are subjected to judicial review as it is not possible for any administrative act to escape judicial control. Therefore, the principle applicable is the universal character of the judicial oversight of constitutionality and unlawfulness regarding regulations and administrative acts, which is exercised by the Courts without exception. In almost all Latin American countries, the rules of administrative procedure are regulated through special Administrative Procedure Lasw (APLs), which began to be sanctioned in 1972 (Argentina). In all cases where the courts find that a challenged administrative act infringes the fundamental rights of an individual or corporation, or does not meet the fundamental standards of administrative propriety and fairness, the courts of the contentious administrative jurisdiction in all Latin American countries have the power not only to annul the challenged act but, depending on the nature of the claim filed by the plaintiff, the courts can also award damages for the administrative action.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Ukraine

2021 ◽  
pp. 79-81
Author(s):  
Halyna Dovhan
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Act ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
The Right

This chapter evaluates administrative procedure and judicial review in Ukraine. The Constitution of Ukraine provides that 'Administrative courts function in order to protect the rights, freedoms, and interests of a person in the sphere of public relations'. According to the Code of Administrative Proceedings (CAP), all persons have the right to bring a case before the administrative court if they consider that their rights, freedoms, or legal interests have been infringed by the decision, action, or inaction of the empowered authority. While the Constitution states that the jurisdiction of courts covers any legal dispute, the CAP entrusts administrative courts with jurisdiction over all public-law disputes. Absent a law on administrative procedure or administrative acts, in such cases the courts use the provisions of the special law that regulates the concrete sphere. They examine the administrative act or measure from the viewpoint of its conformity with the criteria set forth in the CAP. If the court finds that there has been a breach of fundamental standards of administrative propriety and fairness, it is entitled to quash the contested act or measure and also to award damages.

scholarly journals Problems of correlation and distinctions of types of court proceedings, judgment and competence of civil and administrative cases

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (12) ◽  
pp. 133-137
Author(s):  
S. V. ZAVITOVA ◽  
◽  
YU. S. ARTAMONOVA ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Administrative Proceedings

The article analyzes the problem of correlation and distinction of types of legal proceedings, in particular, it considers how civil and administrative proceedings are qualified when considering certain categories of cases by courts of general jurisdiction at different stages of the process. In modern domestic legislation there are no clear criteria for distinguishing the type of legal proceedings when choosing a procedure for protecting violated rights, freedoms 134 IUS PUBLICUM ET PRIVATUM В 2015 г. вступил в силу Кодекс административного судопроизводства Российской Федерации (КАС РФ) – процедура защиты прав, законных интересов граждан и организаций от нарушений со стороны органов государственной власти была регламентирована и зафиксирована как самостоятельная правовая основа1 . Нельзя не заметить, что юридическое закрепление порядка рассмотрения дел и разрешения споров, возникших из административно-правовых отношений, в принятом КАС РФ спровоцировало появление коллизий при применении норм Гражданского процессуального кодекса Российской Федерации (ГПК РФ)2 и КАС РФ в процессе рассмотрения дел различных категорий. Кроме того, встал принципиальный вопрос: как правильно разграничить виды судопроизводства в целях должной защиты нарушенных прав? КАС РФ содержит перечень дел, подлежащих рассмотрению по правилам административного судопроизводства, но не дает разъяснения, в чем состоит отличие от дел, рассматриваемых в порядке гражданского судопроизводства. Верховным Судом Российской Федерации сформулированы правила определения вида судопроизводства для судов общей юрисдикции. Так, в первую очередь выделяется разграничение характера публичных и непубличных правоотношений. В данном случае во внимание берется наличие или отсутствие властных полномочий у субъектов административных правоотношений. Вовторых, Верховный Суд Российской Федерации рекомендует учитывать последствия, к которым приводят споры о признании решений, действия (бездействия) органов власти недействительными3. Изучение судебной практики показывает, что в некоторых случаях у судов возникали сложности при разрешении вопроса о том, в порядке какого судопроизводства следует рассматривать и разрешать дела об оспаривании решений, действий (бездействия) органов государственной власти, органов местного самоуправления, организаций, наделенных отдельными государственными или иными публичными полномочиями, должностных лиц, государственных и муниципальных служащих. Так, например, гражданин Р. обратился в Вологодский городской суд с административным исковым заявлением к БУЗ ВО «Вологодский областной наркологический диспансер № 1» о признании незаконными действий врача учреждения по проведению медицинского освидетельствования на состояние опьянения и акта медицинского освидетельствования на состояние опьянения. В обосновании требований истец указал, что медицинское освидетельствование в отношении него проведено в отсутствие законных оснований, акт медицинского освидетельствования не содержит сведений о концентрации каннабиноидов в исследованной пробе, копия акта незаконно направлена работодателю, что послужило основанием для увольнения. Определением Вологодского городского суда от 24.12.2018 гражданину Р. отказано в принятии административного искового заявления, поскольку акт медицинского освидетельствования на состояние опьянения не влечет самостоятельных последствий для лица, в отношении которого он составлен, следовательно, не может быть предметом самостоятельного оспаривания в суде. Также судом указано, что требования истца о признании незаконными действий врача по проведению медицинского освидетельствования на состояние опьянения подлежат рассмотрению в порядке, предусмотренном ГПК РФ. Суд апелляционной инстанции в своем определении от 06.03.2019 № 33а-1227/2019 and legitimate interests. The article analyzes the norms of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation in determining the jurisdiction of cases to courts of general and arbitration jurisdiction and also touches on the issue of transition to consideration of cases according to the rules of civil and (or) administrative proceedings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document